Reply #9: I agree with you [View All]

[karynnj]

I think neither of them should be criticized for their reactions. Both had every reason on earth to feel cheated by the losses. But the times and the perception of what the consequences were were different.

After the Supreme Court ruled, Gore accepted the verdict (realistically what else could he do - appeal to a higher court ask them to re-consider?), gave a very graceful, statesman like speech, presided over his own official loss, then left. At that point, he left for a year and a half - consistent with his concession speech, he gave Bush a chance to heal the divided country, which was Bush's stated goal in his first inauguration speech. The worst that could have been expected was that Bush would use the surplus for tax cuts rather than to deal with people's needs. In a time of prosperity, these needs weren't as evident as they were to become. (Also, with the beard and weigh gain and the length of time he was gone, I wonder if he was depressed - he certainly had cause for it.)

He likely considered the election problems to be an aberration - although there was significant reason to see that the minorities always have more rejected votes. In hindsight, this would have been a natural area for Gore to work - he really was somewhat a technocrat. But at the time, there was an effort that from a distance looked like it was responding to the problem and Gore's presence would have brought up sore grapes questions.

The question is even if Gore would have joined a major voting reform effort, could his presence (likely still in the wake of 911) have given the effort the public support it needed? Even put in the context (like Kerry) of looking forward and demanding that the integrity of the system be guaranteed, there would be a back of the mind issue of whether the current administration was legitimate. This is not a direction the media was comfortable taking.

When Kerry lost, the stakes were completely known - by Kerry and by us. This made Kerry's wonderful concession speech both more painful and more compelling. Unlike Gore, he called both for healing the divisions AND for us to keep fighting for our beliefs, somehow making this not seem a logical contradiction.

Kerry had said something like he could take losing (that he had been through worse) but he was concerned about people who needed him to win. I think by political orientation, Democrats see government as a means to help people who need help. But, Kerry seemed to absorb more of the genuine anguish that people were feeling than Gore did. Possibly because there was more anguish there or because of what someone wrote was Kerry's natural inclination to save others. (whether Rasmann, the Vietnamese villagers in a hut in a free fire zone, and the veterans who were not getting the help they need.)

He had his Senate job to go back to as did McGovern. McGovern in an editorial even recommended that Kerry lay back. But, even with a Senate seat, Kerry immediately started working on non-Senate actions in addition to being a very active Senator. He sent out his first email and video begging people to stay active and not give up hope. Since then, he's been incredibly on target and active on any major issue. He has offered an alternative agenda - and ignored that he has gotten little press or media attention. (Imagine the media if Hillary would have put together the legislation and speeches Kerry has in the last 10 months.)

This has to come down to personality differences, Kerry really does seem to mean what he said when he said he considers everything since Vietnam extra. In his case that is a lot - he has 2 lovely daughters, Teresa, good friends, and a distinguished career that he can be very proud of - basically everything he feared he might not have in his Vietnam writings. His use of the word "responsibility" in talking about the party building work in Iowa, suggests that it is the same call to service that was a theme of his campaign (and his life).

Very early this year when some of us were posting about Tour of Duty, Ginny countered my comment that re-reading the book made the loss harder, by saying that reading it and seeing how much fun he had before going to Vietnam (and afterward) made it somewhat easier. (We both realized it was a disaster for the country) Every story of Kerry getting cheered in other countries or here, getting to be in the official car at the Tour de France, getting standing ovations or positive mentions at rock concerts etc has reminded me of that totally on target comment. Kerry 's joie de vivre lets him get happiness both from his phenomenal amount of work and play - in spite of the extremely frustrating political situation. Although he obviously feels a huge amount of both anger and frustration with Bush actions on everything, he is somehow capable of ending speeches on notes of hope and calls to action.

It may well be this ability to enjoy what there is to enjoy, while fighting on against all odds, that let's Kerry do this. It's also similar to the advise Alex talked about at the convention getting from him when she was unhappy. That internal peace shows in the pictures and videos of himself.