Nader voters crippled Gore in 2000; now they love him

[RestoreGore]

Is this true? That some of them head parts of the "draft" Gore movement which is there to derail Clinton and use Al Gore to do it because Nader isn't in it? It isn't really there to support Mr. Gore? The games never stop, do they? I knew he was being used... but now it is clear to see they are just propping Al Gore up for their own political agenda. I bet if Nader came out and said he was running again they would abandon their draft like the plague... Wow, I guess the guilt is just too much for them huh? Well, screw them and Michael Moore and his attempting to selfishly clear his conscience by using the same man he once derided. And they won't even disavow their votes in 2000 still? And they still even try to validate it by saying that him "losing" in 2000 "made him the man he is today?" How FNG arrogant. He is the man he always was, only they didn't see it when it didn't suit their political agenda. Al Gore is right, politics is toxic, even at the "grassroots" level. So if this is true, take your draft groups and shove them. There is no noble cause behind this, just using him to appease your own "guilt" for what you have helped wreck upon this country and world. Oh, and as a disclaimer, NO, I am not supporting anyone in this "election" now or playing any games. I just don't like seeing a man I have supported, respected, and loved for twenty years being used like this. I think there is some explaining that then needs to be done about who is really bankrolling this "draft" and why. And what would they excpect in return? Nader as his VP? Like I said, screw them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...2000_now_t.html

Nader voters crippled Gore in 2000; now they love him

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY CELESTE KATZ
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

Sunday, October 28th 2007, 4:00 AM

Print Email Suggest a Story
Right or wrong, people who voted for Ralph Nader get blamed for costing Al Gore the 2000 election.

Now, some of those very same voters are throwing themselves into a new - and nonexistent - campaign: Gore 2008.

And they say there's no irony at all.

"In 2000, Nader was the most progressive candidate, and in 2008, Al Gore would be the most progressive candidate. There's no dissonance at all, I would say," argues Bud Plautz, the New York head of the movement to draft the former vice president.

Newly minted Nobel Laureate Gore, of course, is the biggest noncandidate candidate in the arena.

In 2000, Nader sucked up more than 97,000 votes in Florida - many times the infinitesimal margin by which President Bush beat Gore there.

Nader drew about 2.9 million votes nationally - pulling support from Gore without earning the Green Party a permanent ballot slot.

snip

In 2000, he said, "Michael Moore was a big Nader supporter. He single-handedly handed more votes to Nader. ... You might even say Michael Moore cost the election for Gore."

Back then, Moore wrote Gore a letter that included the line, "I will not feel one iota of guilt should you screw up and lose on Tuesday. The blame I do share is that I voted for you and Bill in 1992."

Fast-forward to today: Moore wouldn't comment, but an Oct. 8 posting on michaelmoore.com said, "12,400 signatures are needed by Oct. 23rd to get Al Gore on the ballot in Michigan. Get off your tooter and join the petition drive!"

Veteran Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf says those switching allegiance are "very confused."

"The same folks who successfully derailed the Democrats on the road to the White House now seek to do the same to Sen. Clinton," he said.

Gore and Nader spokesmen had no comment.

Kerry Lusignan, a psychotherapist from Conway, Mass., who organizes Gore supporters in the western part of the state, places Gore in the same esteem as Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy - but said she doesn't regret giving Nader her vote in 2000.

To some extent, she says, she feels the experience might have made Gore the man he is today.

"He's not afraid to speak out now," she said, "which would not have happened, I don't think, if 2000 hadn't occurred."

[deutsey]

1. I thought it was the Supreme Court and J. Bush's disenfranchisement program that crippled voters n/t

[RestoreGore]

4. yes, a big part but their propaganda didn't help

And I want nothing to do with them now where it concerns any group who claimes they are for Al Gore.

[deutsey]

7. I can understand that, I just get tired of people laying the blame on Naderites

Maybe they were "useful idiots" and deserve some blame (I don't know, because I actually sympthasized with them even though I voted for Gore); even so, the real culprits were those in Jeb Bush's administration who intentionally disenfranchised tens of thousands of minority voters in Florida and the partisans on the SC who gave the election to Bush. They are truly to blame, imo. Not to mention the "Brooks Brothers rioters" who thuggishly helped to disrupt the recount. And who can forget the coporate media role?

Why do anti-Naderites here not get as hot and bothered about all these more important factors as they do about Nader and the Greens?

[iamjoy]

2. Oh, Good For Gore

It's this last quote here:

but said she doesn't regret giving Nader her vote in 2000.

To some extent, she says, she feels the experience might have made Gore the man he is today.

"He's not afraid to speak out now," she said, "which would not have happened, I don't think, if 2000 hadn't occurred."


Oh, so Gore is a better man today than he was in 2000. Yippee skippee. What the hell does that do for this country and the world who are having to suffer 8 years of Dubya?

[RestoreGore]

5. yes, well, that's because this is about THEM

And the nerve to state it as if they didn't vote for him for his own good. And they are running "draft" groups for him now because that is for his own good? Yeah, right.

[hedgehog]

3. Maybe Gore has changed some in 8 years or else has learned to

communicate better.

[RestoreGore]

6. No, he could always do that, he is just free of the political BS now

Not having a gag in your mouth helps that tremendously.

[YankmeCrankme]

28. so you're going to blame voters who saw the phony image Gore projected

because he couldn't be himself because of politics and voted for a guy who presented them with a vision they agreed with?

How asinine.

[RestoreGore]

33. yes, their poltical hatred was assinine

I guess that's why they feel the guilt now. Too little too late for me.

[bullimiami]

8. i really am fed up with putting the blame on nader voters.

they were legit. had every right to vote for nader and it wasnt that that turned the election.
rove dirty electioneering did it, the crooked palm beach butterfly ballot did it, jeb and cruella did it, the supreme court drove in the coffin nails.

gore should have had plenty of votes without nader to win. people had every right to vote for whomever the pleased and gore didnt win them over.
the votes that were intended to go for gore that were stolen by operatives, operations and corrupt officials. that was criminal and everything that has happened in the last 7 years is a consequence of that crime.

[RestoreGore]

9. "I will not feel one iota of guilt should you screw up and lose on Tuesday."

And this is my point. NOW Mr. Gore is their saviour simply because they feel guilt. About what? Why would some say that doing this now is "redemptive" and "cathartic" if
they voted their conscience? Why aren't they drafting Nader then? It's all bs.

[scubadude]

26. The Nader voters must take their share of the blame.

If the margin of votes was on Gore's side it is improbable the supreme court would have
stepped in. 218 votes would have tipped the count to Gore. There are 97000 Nader voters
in Florida. We are responsible for how we vote. There are results due to our actions.

The main person to blame though is Nader himself. He knew that in a winner take all election
system like ours that 3rd party candidates can tip elections one way or the other in close
states.

Ralph has a huge ego. We see that there is a great difference between Democrats and
Republicans. Unfortunately that difference is just a tad bit smaller than Ralph's ego...

Scuba

[Beelzebud]

35. Sure, if you ignore Katherine Harris and her "felon" list.

Why do you ignore the damn facts?

Katherine Harris stole the right to vote from THOUSANDS of african americans.

The supreme court stole the right to have a recount.

So why blame it all on Nader?

THINK

[scubadude]

36. There were a certain set of conditions present in that election.

Katherine Harris and other factors were present with or without Nader.

Why do you choose to ignore the facts? Nader chose to run.

If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have been
president. That's a fact.

THINK

Scuba

[Beelzebud]

37. Gore winning his home state would have helped too.

There were many factors, thats why blaming it on one man is pretty fucking lame and short sighted.

[scubadude]

39. So then you deny that if Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won?

There were many factors, yes, but Ralph's ego was the only one that a single person could control, and 90,000 should regret. Actually it's wayyyy more than 90000 who regret his ego. He is an intelligent man
and he knew that 3rd party candidates can tip close elections. He knew what he was doing.

Case closed.

Scuba

[Beelzebud]

40. Take the easy way out.

It's much safer to rail against 1 man, then a supreme court.

[scubadude]

42. I agree, many wrongs were done.

I must remind you that the Supreme Court came after the election. Ralph put it in their hands, and you don't want to face the fact that one man was the biggest factor. All it would have taken was a few words from Ralph and none of this would have happened. A setting aside of ego for one moment, just a small bit of humility and grace. Instead we got B@@h.

I could go on and on about the wrongs of election 2000. As a matter of fact I could go on and on about the Gulf war too, or about Reagan, or the first Bush or Nixon or many others. None of this belies the fact that without Ralph, the presidency would have been ours. The PDB of August 6th would have been given to a President who wouldn't have ignored it, who would have taken action.

I could take your constant shifting of the conversation as an agreement of sorts, not a public one, but a sulking admission. We saw what he Nader did, now let's see some admission from you, a moment of grace on your part, admit that you are wrong. Or are you made of the same cloth as Nader?

THINK

Scuba

[MagickMuffin]

52. There is absolutely NO proof Gore would've won Florida if Nader hadn't been on the ballot

The wheels were already set in motion for Mad king Boy George to be installed as pResident. I watched all the court room testimonies from the 2000 (S)election. They had the machine in place long before a vote was cast.

To blame it all on Nader is ridiculous.

Ralph put it in their hands, and you don't want to face the fact that one man was the biggest factor.
Ah no, there were way to many people involved to make this happen. From ex FBI/CIA man who got the call on the golf course to head on over to the RNC headquarters and forge names of absentee ballots. There were the votes from Jacksonville that had Gore with X number of votes cast to just disappear. The voter rolls where thousands upon thousands of voters were disenfranchised. SOS who was chair the Bush Cheney campaign. Lil' Brother as the governor of the state. On and On and On.....

Poppy even said on the eve of the (S)election that he was VERY nervous, while the background music blared "Oh no let's go crazy" which indicated to me something big is going to happen.

[scubadude]

59. Ralph was the one man who's own personal decision put

our country where it is. I have always realized that there were many factors, but none of them would have mattered if the 90000 votes had gone to Gore. This was a personal choice. Ralph was not a part of the things you mention. He was an individual, charged with the responsibility we all have, to support and defend our country. How he did this was by tipping the vote in the election that decided things. Without Ralph there would have been no problems. The balance would have pointed the other way.

THINK

Scuba

[MagickMuffin]

60. The things I mentioned played MORE of a role in Florida then Nader.

From what I have been witness to it would not have made a difference if Nader was in the race or not. Because you see Al Gore did WIN in Florida, but he was prevented from having the votes counted by the USSC and the repubilcons in Florida and the ones flown in from DC.

There is absolutely no way to tell if even those 90000 votes would have gone to Gore. How can you prove a voters intent? I don't think you can. Who knows they may have stayed at home, or voted for the libertarian party or the reform party, or any other party that was on the ballot.

You seem so sure of how everyone would have voted. Me not so much.

Your turn to THINK

[scubadude]

61. You miss my point.

A simple moment of grace. Just a moment of humility. If Ralph had said "I withdraw my candidacy, please vote for Al Gore", the election would have been ours. His cynicism and ego gave the election to them on
a platter.

It was Ralph Nader's intent.

THINK

Scuba

[MagickMuffin]

62. I THINK you are missing the point....

You cannot prove even as you say Nader bowed out in "a simple moment of grace" that those voters would have voted for Gore. There is NO way to prove those voters would have voted for Gore.
Like I said previously, those people may have stayed home or voted for Bush, or other third parties.

This really is so stupid to continue to trash someone because you think ALL those votes would have automatically gone to Gore. Especially since there is no way to decide a voters intent.

Have you personally talked with the Florida voters who voted for Nader and asked how they would have voted had Nader bowed out with him asking voters to vote for Gore???

As long as you Nader Haters continue to pick on this wound the more ridiculous you sound. You cannot prove how a voter would have voted, period.


And once again Gore DID WIN FLORIDA.....



THINK FOR YOURSELF

[scubadude]

63. Gee, you don't think Gore could have picked up the votes...

I'm sure that at least a small percentage would have voted for gore, certainly more
than those who would have voted for Bush. Especially if Ralph asked them to. We're
only talking about 600 votes. If the tide had shifted in Gore's favor, the election
would have been ours. No recount, nothing. If Bush pushed recounts, Gore would have
won anyway.

Why can't you admit that Nader's ego cost us the race? He was the singular person
who could have done it. He knew the vulnerabilities but "There is no difference between
Democrats and Republicans"....

THINK

Scuba

[MagickMuffin]

64. Once again

GORE WON FLORIDA


GORE WON FLORIDA



I will not respond to any more of your posts on this topic.

[Tactical Progressive]

43. You can't control what your enemies do.

You can only control what you do. And what Dem-Hating-Leftists did in 2000 was to intentionally leave the back door open so we could get mauled from behind by fascists. I'd be refusing any responsibility if I were them too, because everything Bush and Cheney has done is on their hands.

Sure, Republicans cheated the 2000 election six ways to Sunday. I certainly don't need anyone to remind me. Many of them should be serving prison terms. Their cheating bought it close enough for the Supreme Crooks to cheat one final time.

NONE of that would have worked without being enabled by DHL rhetoric and votes in swing states in the first place.

[flashl]

10. Blaming Nader is a stretch

and suggests that complainers choose to ignore the plain reality of election fraud in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006.

[earthside]

12. Bush/Cheney Stole

Indeed, never lose sight of the fact that Gore received the most votes in 2000 -- nationally and in Florida. The bottom-line is that Bush and the radical Republicans stole the election.

Nader is a scapegoat for some reason to certain 'hack' political types. But, even though Nader was on the ballot, Gore got the most votes, he won the election.

2008 could be even more difficult in this regard. If Clinton is the Dem nominee, and it is Ghouliani or Romney for the radical Republicans, look for the Libertarians and the Greens (with Cynthia McKinney as their candidate) to be getting a lot of votes from people who are sick and tired of the same-old, same-old, big money, corporate insider candidates.

By the way, Gore has changed since 2000 ( "If I had to do it all over again, I'd just let it rip.") I can see why some 2000 Naderites now have new respect for Gore. That should be encourging to progressives, shouldn't it?

[flashl]

25. Someone sent this to me ...

Its not a popularity contest - 2008 Interactive Electoral Map

The Road to 270
It takes 270 Electoral Votes to win the Presidential Election

.......... Votes Remaining Must Win
Democrats....183 ..... 87 ... -- ..........241 Winning Combinations »
Republicans.. 213 ......57 ... -- ..........283 Winning Combinations »

Don't lose focus on 270!

[RestoreGore]

13. Talking about one doesn't negate the other

So it is more of a stretch to assume that those who do talk about Nader don't know the rest of the picture and agree. And actually, my main "complaint" here is their arrogance in now running "draft" groups for the man they reviled just a couple of years ago, simply because they suddenly need "redemption." What does that tell you about how they feel about voting their conscience? Why would they need redemption if they don't feel guilt about their vote then? Sounds fishy to me. So perhaps it is then them you should be speaking to instead of me regarding that.

[flashl]

22. Actually, my comment was not directed to you

I'll bet if someone go back to count the number of "Daffy duck" and the likes write-ins they will think again about the Nader votes.

[MagickMuffin]

54. Maybe they just want the best man for the job

What makes you so sure this is about "redemption" and what makes you think they feel guilty?

Sounds like you're assuming a lot.

[magellan]

47. Indeed

Those who blame Nader never mention Buchanan and the cluster of votes for him Palm Beach County. He was on the ballot as an Independent too....

Whining on and on about Nader undermines the serious efforts people are making to fix the REAL problems and corruption in our election process.

[PollThis]

11. Ask yourself this, who changed more in the past eight years Nader or Gore?

Gore has become more progressive like Nader over the years. That is why he is so popular now.
Nader has not changed at all. His message is still the same, whether you like it or not.

[RestoreGore]

16. No, Mr. Gore is just now able to be what he has always been not being in politics

And to Naderites in 2000 he was no different than Bush, and I'm not forgiving that because I think it did influence others to vote for Bush as well. So to actually believe they suddenty love him now is a stretch for me. For me he is now simply their substitute out of guilt, and I resent it.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RestoreGore]

17. yeah, sure you are

[lame54]

21. watch the video

i spent some time on it and have been passing it around
you call yourself restoregore but are working hard to get in the way of anyone actually trying to restore him to the whitehouse
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Nnph3zkHNw

[PollThis]

23. Who made you the authority on everyone else's motives? nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. It is self-appointed

:)

[Red Zelda]

19. Nader didn't cause a thing

The asshats who wasted their votes on him did that. Really, Nader freaks, make sure you write in Kucinich or some Libertarian or third-party spaceman this time to help the Republickers like you did last time. Grow up.

[dkofos]

15. What bullshit

[RestoreGore]

18. it sure is

[Zodiak]

20. What a piece of divisive flame-bait

Nader-bashing is a side-handed way of blaming and marginalizing the left while enforcing party discipline regardless of party principles.

It is a tired old saw that falls on deaf ears.

[RestoreGore]

38. THIS op questions the sincerity of their "loyalty" to Al Gore now

based on their own words and actions in the past. You would have gotten that message had you actually read what I typed. And really, why shouldn't I question it in regards to the hate they spewed at Mr. Gore? Their GORE BASHING wasn't marginsalizing? Well, excuse me, but I think it was which is why I think their politically expedient ephiphany and their draft groups now are bs.

[mmonk]

24. They didn't cripple him. In spite of the Supreme court decision,

the republican hoods down in Florida intimidating the process, and the media attacks, he got the popular vote.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

27. We are well aware of your position on Gore running ...

It seems desperate, almost pathological. You will not change any minds with your constant harping.

[RestoreGore]

32. It's the same as his position. So who are the ones constantly carping??

The ones who refuse to respect him. And really after all the Draft Gore threads here and the stupid poll threads, you call ME pathological? Now that's funny.

[Snotcicles]

29. I have never had anyone explain to me what issues they disagreed with Nader on.

What exactly would have made Nader a bad president? Wanting to stop corporate welfare? Public campaign financing? Universal health-care?
What would have been so bad had Ralph Nader been elected president?
Just asking.:shrug:

[mdmc]

30. the dlc says Gore DID BETTER with Nader IN the 2000

The dlc claims Gore would have LOST if Nader was NOT in the race!

Straight from AL FROM my friend!

OBEY HRC in 2008 - we will get what we deserve.

[Beelzebud]

34. When Nader stole Tennessee from Gore, I knew it was over.

Oh wait. Nader didn't factor into Gore losing his home state at all.

Let's blame him for Florida, then.

No wait... That was Katherine Harris and the supreme court..

Oh hell, who needs facts when you can just say FUCK NADER?

[Tactical Progressive]

41. They are called 'Democrat-Hating-Leftists', or DHLs

They go beyond 'green' or any other party which manages to corral them. They go beyond the time of election year 2000. In 2004 they 'held their nose' to vote for John Kerry, who has more honor than probably all of them put together.

They are people with such profound misunderstandings of politics that they believe elections are about them and exactly what they think, not the country and where it's going.

And though a relatively small part of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, they are as dishonest as the whole right side of the political spectrum. The lies, which they wouldn't stop, were obvious and pointed out many times by the rest of the left, that Al Gore was no different the George Bush or that Democrats are just like Republicans, cost America nearly a decade of 21st century fascist rule. They further don't learn, and take no responsibility for what they did on purpose - it was everybody else's fault but theirs.

After eight years, and many more to come in legacy - Iraq, national debt, Federal Court packing, national reputation, etc - we see them not only not accepting their culpability in all of this, but continually, defiantly planning on stabbing the Democratic Party from behind in the next election.

They are absolutely not to be trusted in any political context and it is imperative that the Democratic party move strongly to the right in this election. Don't even think about catering to DHLs - go right for centrists. It isn't even a viable alternative to attend to the backstabbing left. Their desires are useful only as a counter-indicator; of what not to do. DHLs want impeachment, as do I. Ergo, don't even consider impeachment. As one small example. Save yourself the stress and the hand-wringing; if they want it then it's the wrong thing to do politically. Consider them a summary position of what not to do politically. They want to get out of Iraq RIGHT NOW, so when is a good time to get out of Iraq? Not 'right now'.

This assessment is coming from someone who is farther left than they are, but fully does understand national politics.
I'll give one more plea: Democrats, please toss aside any beliefs farther left than centrist-Democrat, including mine, this election cycle.

[ulysses]

44. so, would you care to comment on the apparent approval of Mukasey

by a Democratic Senate? Please. You seem like a wordy type.

[Tactical Progressive]

49. Sure, I'll comment.

I don't really know about the apparent upcoming approval of Mukasey.

First, my personal belief is that Bush, Cheney, Feith, Woo, Gonzales, and every general and military officer down the chain should be prosecuted for what they have done in this country's name. I'm guessing there should be about 75 people headed for prison behind this torture travesty. Just so you know where I come from.

But that isn't going to happen. Not in America's political environment.

As to why approval, my GUESSES would include:

- the fact that Mukasey will be little more than a token AG filling out Bush's lame-duck year, so little real impact

- that Bush would probably appoint someone just as bad, though more surrepticious, about supporting torture

- that Repubs would make hay against Dems in a long, drawn-out battle. Wingers have learned that no matter what they scream about true or false, or how loudly and insanely they do it, that the mainstream media will support them in any way they can for as long as they can. The media would have a nearly-subliminal conventional wisdom going that Dems are stopping Repubs from 'protecting America', or 'playing politics' with soldier's lives, or threatening America's national security, or some such shit, with their unashamed accomodation to right-wing talking points.

- and most importantly, because they've likely figured that Democrats will do better in the next election with Americans understanding that the nightmare isn't over until they get rid as many Repubs as they can, including a torture-approving Repub AG, than without that awareness. Believe it or not, this is probably the one and only time where having a torture-supportive AG is a good thing.

Now, the last two political reasons might not sway those who disdain all politics in favor of 'principle'. You know, the kind of 'principles' that they employed in 2000 to give us nearly a decade of fascist rule and hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, just to name one result of their 'principles'. I no longer listen to those people as their principles are far below my own, and the practical implementation of their 'principles' has proven to be far below pretty much anybody elses.

[ulysses]

45. sit down, have some dip.

Are you interested in discussion, or do you just need to vent about Nader seven years later?

[Tactical Progressive]

50. It's not about Nader; it's about Democrat-Hating-Leftists

And they're still around, ready to stab Democrats in the back yet again, seven years later, this time without Nader.

They must be attended to - first by understanding their backstabbing inclinations, as well as their dishonesty and their inability to learn even from eight years of trauma - and then by ignoring their demands and moving Democratic policy to the right instead.

The Democrats in charge seem to understand this necessity, which is a relief. They should have understood seven years ago and not trusted them then.

But we were all very naive about DHL treachery back then.

[ConsAreLiars]

51. Yeah, the Dems need to be more like the fascists, as you say.

:sarcasm: in case you, as your post suggests, are too sick to get it.

By choosing your nick, claiming to be both "tactical" and "progressive," however, I trhink that you know sarcasm quite well. Well, that may be assuming too much. Maybe you are just natural born tool.

[Uncle Joe]

46. Does any of this factor in to your equation at all?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711


"Before Hillary officially established her exploratory committee, she began directly competing with the vice president for money, sometimes even at his own fund-raising events. When Tipper's friend Melinda Blinken and a group of women planned a Gore fund-raiser in Los Angeles, Hillary insisted on being invited—over the objections of the event's organizers. Hillary then shocked the vice president's supporters by soliciting donations for herself in front of Tipper."

Personally, I believe Bill Clinton screwed his loyal Vice-President over three times before Al Gore ever reached the podium at the 2000 convention that was to nominate him for the Presidency.

The first was the adolescent throw back affair it self, this is when Bill Clinton forgot the theme song from his own 92 convention, Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow", I still have ambivalent feelings whenever I hear that song. This also told me Bill Clinton didn't truly believe the looming catastrophe of Global Warming was for real, or he wouldn't have jeopardized his Vice-President's upcoming election. I believe as bad as this was, it wasn't insurmountable because it was primarily a betrayal against his own family and many would consider this private behavior.

The second and much more devastating betrayal against Al Gore was when Bill Clinton looked the American People in the camera lens and told them quite adamantly that he never had sexual relations with that woman. This turned a family betrayal in to a national one, he lied to everyone at this point, he and certainly Al Gore would've been much better off had he kept his mouth shut or at least admitted the truth up front, because this act gave Bush the integrity issue ammunition on a silver platter. Bush's cronies knew it as well, that's why he ran on "restoring honor and integrity to the White House", and the corporate media only carried his talking points for him slandering Al Gore non stop from March of 99 through the selection of 2000 and beyond.

The third time was at the 2000 convention it self, read the paragraph below and couple that with what seemed like a ten minute self aggrandizing walk down the hall way, when he could've used that precious national prime time air time to promote Al Gore for President. It was always about Bill and when Hillary had him by the short hairs it was always about Hillary, this is a large reason as to why we have Cheney/Bush in the White House today.

"During his all-night conversation with Ken Burns in June, Bill "spoke movingly of the Democratic National Convention that was coming," Burns recalled, "and how because he was on the backside of scandal and impeachment he had a more delicate role to play."

Final conclusion, does anyone see any irony in the corporate media's 180 on the Clintons; people they waged a witch hunt against from the beginning to the end of his eight years in office. Today the same corporate media believe the same man should be our nation's very first First Gentleman, only they're tiptoeing around the term ie:first spouse, first husband. I believe their primary target was Al Gore from the beginning precisely because he empowered the people when he became the primary political champion of the Internet, thus threatening their monopoly on information, information = money, power and influence and as the Internet grew in power and influence they came to resent Al Gore for it.

P.S. I can't find it now, but I vaguely remember a passage from the book "Primary Colors" in it candidate Bill Clinton is asking an adviser (it might have been Christopher George), whether he could trust Al Gore as his Vice-President when searching for a running mate and the adviser told him, Al Gore won't stab you in the back even if you deserve it and Clinton smiled.

[omega minimo]

48. way to avoid all the reasons gore "lost" -- GET OVER IT and look at the real reasons

[crispini]

53. Three data points does not a valid statistical trend make.

Also, your link is broken. :shrug:

[Apollo11]

55. Nader didn't steal the 2000 election.

I honestly believe that Al Gore would have won Florida if every vote had been counted.

As a democrat I believe that Nader had the right to stand as a candidate in 2000. Just like Pat Buchanan (who took votes away from Bush).

In 92 and 96, Perot took millions of votes away from the GOP. None of us complained about that.

We were also right to tell people that if they voted Nader then they might wind up with Bu$h-Cheney.

If some people say that they like Al Gore more now than they did in 2000, I don't have any problem with that.

Gore has done a lot to raise awareness of the climate crisis and other "progressive" issues these past 7 years.

[western mass]

56. Gore & the DLC crippled the Dems in 2000

The DLC and RW democrats turned victory into defeat in 2000 with their right-wing pandering, pathetic candidates, and unwillingness to fight.

They love Goldst-I mean, Nader. They need Nader as much as Bush needs 9/11, the eternal scapegoat.

[JackORoses]

57. it's funny that you are actually the mini-Nader of Gore's campaign this time around

Why do you continue attempting to rob this country of a great President?

[mainegreen]

58. This thread makes the baby jesus cry.