When will Al Gore step up and throw Lieberman under the bus?

I think Al could eliminate Lieberman from any future in politics if he showed up at a Lamont fundraiser and said "I don't know what happened to Joe Leiberman, but this is not the same man that I selected as my running mate six years ago. That man would have accepted the will of the voters and happily endorsed the winner of Connecticut's primary, Ned Lamont."

Where's Al?

if Gore were directly asked who he supports in the Conn. Senate Race, I'd bet you'd like his answer.

But politicians always try to see all the angles, making certain nothing they say or do can hurt their future political moves.

He doesn't seem to care anymore what the plebs think about him.
If he ever really cared about that at all.

Having said that, Gore IS my #1 choice in 2008. :)

I could see him at a Lamont fundraiser or making a statement of support for the democratic candidate, but it is possible that there may need to work with Lieberman in the future.

He chose him in 2000. Perhaps he could tell us why the fuck he did that....

the entire damn South was obsessed with that -- much like they are now with this whole Foley stuff.
If Reps lose big in November Foley will have more role in that than any other factor, even Iraq.

If Gore wanted any chance to win a single state in the South he had to show those stupid "moral voters" that he was not like Clinton, that he did not approve that kind of behavior and his administration would not be a sequel of the Clinton soup opera. Picking Lieberman helped in Florida but Florida didn't know how to conduct democratic elections so we know what happened.

Stupid people have a tendency to blame politicians for things that other politicians did. Good ol' guilt by association.

from becoming President. And if you believe that Joe Lieberman was the only potential VP candidate who could project moral character for the Democratic Party, than you have a worse view of Democrats than the average Republican. Look, I have already forgiven Al Gore for making that mistake, he is a better man today than he was back then and Gore was a good man then also. But I don't appreciate a meme that calls those who think Gore was mistaken to attempt to elevate Joe Lieberman to the Vice Presidency stupid. Had Gore not been cheated out of that election, Joe Lieberman would be the overwhelming favorite to step into the Presidency in 2008. Think about that for awhile.

And Lieberman wouldn't have become a Bush kisser as Gore's vice president, obviously.
Most of the things which make Joe look so horrible nowadays happened in the last 4 years.
In 2000 he was viewed as a mainstream Democrat and Gore's choice was viewed as bold simply because Joementum is an orthodox Jew. (You can be sure that energized Arab and Muslim voters, without whom Bush couldn't have become pResident. An often overlooked factoid.)

He really started to change when Bush came up with this let's invade Iraq madness. But I don't remember
Lieberman proposing the invasion of Iraq in 2000. It would be interesting to hear why he didn't want that back then if he thought Saddam was such a big threat.


"And if you believe that Joe Lieberman was the only potential VP candidate who could project moral character for the Democratic Party, than you have a worse view of Democrats than the average Republican."

I really didn't care about Lieberman's moral character, I believed Gore himself was moral enough, so the choice was redundant -- at least it would have been in a rational world.
But I cannot think of any other Democrat who would have been better for Gore both politically during the campaign and in policy making in the White House. There was really no good choice for him.
Kerry was to liberal, Edwards was too green. Picking Bob Graham would have been seen as the mother of all opportunism Gore would have been trashed for it by the oh-so-liberal media. We know how they treated Gore and still do.

And it made the situation even more difficult that Gore really never made friends in the political circles despite being there for 24 years. He had a handful of people he really trusted, none of them politicians but technocrats like Leon Fuerth, who is otherwise a great guy but would have become Gore's national security advisor not veep. Otherwise who did he trust? Who could he have worked with?
I can't think of anyone. Gore was not particularly close to Lieberman, either.

"I have already forgiven Al Gore for making that mistake,"

He doesn't think it was a mistake. Nor do I.

"he is a better man today than he was back then and Gore was a good man then also. "

Well he would certainly reject that. Gore has not changed since 2000. Lieberman has.


"But I don't appreciate a meme that calls those who think Gore was mistaken to attempt to elevate Joe Lieberman to the Vice Presidency as being stupid."

Actually I called those stupid who couldn't get over the blow job. The so called moral values voters.
There were plenty of them out there in 2000. Actually more than in 2004, according to the exist polls, even while after 2004 the media talked a lot about then while after 2000 they didn't.

"Had Gore not been cheated out of that election, Joe Lieberman would be the overwhelming favorite to step into the Presidency in 2008."

That's not sure at all. A lot could have happened under a Gore administration which wouldn't have made Lieberman an overwhelming favorite for the nomination. But even if he had been he wouldn't have had much chance to get elected. After 16 years of Dem presidents I bet a Republican would have been elected.

But if history is any indicater, 8 year sitting VP's are given a shot to run for President by their Party if they want it. And if we are not restricting the list to people that Gore knew well and was comfortable with (since you say Lieberman doesn't fit that criteria) then there were a host of Senators and Governors, and possilby others, who Gore could have drafted to run with him in 2000, and to be honest, coming out of 8 years of relative Peace and Prospertiy I don't think Gore would have needed to nail down a single state with his pick had his campaign been run better.

But I seem to have misunderstood your original post about who you were calling stupid, lol. I still disagree with you, but you present a solid case.

there was 8 years of prosperity?

Peace is not a political asset in the US. War is an asset. If Clinton had invaded Afghanistan after the Cole Gore would have become president easily as voter wouldn't have left an ungoing conflict to a newbie like Bush.

That Gore ran a bad campaign is a myth. You cannot come up 15 point in the polls and win the most votes at the end with a bad campaign.
Gore had to fight an uphill battle because he started the campaign by 15 points behind Bush thanks to 8 years of scandals, real or imagined. He was the underdog from the beginning. Prosperity didn't help Gore , he was just vice president and veeps never get the credit for the good things while they get the blame for the bad things. Most of the credit went to the private sector and Alan Greenspan anyway. Even Clinton himself said in California at the end of the campaign that the race was close because the boom lasted for such a long time people started to take it for granted and not link it with whoever is in the Oval Office. To some extent they were right the new economy indeed lives its own life and presidents have little influence over it.
Whenever Gore tried to take credit for the economy voters thought he was taking credit for something he didn't even do.

But which red state you think Gore should have won and why?

"then there were a host of Senators and Governors, and possilby others, who Gore could have drafted to run with him in 2000,"

Such as who?

I am actually popping onto DU on and off as a break from working on a major project on a deadline. At another time I might engage you more, it is a good potential discussion, but not now. I don't have time to research which Democrats held which offices then and what their public approval ratings were at the time, but there are always numerous potential roads not taken when it comes to a vice Presidential choice. Clintons approval ratings were NOT low during the 2000 Presidential Election. Republicans lost seats in the 1998 elections.

But I'm not even sure I would want to continue this discussion now even if I did have the time for it. It is a distraction before the mid term elections, plus I have a lot of respect for Al Gore who is one of three Democrats right now who I could enthusiastically support for President in 2008.

Not his job approval. Well, actually his job approval was not that high in red states, either. Around 50% according to the exit polls. His personal ratings however were very low around 35%.

Actually when Gore was behind Bush in 1999 his own job approval was high, 60%.
Which proves that high job approval does not automatically translate into votes.

"Republicans lost seats in the 1998 elections."

Yes they lost because they pushed the impeachment which most people didn't want. But that doesn't mean they approved Clinton's conduct. One doesn't follow from the other. They disapproved both the impeachment and Clinton's BJ and lies. The Reps paid a price for the former in 1998 and Gore paid a price for the later in 2000.

As I understand it, then Florida wouldn't have even mattered.

Having said that, I believe Al Gore would have been one of our very best Presidents EVER.

Florida wasn't a problem before the election, and Graham would have been THE choice from the South (and from anywhere else IMHO). He was this state's best governor, and well respected at all levels. With Graham, Gore would have carried Florida easily (despite Harris's shenanigans).

Get over your big, bad self.

Tennessee is just about to elect a BLACK man to Senate. :P

I talked about those who were those stupid moral value voters. And most of them were in the South.
Don't believe? Look at the 2000 and the 2004 election map.

I don't know whether Ford will win or not but as far as I know Ford was not involved in some sex scandal. Clinton was. And Gore had the misfortune to be a vice president the Clinton administration. You don't think it had any effect on the 2000 race, do you? Well, it had. Ford doesn't have a problem anything like that.

stage, fundraising for Lamont and making it clear that they support Ned over Lieberman. I think the MSM would cover an event like that, and it would send a strong clear message to Dems of CT. IMHO.

Where does this come from?

I picked it up here. Would love the know the origins myself. Welcome to DU silko.

:toast:

but very hard to co-ordinate and maybe a waste of scarce Democratic power to use all 3 together.

But you can be sure he is not a big fan of Joe nowadays.

to contact him. I wonder if we FLOODED him with requests if he would be willing to be a REAL DEMOCRAT and help us, HELP LAMONT???

It's worth a try if we can write him, all he can do is ignore us or say no. This would define him even more in my estimation. If we here are considering him as a 2008 candidate I think it would be BENEFICIAL to him to help our HIS BASE! Not Mr. Lie's!!!

Anyone know how to contact him, and does anyone think this is a good idea????

Al did decide to campaign for Lamont, however in my book, Al Gore of all the people on the planet is the last one that has to prove him self/her self to me, to be considered a REAL DEMOCRAT.

to me. I was "generalizing" to some extent, but do feel this would be a PERFECT move to further bolster support from many here at DU.

I've ALWAYS been with Gore, even way back when. I think what happened in 2000 was almost inconceivable at the time and have long since decided that even those of us who live here in Florida were shocked by what happened. It was much harder to make the argument that the election was "in reality" stolen!

What better way to upset The Idiot's Apple cart than to stick it to him by lending some heavy handed support to Lamont. It would be the LAST thing The Idiot would want!

that would be awesome

There is still time to win this election for Lamont. Joe Lieberman has been on the wrong side of the National Security debate. What's happening in North Korea now may help Lamont, because Lieberman too closely tied his wagon to Bush on National Security.

Lieberman portrayed himself as a wounded martyr who had stayed out of the presidential race until Gore had made his intentions known and made a big hue and cry about how he had been so loyal to Gore and now Gore had stabbed him in the back and had acted like an ungrateful and mean and spiteful person. Lieberman quite convincingly played the role of a friend betrayed and did his best to cast Gore in a negative light and all indications are that it was quite successful in terms of short term impact -if I remember accurately there was an increase in donations to Lieberman's campaign.

Of course Lieberman didn't mention how he effectively abandoned Gore during the recount and so on but that's another story

I think Gore may be concerned that, if he comes and campaigns for Lamont, Lieberman will start acting like a spoilt and petulant child again (goodness knows he's done enough of that already this year) and this will both cast Gore in an unfavorable light and boost Lieberman's prospects of being re-elected. He's using silence, which perhaps is the deadliest weapon of all against a man whom was his running mate in 2000

down but Gore had nothing to do with that.
The capture of Saddam, the stupidity of the Iowa voters who believed Kerry's Vietnam record will be a plus in the general election, the tape which showed Dean disssing the Iowa caucus and a concerted attack against him both by his rivals and the media were the reasons why Dean lost in Iowa. Then came the scream and that was the last nail in his coffin.

comes to these types of issues!! What about Lincoln Chaffey? Sure, they still want him, but they don't REALLY want him. Besides, I understand he's behind in the polls right now.

I think Gore should endorse the Democratic Party candidate. But don't be fooled into thinking a Gore endorsement would impact the outcome. If Lieberman wins (and I hope he doesn't) its going to be because of support from republicans and independents. Democrats make up less than 40 percent of the electorate in Connecticut, and I don't see an endorsement from Gore being all that persuasive with indies who are leaning Lieberman's way.

Keep in mind the following: in 2000, Connecticut voters got to vote both for Gore/Lieberman" for president and Lieberman for Senate -- Lieberman for Senate got more votes than Gore/Lieberman for president.