Democrats in congress and Democrats throughout the country should have stood by him and advocated strongly. But, they did not.
Remember Lieberman? His lack of strength was typical of the Democrats in general.
Some things never change.

getting into when neo-liberals take over.

Can you imagine that? All the progress we have made to be heard since 2008 will vanish as soon as Hillary takes a reconciliating note to start business as usual again.

the election was stolen shows that they are complicit. It's a game of the Elites and Gore jumped over the net and said "Good job, ole boy." The system is broken badly and yet some so-called Democrats are oblivious. They say they care about those among us that are struggling but can easily rationalize away the reasons we have 50 million Americans living in poverty. They hide behind pragmatism, their excuse to ignore those without health care, or homes, or retirements or jobs. They look the other way as the Ruling Class shots us in the streets and imprisons millions of us.

Gore was too left for them. And they were tired of the Clintons and all that. So they just threw up their hands and let bushies run the show. 8 years later Hope and Change came on the scene and the elites again ran for cover from the long arm of the left. Can't really blame Obama for ducking out: he saw what he was up against. But Gore had nothing to lose. He should be out front and endorsing Bernie.

the Powers That Be. The progressive of the party tried to warn the Party Elites that many were tired of Clinton/Gore and woundn't support Gore. The Party Elites that work for the Powers That Be didn't care if Gore lost to Bush. They weren't about to put in a progressive. Same as today. The Powers That Be would prefer Clinton to the crazies in the other party. Once again the progressives are trying to warn the Party Elites but again, their owners The Powers That Be would settle for a Republicon win over letting a progressive in the WH.

As far as Obama, I think he is more progressive than he has shown. Either he sold his soul to win or he got a talking to once in office.

That's the base of both parties. They manage everything and they get what they want as us pleebs argue about keeping jobs and keeping the planet alive.

Bernie is our last chance to get our shit together and the PTB is going all out to keep that from happening. We are witnessing a great battle for our souls, and it appears we shall lose, like we did in 2000. The People had no leader in 2000 and it looks like we are losing Bernie today.

Obama sparked, and was doused, H is just smoke.

a great thanks to him to put himself and family at risk for opposing the PTB. H. Clinton is a champion of the PTB.

Mammon: The greedy pursuit of wealth or the worship of such.

After the scotus ruled the other choice was civil war

Republicans flew in party hacks to disrupt the recounts and the images spread across the TV screens forced the general public into acceptance of any outcome as long as it happened fast.
Probably the saddest episode of Americas' history.

feel the same now.

It created a sense of illegitimacy that remains

Back then, DNC too was part of the problem. By selectively counting only a few counties and only favorable precincts in some counties, they handed an easy argument to the Bushes to use in the courts. I couldn't believe that they were doing this. It seemed like they were throwing the election with such actions and also by making foolish arguments like they should count Pat Buchanan's votes for Al Gore. No matter how stupid it was to have butterfly ballots, it was even dumber to make this argument.

That said, Bush and Gore had identical policies. I see no difference between them. Gore's cap and trade is nothing but George HW Bus's "free market solution" and Bush's faith based charities was really Al Gore's idea. On wars and Wall Street welfare, the less said the better.

All recounts requests had to be made on a county by county basis. Gore didn't have the resources to request a recount in all of Florida's counties so they focused on the ones that there were problems.

And no one made the argument that Buchanan's votes should count for Gore. At least no one in the Gore campaign.

Bush and Gore did not have identical policies. That is just a lie spouted by Nader.

same Powers That Be. That's why the progressives weren't that hot on Gore. More of the DLC crap that Clinton pushed on us for 8 years. Nader was merely echoing what progressives were saying. Nader has been a good scapegoat for those that, when looking for someone to blame for the loss, won't look in the mirror.

We are facing a similar situation today. Progressives are trying to warn that the people are tired of the corruption of the DLC or Third Way now and may well let Trump have the presidency. I guess you will have to trot out Nader and blame him. Sen Sanders is the People's only hope.

Doesn't make it reality.

And Nader was taking money from the GOP which he used to lie about Gore.

BTW The DLC disbanded years ago. Hearing some people still whining about them is like when FAUX News anchors still complain about ACORN.

The DLC organization disbanded but the people are still alive and kicking. They carry the philosophy of some social justice to keep the masses quiet, but strong economic control by Wall Street and strong foreign policy by the MIC.

And speaking of ACORN, Obama and the Democratic Party Elite abandoned them as they abandoned all progressives.

That you are willfully that ignorant is to be expected. By the way, you will predictably blame the voters in November again. You will blame Sanders instead of Nader. I count on it

Line the usual suspects

chances in November."

Instead of asking why voters don't like a candidate

Or why independents don't feel her.

I gave two examples. Cap and trade came from the Bushes and faith based charity came from Al Gore. I cannot accept the latter.

What really got to me was that he seemed to not challenge the election and threw it away. My fears came true. While following the 2000 recount, I was afraid that the Republicans would use the fact that only African American and Jewish precincts were counted in one of the counties to stop the recount. Had they counted the full county and quickly certified the result, the new numbers would have been in play. Why did they not do that? I can assure you that it was not due to lack of time as they claimed.

And you really don't know what you are talking about in regard to the 2000 recount. When a recount is requested in a county, the full county is recounted not just certain precincts.

They claimed they did not have time to complete the counting in the entire county and stopped it after counting the precincts favorable to Gore. Do we really think that Bush lawyers would not use it as an argument against the Democrats? Had they gone ahead and completed the counting, it would have at least given Gore a chance at victory.

I think 2016 is worse than 2000. At least Bush won the machine counting (even though they did not allow the hand recount to be considered and that is fraud) and at least the disenfranchisement was through butterfly ballots which was an unintended effect. This time it is through intentional erasure of potential Bernie supporters.

because you really don't know what you're talking about.

And there is no evidence of intentional erasure of potential Bernie supporters. I voted for Bernie and had no problems. Friends of mine who voted for Bernie had no problems either.

Independents who changed to Democrat and who were deprived the right to vote should be considered victims of political profiling to disenfranchise Bernie voters.

And please be specific.

talk about the fix

He mockingly told him to step down and accept his loss as if it were no
big deal what went on in FLA and just about everywhere else. This was
the time to confront the Republicans on their privately-owned and very
suspect voting machines. But nooooo.

Now I've heard him say the other day he was a superdelegate and he didn't
care how many votes or pledged delegates Bernie had come July, he was
throwing his support to HRC no matter what.

Why is he even allowed to be around anymore?

More voters should have turned out.

non-democratic election system. Gore and Bush were both backed by the PTB. If H. Clinton, another of the DLC should win the nomination, then one would have to vote for Trump if wanted to vote against the Ruling Class Establishment.

I do not support voting for Trump.

I mean, you did say "Vote for HRC and let the country slide right into fascism".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6658778

And I can't imagine you voting for fascism, so...

The Supreme court ruled.

We have to have respect for our institutions and the Supreme Court is the absolute final law of the land.

It sucks, but realistically, he couldn't continue fighting without encouraging anarchy.

" There is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and a violent revolution. what was best for the country, the answer was very simple, to respect the rule of law and avoid undermining it and dragging the court into a partisan squabble where the outcome would not change in any case. So I am going to stand by my decision to respect the judiciary,"

Al Gore

A violent revolution was so what we needed.

with a minimum of fuss. When the chips are down Dems act like doormats.

Or maybe he should have said, "Fuck it all. I am Emperor of these here United States."

I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion.

...through the courts for weeks, all the way to the Supreme Court where the recount was stopped. That decision was devastating, but left no Constitutional options.
Kerry in Ohio was quite a different fight.

Gotta win your home state.
And, don't get me started on Donna B.