What was the man thinking?

As Bob Graham inches his way into my top three preferences for Prez--much, much to my astonishment---I find myself reading more about him. Today I learned that he was among Gore's final choices for running mate. "Hmmm. Do I take Leiberman from teeny tiny Connecticut, which I'll probably win anyway, or do I take the man described by friend and foe alike as the most popular politician in Florida, the one state I absolutely, positively have to win. I think I'll take Leiberman."

Tell you what folks, we can talk all we want about voting booth hi-jinks, Supreme Court high-handedness, and media bias...when it gets right down to it, Al Gore was an abysmal candidate, and I grooooooaaaaan every time someone comes along here and suggests resurrecting that deader than dead piece of dogwood as a candidate.

Lieberman could have cost him the election.

Gore also did a poor job. Why? To loose to an extreme right opponent that - just from listening to him speak - you would guess to be an illiterate speaks volumes about Gores abilities. I'm being kind not to go in to the countless reasons Bush should have been nailed in 2000.

Make no mistake - I would take Gore over Bush any day, but the Dems running Gore was a fatal mistake.

The stealing of the election was a fatal mistake....and the SCOTUS sealing it was the most appalling action I've ever seen done in a national election. You people are placing the blame on the wrong people. Take your blinders off.... PLEASE!!!! :eyes:

You are correct. No matter who was running as VP with Gore, the same thing would have happened. The fix was in a long time ago.

So you think it was acceptable Gore performed poorly enough to give Bush enough room to steal the election in the first place?

Gore should have gotten AT LEAST a very clear 60-70% of the vote against this guy. I shudder to think what would have happened if the republicans had actually put up a competant opponent for Gore.

Gore did not perform poorly. He got the popular vote. Dirty tricks shut him out of the presidency.

He was up against Bush. BUSH. Think about that.

He should have gotten far more of the vote than he did. Enough so there would be no question he won. There is no excuse that he did not.

I do think about that. I knew what GW was when he was chosen. The Repubs knew they had a pliant puppet to run for office. They also knew they would put him in office by hook or crook. I just don't think it is right to blast Gore. Anyone who ran as a Democrat would have received the same treatment. I admit I am a Gore fan, not simply because I am from Tennessee, but because he is honest. I have known him since he first went into the House. He is a fine man and I don't like to see him mistreated because he was robbed. What use is it to us to continue to blame him? Although I will never forget it, it is in the past. We have to think of our future. And thinking about the robbery will make a lot of people--not just Democrats try to make sure this doesn't happen again. I appreciate your thoughts. I am not trying to get into an argument.

The defense of Gore on this thread is lame and really poor. Yes SCOTUs stole it from him. But the fact he allowed it to be that close, running against THE moron's moron, and taking into account he took Lieberman to distance himself from Clinton, when Graham and Florida was sitting right there...well, sorry...give it up. It is defenseless. Clinton's lust didn't harm us...Gore's stupidity did.

...that Gore performed poorly or ran a bad campaign, did bad in the debates, etc....is because the media told you to think that! They sold trash on Gore, and many Dems bought it...and were very wishy washy with their support. I would be willing to bet...if we could conjure up a parallel universe...that if someone completely different had run instead of Gore...you would now be saying the exact same thing about him: bad campaign, bad VP choice, etc...because the media would have trashed him too. To go into the next election thinking that 2000 was all about Gore is very dangerous! Whoever we put up is going to be treated as badly as Gore was and I would hope that we Dems at least will know better than the buy their crap! I personally would love it if Gore ran again because it would be very hard for them to find anything new to trash him with.

Why bash a democrat and ignore what this idiotic squatter in the WH is doing? There is something wrong with this picture...get my drift? :mad:

It doen't matter who we run if the votes aren't counted.

about Graham's penchant for writing a detailed diary.. Faux & rightwingers hooted and howled about how he detailed what underwear he was wearing, and how many times he went to the bathroom.. They started in on him like he was some nutcase.. I think Gore got scared off, because HE was already being attacked mercilessly for the littlest things..

The repubs are verrrry good at smearing people (just ask McCain, who they painted as a mentally ill hot head, to the South Carolinians:(..)

Instead of OUR OWN people looking for the chinks in the armor of the repukes running, they are always on defense..:(

But I like the diary thing. I'm kind of old; I've known many, many people, some in positions of "corporate power"; this diary thing isn't THAT weird.

that Gore chose Lieberman over Graham, the more I come to the conclusion that if my beloved Al Gore was so stupid, as to chose Lieberman, he was asking for what happened. Al Gore is a great man, but a lousy politician.

in my humble opinion.

Gore wanted to somewhat distance himself from Clinton and the Oval Office mini-affair. Running with Lieberman was a simple, symbolic way to do it and lay claim to "family values".

In hindsight it probably was a bad tactic. He distanced himself from Clinton's good economic times too.

But let's remember, 9/11 hadn't happened yet and Graham hadn't gained any national attention for speaking out against the Bushie cover-ups.

Also, is it for _sure_ that the Dems would have taken Florida if Graham had been on the ticket?. With Jeb as governor, I suspect the Repubs. had several other sneaky options lined up if Gore came out with a larger vote margin there.

If Gore had named him VP, Gore would be in the oval office right now.

Oh, another bash Al Gore thread ... what in the world for? Or is it a promote Sen. Graham thread in disguise? whatever ...

I wasn't in the deliberations myself; and, wasn't privy to any of what was real vs. what was bluff etc. Politics are dynamic, involving layers and multiple equations ... many with variables and few constants -- and, Al had was contending with a plethora of factors to balance, which he did, and won the election ... something that I will never forget ... and, as far as what happened ... won't get over ... ever ...

I think some are truly afraid of an Al Gore candidacy. Certainly those contenders who abandoned him in silence and distance in December 2000 ...

Undoubtedly, the DLC was power playing (many of us have, now, learned a lot about the DLC in the aftermath of 2000) ... Donna Brazile, for example, possibly mis-advising him ... trying to influence him from the DLC point of view vs. his own instincts ... Al From was likely flaunting his pseudo-power of money and votes, etc.

Of course, in the final analysis, Al Gore should have contacted someone like Miss Cleo who could have told him that Jeb and Katherine had things all set up as the front team ...

So, if you know "what was the man thinking", please provide a link - I'd like to read it myself. I have a feeling "what was the man thinking" could fill a book in itself .... thanks in advance for link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50965-2003Jul26.html

P.S. it's hardly a promote Graham thread in disguise. Graham was bottom feeding down there with the Rev and DK for me until a few weeks ago. I found him bland, and I have really had it with the idea that the Dems can't win unless they run someone from DIXIE idea. So my warming to this guy is all due to the clarity of his speech and his credibility as person. As a recent resident of DU, I missed the early Gore bashing--too bad. I would have enjoyed that--man can't carry his own state, can't run on the best economy in history, cannot figure out who the fuck he is without consulting his advisors. And I would have enjoyed engaging the conspiracy theorists who believed the election was in the bag for GWB...some bag. If it was a rigged job they handled it about his cleanly as they're handling the Iraq fiasco. People who buy this stuff give Karl Rove far more credit than he's entitled...and it's a loser position anyway. Like anything we do doesn't matter because the game is rigged against us--woe is us. Almost enough to make me scream: Get over it.

Gore WON. I know you're just analyzing how he could have done better, and that's a good thing - or, can be a bad thing, if it causes us to lose sight of the fact that the Repubs cheated every which way they could but were unable to either propagandize America into electing Bush, nor were they able to obstruct or destroy enough votes to make it LOOK like the majority wanted Bush, so they twisted to legal system and hired rioters and the media to force us to accept Bush. This cannot be forgotten.

That said, I totally agree that Graham would have been a much better running mate than Lieberman.