Shocking, Gratuitous Gore

The duplicity and inane insider-speak of John Dickerson's new article on Slate, "Gore, Retry, Fail," perfectly illustrates the media's inherent bias against left-wing candidates. Notice, before I even have to type anything about the article, the headline, a weak pun playing on the computer option "Restore, Retry, Fail," that seems designed solely to work the words "Gore" and "Fail" into a headline. They must have tried at least 30 permutations before settling on that one.

"How about 'A Crushing Gore: Medieval Tortures I'd Like to Perform on the Former Vice-President'? No, too obviously vicious? Okay, how about, 'Blood on the Dance Gore: How Madonna and the Former Vice-President are Ruining America'? Not a good enough pun? Okay, um, what about 'Gore, Retry, Fail: Why the New Al Gore Can't Get Elected'? Brilliant! We're running with it!"

And why does Slate's Chief Political Correspondant think Al Gore can't get elected? Because he's Al Gore.

The article starts off positive enough. Dickerson notes the positive reception to Gore's new film, An Inconvenient Truth, at Cannes, although he fails to mention even what the film is about. If you'd read the article, you'd assume Gore's movie was about his desire to one day be President, not about the forthcoming Global Warming-enabled horrorscape coming soon to an Industralized Coastal Nation near you. He also discusses the newfound enthusiasm for a Gore candidacy in '08 from bloggers and other Democrats.

So what's the problem? Seems like it would be hard to characterize the sudden interest in his political career and pet causes as a negative for Al Gore. You've got to give Dickerson credit, at least, for trying.

This has got to be stirring for a guy who was essentially laughed out of town after losing the 2000 election. But Gore has yet to respond to the groundswell, according to those I've talked to who know Gore well.

Okay, Gore was not laughed out of town after losing the 2000 election. After winning that election, he failed to pursue his legal strategies with sufficient zeal, and conceded rather than remaining to fight. I think it was a mistake, but it's hardly akin to being drummed out of Washington as a laughingstock, in the manner that, say, George W. Bush will be (hopefully) very soon.

Also, how would Dickerson like Gore to respond to this "groundswell," that has been going on for only the past few weeks? Swimming across the English Channel, perhaps? Marketing his own brand of delectable, environmentally-sound frozen entrees? Prepping the sequel, IT2: Truth or Dare?

This sort of vague non-reporting reporting permeates the entire article. It's almost like...John's trying to pull an article...from out of his ass...so he can start his Memorial Day vacation early. But, of course, journalists would never do something like that!

"What Al Gore is doing now is living the life he always wanted to lead," says his former campaign manager, Donna Brazile. "He's a leading intellectual. He's talking about global warming. He's a venturecrat. He's leading the life I think a person like Al Gore would want to lead."

There are lots of other reasons that Gore probably shouldn't run, often articulated by inside-the-beltway types.

So the fact that he's enjoying outspoken public advocacy and is building a reputation as an intellectual (I don't actually believe this claim, by the way) means he shouldn't run for President? Who would be more qualified than a smart, educated man with strongly-held beliefs? John apparently thinks we should only nominate illiterate goobers without any opinions. Maybe he thinks it's important whether they wear boxers or briefs or if they'd be fun to have a beer with.

A lot of Democrats still have sour feelings about a nominee who blew a winnable election.

Yeah, like me. But I'll get over it.

Gore never liked the day-to-day work of politics (as opposed to governing) and was a lousy campaigner. He struggled to beat a weak Bill Bradley in the 2000 Democratic primaries and lost to George Bush (sort of) with the wind of peace and prosperity at his back.

Well, again, he didn't really lose to George Bush so much as he conceded prematurely once George Bush's Dad's buddies had conspired to steal the election. I'll admit that Gore had a rough time in that campaign, but would Dickerson deny that the media representation of the man had at least a hand in that situation? Or do they still agree that poise and confidence and intelligence and proven leadership ability aren't as important as a love of Jesus and affability?

Also, the entire point of the article is that there is a "New" Al Gore who is more likable and less stiff than the old Al Gore. So, presumably, if this new Al Gore were to run, he wouldn't be such a lousy campaigner.

In polls, voters still react to him as negatively as they do to Hillary Clinton, or even more so. He may provide a nice contrast to George Bush now, but Bush won't be on the ballot, and in 2008 the Republican nominee is likely to be running against Bush, too.

Again, John, could the negativity towards these two be the result of 100,000,000 articles just like this one, informing Americans that they hate Al Gore and Hillary Clinton? Or does this hate just spring eternal from the American bosom towards any prominant Democrat?

I will admit that I like the idea of Gore running for president.

What? News to me. Then why don't you stop shitting on him for no good reason?

I'm a sucker for authenticity and prefer a candidate who speaks his mind (even my editor has made fun of me for this failing). But it seems to me that the hype about the New Gore poses a problem for him should he eventually decide to run: He can't sustain the authenticity that is fueling his bandwagon.

Who writes like this? "He can't sustain the authenticity that is fueling his bandwagon"? What the fuck are you talking about? John, your job is to inform, not to gossip. Being a "sucker for authenticity" just makes you a sucker. It's not about authenticity. Stupid. Gore hasn't even said that he wants to run for President yet. There is no "bandwagon," at least in terms of him as a candidate. Maybe in terms of him as an environmental advocate. And he's certainly "authentic" in terms of caring about the environment. He was writing books on the subject when I was in junior high.

It's not that Gore is inherently dull.

Aw, jeez, that's awful big of you. Wish I could say the same for you.

The problem is that the activists and bloggers most approving of Gore's "authenticity" also seem the least likely to allow any deviation from their definition of it.

Oh, I get it. The problem isn't Gore, it's those crazy librul bloggers and their wacky ideas. Man, this shit is convoluted and ridiculous.

Gore's assessment of the last presidential elections suggest he still believes campaigns must be won by moving to the middle, a notion some in his party abhor. He knows about political shading. It's why he can craft that coy language about running in 2008. But if he does too much of this, he will disappoint his new allies.

Here's John's thesis thus far:

Thanks largely to librul bloggers and radical fringe lefty radicals, Al Gore has seen a sudden surge in popularity. Even though most people hate him. And if he decides to run for President, he'll have to do stuff for people who hate him, which will make all those radical fringe moonbat lefty radical lbrul bloggers hate him. So he might as well not bother because everyone will just wind up hating him.

What penetrating insight! He can't wait, CAN'T WAIT, for his new chance to assault Al Gore. He can't even give the guy a chance to announce his candidacy. "Just in case, maybe, one day, if Al Gore decides possibly to run for President, he won't win because you all hate him!"

Talk about the New Gore also builds upon a structural flaw of his last candidacy: Does he know his own mind?

Does he know his own mind? What? We're right back to the "Gore's crazy and unhinged" line. Was this article ghost-written by Ann Coulter, and John Dickerson just went through and removed all the profanity and homicidal fantasies?

If what we're seeing now is the real Al Gore, why was he so easily swayed last time by advisers and pollsters bearing bad advice?

I don't think anyone has said we're seeing some sort of real Al Gore now, as opposed to a fake one then. The real narrative, that John has scrupulously avoided in favor of rumor and innuendo, is that Gore went away from the public eye for a while, devoted himself to causes about which he felt strongly and now has returned to the limelight to hopefully motivate Americans to action. Possibly, if he reaches enough voters who are then persuaded by his message, he would consider running for President.

I think people responding to him now more than before can be explained in two ways:

(1) He's no longer trying to appeal to all Americans, but rather feels a bit more free to speak his mind and be himself. Running for public office and speaking up as a concerned citizen are entirely different activities, and it's only natural someone doing the latter would be more loose than someone doing the former.

(2) The press hasn't focused exclusively on how much everyone hates him for a little while. They've given us all a break, a chance to think for ourselves about who Al Gore might really be, rather than ramming the "boring bookish inauthentic unhinged weenie" meme down our throats every ten minutes.

Unfortuantely, it looks like John Dickerson is declaring that merciful respite over with.

If authenticity is just a political gambit, it's hardly authentic. The Old Gore vs. New Gore angle is likely to become a theme of the coverage if Gore runs. The press will remind us again and again about the 2000 campaign's earth-tone suits and the Great Dane kiss of Tipper at the convention and all the other inauthentic things he did to tailor his behavior to show people what he thought they wanted to see. The press will watch closely for signs of a relapse.

Seriously, this is the dumbest paragraph I have read in some time. John's saying that some disembodied entity known as "the press" will insist on replaying all of their favorite Al Gore bloopers endlessly if he decides to run. But the only one bringing up this crap again is him and he's doing so well before Gore has even declared an intention to ever again seek public office.

WHY, JOHN, WHY? DON'T YOU THINK THERE IS ANYTHING MORE WORTHWHILE TO DISCUSS?

Global warming, say? Or how Gore would stakc up against possible GOP candidates? Or the dynamics of a Gore vs. Clinton primary? No? Nothing? You'd just like to take some time out to recycle through your favorite "anti-Gore" highlights from the past, possibly while touching yourself?

But crusading liberal is hardly who Al Gore really is. He long supported welfare reform, free-trade, and gave a speech promoting faith-based institutions in 2000 that was as supportive of them as George Bush was.

Dude, seriously...what the fuck are you even talking about? Your'e saying that because Gore made a speech in 2000 praising faith-based institutions that he can't get elected President? What's wrong with you? Why not just wait and see what happens and deal with it then? Why make up possible "roadblocks" for Gore's candidacy out of thin air unless, contrary to your previously stated opinion, you want him to fail?