Al Gore’s Shadow at DNC Annual Winter Meeting

-

040828_BrazileGoreDems_hu.hmedium.jpg
There’s quite a lot of fascinating action over at the Washington Hilton. The smart state party chairs are working bloggers row — as well as some of the candidates.

Dennis Kucinich
‘s people look like they are having the most fun. Kucinich reminds me of Yossi Beilin, one of the most liberal and intimidatingly smart yet gracious members of the Israeli Knesset.
I’m glad Kucinich is running again and may try to interview him one of these days for the blog — but his campaign seems to be the most heartfelt and refreshingly unpolished, perhaps because they know their chances are slim. So is Yossi Beilin’s chance of becoming Prime Minister in Israel — but that would be a good turn of events.
But the most interesting positioning at this DNC meeting came from an acolyte of a possible presidential candidate not in attendance.
Donna Brazile stopped by to talk a bit to Mike Rogers and me. I asked her if she had thrown her fortunes into any of the presidential camps — each of which had tables lined up along a wall, sort of like a high school club sign up.
She said: “No, I’m here this time to say nice things about Al Gore.”
Interesting.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

26 comments on “Al Gore’s Shadow at DNC Annual Winter Meeting

  1. Michael says:

    That comb-over that Gore is sporting should pretty much put an end to talk of Gore launching another futile bid for the Presidency.
    Bloody pathetic. Not good when Trump trumps you in hairstyling.

    Reply

  2. tanjeel says:

    All you need to know about Gore is this…if he is losing weight then he is running…

    Reply

  3. CheckingIn says:

    Regarding Brazile == I think she must have mellowed from what I saw with her on Face the Nation today, she was drowned out by the conservatives. I hope if Gore runs he would bring her in obviously, but NOT in a leading role, he needs fresh ENERGY, facial expression, body language OUT IN THE MSM to counter and address every conservative smear… from every angle. These old Democratic fat cats just aren’t cutting it… sold out, or just plain tired, but not cutting it.

    Reply

  4. jf says:

    Brazile may have some baggage attached, but I don’t know what it is. She always impressed me as a consummate professional on the talk show circuit, addressing right wing smears with the dismissive ridicule they deserved and always steering the conversation back on message. We’ve seen precious little of her these last six years, only now and then popping up on CNN as far as I can tell. Had we an army of her during Kerry’s campaign in ’04, I think we would have clinched it.

    Reply

  5. steambomb says:

    I dont see Gore favorable ratings going down since IT came out. That sounds like spin to me. Unless of course all the oil companies are dictating to everyone who they should like and not like. I consider those days to be gone. The oil companies favorable ratings are the ones that have been falling like a lead zeppelin.

    Reply

  6. ... says:

    poa, i disagree with your interpretation of my words and views, but if i have given you a pulpit to preach your views, more power to ya.. cheers –

    Reply

  7. Pissed Off American says:

    “and Gore’s unfavorable ratings have actually gone up since “An Inconvenient Truth” came out.”
    Please provide us with some sourcing for that allegation.

    Reply

  8. Clark says:

    Gore will not win the primary if he runs. A presidential campaign isn’t just a candidate making a bunch of speeches – it’s an organization of talented staffers working very hard to get that candidate elected. Most of the top talent is already committed, and Gore’s unfavorable ratings have actually gone up since “An Inconvenient Truth” came out. I haven’t a clue why people actually like Al Gore less now, but that’s the way it is.
    Never say never in politics, of course, but I don’t see him pulling it off.

    Reply

  9. steambomb says:

    The 08 presidency is Gores to win, lose or simply ignore. He would beat Clinton in the primary hands down. Obama is still too inexperienced and if he chose Feingold as his VP they would win in a landslide considering the fact that all the indys and moderates know now what a pandering idiot McCain is.

    Reply

  10. ET says:

    Under girding the political determinism exposed by … up-thread is a monolithic theory of power, unsupported by the U.S. Constitution. Read the contract. Exxon is not the Decider. Granted in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress is accorded the exclusive power to decide whether or not the country engages in war. The President can be impeached and removed from office by the Senate for actions which violate the law or his oath of office. Moreover, there is a Kilimanjaro of evidence that he has done so. Clearly, the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces — not commander of this country.
    Congress specifically authorized military action in Iraq to: (a) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (b) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Notwithstanding the unfounded contention that Iraq posed a threat to the US, , the specific objectives of the authorization were met in 2003 when Saddam’s regime was deposed.
    Hence, the current use of the military in Iraq by the President is unauthorized.
    When mission creep of Vietnam was uppermost in the thinking of Congress, The War Powers Act of 1973 was passed, providing a clear remedy for the unauthorized use of the military by psychotic Presidents:
    “…at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.”

    Reply

  11. Pissed Off American says:

    “poa- some folks are more radical then others… clearly you would like change to be something other then glacial.. i can appreciate that… when the system is so corrupt that money is the most important factor in who runs and wins the election, it is going to take some time to displace change things. as it stands now, kuchinich doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance and it isn’t because he doesn’t have a lot of valid ideas worth implementing… it is because the exxons and the lockheed martins out their will never support someone like him.. for an idea on who they support look no further then the present leader.”
    Its a hell of a note when one is a “radical” for expecting our leadership to be held accountable for the commission of high crimes and treason. Basically, what you just said is that “Well, we have to accept these criminals because only they can win”. Your attitude epitomizes the kind of pessimistic disengagement that has allowed these fuckers to grasp the reins of power. Truth is, the “Kucinich’s” CAN win, but only with YOUR support, MY support, and the support of insiders such as Clemons. The kind of “purge” that Steve speaks of, (albiet apparently insincerely), can ONLY be “people driven”. It is obvious that these lying sacks of shit like Hillary or Biden are not going to institute such a purge. If they intended to lead with any integrity, then they would be demanding impeachment and indictment. So, your solution is to support them because somehow you consider them a better alternative to Bush, when you admit they are beholding to the same corporate and foreign benefactors? Thats the same horseshit argument MP offered…”Well, I agree with Kucinich’s positions, but he doesn’t play the “game” well enough”. So hey, lets all endorse and vote for the fucking criminals, right? After all, if they ain’t criminals, and they aren’t in someone’s pocket, they “don’t stand a ghost of a chance”.
    Well, all you are doing is acting out a self fullfilling prophecy. And if we as a nation practice your fatalistic resignment to business as usual, than this democratic experiment is OVER. We are toast. I refuse to endorse ANYONE just because they are a successful liar, and have become proficient at sucking corporate cock. And I refuse to ignore and trivialize a candidate because they have declined to “play the game”.
    Instead of acceptance and subservience to a corrupt and broken process through which we choose our leaders, I suggest we as a people reject it and demand change, en masse, and loudly. And the clock is running out. YOUR way guarantees that our democracy, and the so called concept of “representative government” is doomed to be an abject failure. After all, if you refuse to endorse the candidates that actually represent the will of the people, than what is left? Whatever it is, it sure as hell ain’t what we are supposed to be.

    Reply

  12. ... says:

    poa- some folks are more radical then others… clearly you would like change to be something other then glacial.. i can appreciate that… when the system is so corrupt that money is the most important factor in who runs and wins the election, it is going to take some time to displace change things. as it stands now, kuchinich doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance and it isn’t because he doesn’t have a lot of valid ideas worth implementing… it is because the exxons and the lockheed martins out their will never support someone like him.. for an idea on who they support look no further then the present leader.
    perhaps more americans need to educate themselves on why certain politicans are more electable then others… and, it is a media staged event. i suppose you think steve is playing along with it too.. i don’t think so..

    Reply

  13. Pissed Off American says:

    “poa, steve can’t do anything right according to you! i think it is kinda ironic moaning about no coverage for kuchinich, and then steve offers some and you landblast him some more!!!!!!!!!!”
    Saying that Kucinich’s people “seem to be having the most fun” is “coverage”? Give me a break, Steve’s comments about Kucinich were condescending, and bordering on insulting.
    And you’re right, I am beginning to view Steve as just another pseudo progressive sell-out. I enjoy this blog, don’t get me wrong. And Steve’s insider scoops are definitely enlightening. But his endorsements, and his reluctance to defend his endorsements, is just more of the same old horseshit that we have been fed for too long now. Screw the God damned Bidens and the Hillarys, and the long list of posturing assholes that got us into this mess but are now tsk-tsking and jumping ship. They are no better than that monkey in the Oval Office and that sick son of a bitch Cheney. If Steve truly wanted a “purge”, as he claims in the next thread, than many of his last week’s posts are insincere. And if they AREN’T insincere, than his claim about wanting a purge is insincere. He simply can’t have it both ways.

    Reply

  14. ET says:

    As long as America’s sons and daughters are dying in an unjust war of aggression while the perpetrators in power remain unimpeached and serially expanding their circumference of evil, why should he relent?
    I find your amusement unamusing.
    Impeachment Watch:
    http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/ticia/2007/jan/23/impeachment_watch_blogroll_january_update

    Reply

  15. ... says:

    poa, steve can’t do anything right according to you! i think it is kinda ironic moaning about no coverage for kuchinich, and then steve offers some and you landblast him some more!!!!!!!!!! at the same time, i do enjoy, and get a kick out of how you never lighten up!

    Reply

  16. Robert Morrow says:

    I don’t think Gore is going to run. I think Donna Brazile will sign on with Obama or Edwards eventually.

    Reply

  17. Marge says:

    Al Gore is positioned perfectly out of the mainstream media hype going on around Washington. He’ll continue receiving accolades from the world at large for his genuine leadership and vision, while corporate run media hype their preferences to Americans. I think the GOOD PEOPLE OF AMERICA are on to their game, however, and Gore will be our next President by popular mandate. Call me crazy, but I do think the “people are coming”.

    Reply

  18. Gabriel says:

    If Gore is going to run, I think it’s very smart of him to be flying under the radar for the time being and letting the others take the heat of the campaign, while he gains accolades for his environmental work.

    Reply

  19. larry birnbaum says:

    If Gore is serious, he’s going to have to quash this Nobel Peace Prize thing!

    Reply

  20. fiat lux says:

    In Gore’s absence, a fair number of bloggers hvae decided Edwards is their man. I’m not just referring to the fact that the Edwards campaign hired two ‘name’ bloggers this week to work on his campaign, but also, in looking at the comments threads, the level of support for Edwards.
    Although if Gore does join the race, it will be interesting to see whether Edwards holds on to those supporters or not.

    Reply

  21. Pissed Off American says:

    “I’m glad Kucinich is running again and may try to interview him one of these days for the blog”
    I’ll believe it when I see it, Steve. Somehow, I have my doubts. You haven’t “interviewed” Hillary, Obama, or Biden either, but you have sure ran one hell of a marketing schpeil for them, including linking to thier websites.
    What the American people need to consider at this point, is if the current batch of candidates that are grabbing the media spotlight are unwilling to hold this president accountable before the law, than they must believe that the President is ABOVE the law. If they believe GWB is above the law, then won’t they in fact hold THEMSELVES above the law as well? If they are not demanding the impeachment and indictment of Bush/Cheney, then what crimes do they consider as impeachable offenses? What incentive do they have do hold THEMSELVES accountable?
    Kucinich is the ONLY candidate I have seen that states a willingness and a desire to hold these criminals accountable. The ONLY candidate that I have seen that is willing to use the term “LIES” when describing Bush’s criminal deceptions in leading this nation to invade Iraq.
    And Steve, your sacharin and shallow reference to Kucinich’s efforts are far too little. Such cursury lip service is transparently condescending, and does little to mask your desire to pimp the posturing frauds that the media is neatly packaging for the Oval Office.
    Making excuses for rascist remarks, ignoring Obama’s EMPTY list of qualifications for the presidency, and sidestepping Hillary’s utter absense in opposing Bush these last six years has not gone unnoticed.
    Nor has your purposeful avoidance of recognizing or commenting on the efforts of John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich.
    What, exactly, are you selling, Steve?

    Reply

  22. David N says:

    The comparison to Webb is interesting, because as a resident of Virginia who worked on the campaign I remember the primary choice as a stark one: The pure Democrat against the one who has a chance to win.
    Not, at the time, that anyone gave any Democrat a chance to beat Allen, who was being mentioned in discussions of nominations to run for president in 2008 — hey, if one idiot can win twice . . . — .
    It was interesting that Democrats broke with the conventional wisdom to select a possible winner over ideological purity. One can see the same calculation being made in Democratic primaries throughout the nation next year. So what if he’s a good man/woman? Can he or she win the White House!
    For that, as regards Gore, we know he’s smart. We know he won the popular vote. We know he would have made a far better president than the blithering moron who has made such a mess of the country and the world. The question is: What did he learn? Did he learn how to counter the Republican attacks, repeated endlessly in their paid echo chamber otherwise known as the Main-Stream Media? Did he learn to be listening for the jokes, and jump to counter them. Did he learn that he has to jump in, and when his smarmy opponent makes a casual joke about “Inventing the Internet,” he HAS to address that?
    Did, for that matter, ANY Democrat learn that when the Republican attack machine faxes out its talking points to Russert and Curric — never mind the Faux Network — that they have to be ready, and willing, to counter with questions and facts and not let blatent lies determine who gets to run this country into the ground?
    I don’t know who I will work for or support in the process of selecting our next president. I do know that at the end I will vote for the Democrat — whoever it is — over the Corporate stooge the Republicans run. What I am waiting for is a sign that a Democrat knows what to do to counter the Republican smear machine and the Rove tricks and lies. That will then be the Democrat we should support for the nomination.
    I have seen no such sign yet. Not from Obama. Not from Clinton — who should know better than anyone. Not from anyone. Maybe they think that it’s too early to “go negative” by calling a lie a lie. If that’s their thinking, we’re screwed.

    Reply

  23. selise says:

    p.s. i’d love to see gore run…. win, and appoint kucinich secretary of the dept of peace.

    Reply

  24. selise says:

    i have a lot of respect for kucinich – from when i lived in cleveland while he was mayor. he’s the only politician i’ve known of who lived up to a campaign promise even though the bankers and electric co wanted made sure he knew it would be th end of his political career. it took 10 years, but we’re lucky he’s back in politics.
    i suspect that many of kucinich’s postitions are much closer to mainstream US americans (i’m talking outside the beltway) than are most other politicians. he’s only called “far left” because all the other presidential candidates are so far from the mainstream positions.

    Reply

  25. Linda says:

    Kuchinich has been saying all the right things from the start though he is way too far left and has a bit too much baggage to ever be a serious contender. However, I heard him speak in LA 3-4 years ago, and he has an orator’s voice–best delivery of any of the candidates. And he either writes his own speeches or has great writers, and I think it is the former.
    For many years, he has been pushing the idea (good? I’m not so sure but interesting) that U.S. should have a Department of Peace because after all, Department of Defense is just a revision of Department of War, done after WWII. Department of State also should have part of that function, but doesn’t do much that it should in this administration.
    One nice thing about having Democrats in majority is that some of these far left ideas get heard. Another one that has been around for years is Jesse Jackson Jr’s idea of an amendment to the Constitution that there should be a right to health care.

    Reply

  26. Greg Priddy says:

    Very interesting. I don’t generally bother to watch the Oscars, but I probably will this year…
    If Gore enters the race, he would instantly become the favorite among the ‘netroots’ activists, and could probably raise his first $10-20 million from small donors online in the first few days.
    Hillary may have the money juggernaut, but that isn’t everything. It bears remembering that Jim Webb won his contested primary in Virginia last year having raised only about $500K by that point, outspent 3-to-1 by Harris Miller, and not having made a single TV ad buy. It was all about word of mouth, and the network of thousands of supporters which sprung up online and went to work convincing their friends and neighbors to show up for the primary.
    A presidential race can’t be run on a shoestring, obviously, but I think the standard assumption that raising the most funds and running the most TV ads will win you the nomination may have been undermined by some of the new tactics made possible by online social networking…

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *