Would the media sandbag Gore again?

Shakes gives Howard Fineman the righteous reproof he deserves for this pissy little anecdote:

In Washington the other day, I got a chance to tell Al Gore something I’d meant to say for a long time, which was that I thought his real strength, his real contribution, was as an observer—writer, explainer, outsider—and not as a politician.

The new movie about him was evidence of that, I said. He gave me a blank, dismissive look, and an “umm” for a verbal response.

I’ve known and covered Gore for decades, so maybe his reaction was inspired by Groucho Marx, who always said that he would never join a club that would have him as a member. But I think the brusque reply carried a different message: don’t assume that I’m ready to be put out to that pasture just yet. [MSNBC]

I think Al Gore would make a very good president. He'd probably even run a good campaign.

However, I think Gore's supporters are underestimating how much the pundits hate Gore, and how much the pundit popularity contest matters in American presidential politics.

In 2000, Gore ran a decent campaign as the VP of the most popular president in living memory. Yet, somehow the election was still close enough for the Republicans to steal in Florida.

Gore's public persona wasn't as polished as it could have been, but the real problem was that the mainstream media wouldn't cut him a break. They decided early on to cast him as the stiff, arrogant, geeky, unlikable, stuffed shirt.

When Gore didn't do anything wrong, the press made up "fibs" to pin on him. Gore never claimed to have invented the internet, or to have inspired Love Story. Yet, the press kept repeating these truthy little chestnuts, even after they had been debunked. At first they warned him against being cold and haughty. Then when he followed their advice and warmed up his demeanor, they slagged him for being phony and desperate.

The media sandbagged Gore the first time around, and they still hate him.

The Fineman anecdote that brought down Shakes' wrath is a continuation of the same silly high school narrative. Fineman deliberately put Gore in an awkward position, just so he could write about how Gore seemed awkward.

Gore fans love the idea of payback. It is satisfying to imagine a good guy like Al Gore finally getting his due, after all those years in the wilderness. However, if you can understand the appeal of this narrative, you can also see why the press will fight Gore every step of the way.

They decided a long time ago that they didn't like him, and that we shouldn't either. They didn't like riding his bus. They didn't like paying attention to his "wonky" speeches. They didn't feel like reading his policy papers or analyzing his arguments. It was more fun to spin fables about the Eastern Stiff facing off against the Texas Everyman. So, they undermined him.

If Gore run in 2008, he'll be seeking payback from the press as much as from the Republicans. He'll be setting out to prove the media wrong, and the media won't like it one bit.

Comments

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

I agree with a lot of this, and there's one thing I'd like to add. It's unlikely that the media's Gore-hatred will abate after he wins an election. It's probably going to dog him for the next four or eight years, diminishing his effectiveness when he tries to push for liberal proposals we support.

Still, I'd take him over HRC easily.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I agree, Neil. I'd absolutely prefer AG to HRC.

[Letigre]

Great post. Setting one up for the fall, framing the discourse to favor one over another, choosing a candidate who will cater to what the power structure dictates, backstabbing 'friends', dishonorable intentions, nefarious motivations, celebrity journalism, greed, power...yep, there's more to politics (and neo-journalism) than what meets the public's eye....even a leak only tells a fraction of the truth.

Since Rupert Murdoch and conservative-southern-democrat-turned-conservative-northeastern-Joe-Lieberman-wannabe-democrat Hillary Clinton seem to be chummy with one another, than surely Gore will be sandbagged by the media if he attempts to run against her in the primary. Same goes with little-big-man Feingold if he chooses to run (no doubt his divorce will be brought up).

But hey, anyone will be better than the self-proclaimed 'Master of Low Expectations' we have now.

[cfrost]

“pissy little anecdote” LOL. The 2000 campaign still bewilders me. The press fawned like puppies over the vapid little Prince of Texas and completely abdicated their responsibility for reportage, much less analysis. We actually had to wait for George Will, of all people, to raise the issue of (his own word) “gravitas”. Alexandra Pelosi’s documentary “Journeys with George” is required viewing for this subject, for what it reveals both deliberately and inadvertently about Emperor Dubya the Cipher (about what you’d expect) and also, alarmingly, about the enervated, superficial, toadying press corps.

[greensmile]

This sounds elitist when I see it written on a screen but I have to wonder: If Gore has an intelligence and a breadth of knowledge that are up to 21st century challenges, maybe his ideas are going to go over the heads of a lot of voters, which is bad enough, but worse 1. some of the stuff he says is going over the heads of some otherwise successful news writers and 2. some of the most important points he wants to make are not reducible to soundbites or exciting enough to help sell advertising. [that latter is a deadly sin in the culture our for-profit media have fashioned and depend upon for their livelihood].

When do we who now subvert or make end runs around that media start to crack this model?

It may be of some relevance to my question to note that on Charlie Rose last night, Brooks, Sullivan, a turd named Frum and some scrawny kid from the Democratic party offices were trying to make sense out of what the Democrats need to do to forge some victories from the slag of the melted repubican war wagons...and Brooks starts talking about Kos and Crashing the Gates like it was a rabble but no longer an ignorable rabble in the democratic camp. Did anyone else catch that segment...I'd love to hear more informed reactions than my own.

[Brian]

I made this argument six years ago, and now it's coming back at me. The 2000 election was a rerun of the 1960 election. The vice president of a successful president finds himself up against a guy seen as young and charasmatic. The public are tired of the status quo, and he loses a tight election.

Eight years later, after chaos and a idiotic foreign war ...

[revere]

I'm not going to defend Howard Fineman or the rest of the gib media Gore bashers, but I'm not ready to jump on the Gore bandwagon either. He sounds great -- now. In fact he sounded great before he became VP. As VP he talked a good environmental talk but he betrayed the environmental movement -- and particularly the grassroots toxics movement of ordinary working people whose towns and homes and families had become contaminated. Ask the folks at the largest hazardous waste incinerator in the world in Ohio whom he promised to help when he was a candidate in 1992 and whom he ignored when the time came.

He sounds great. But he has a bad track record.

[john_m_burt]

Damn, Brian, I've been flogging myself for the sin of missing Nixon, and now you're casting Gore *as* Nixon, which isn;t going to help matters....

[The Phantom]

This had the germ of a serious post, but you just had to ruin it by adding the comment that the Republicans stole Florida. Not to beat this horse to death for the billionth time, but Florida in 2000 was a painfully close election that Bush won. By a very small margin, but a victory, yes, but he won.

If you have real causes of the Gore defeat, ask Ralph Nader, then take Al Gore to lunch and ask him if it was the smartest idea in the universe to have distanced himself from " the most popular president in living memory ".

The " Florida was stolen " is a Goebbels-type big lie. The lie sounds good and may be satisfying to those predisposed to believe it, but I don't think it helped Gore, I don't think it helped Kerry, and I don't think it helps you now.

You have a Republican president who is very low in the polls. If the Dems / Left are ever to have a chance, it is in the next few years. But if you keep trotting out " Florida " and " Impeachment ", the lie and the bullshit, take this to the bank-- you will lose, fair and square, yet again.
--
What did Gore actually say? "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Well that certainly sounds to me like he was claiming to be the political architect of the Internet. Which he was not. He deserved to be mocked on this.

Gore's a smart guy. He's a lot smarter than Bush. He's certainly light years smarter than Kerry. But he should turn his critical analysis inwards once in a while.

[mudkitty]

Republicans stole Florida. It was the first of many disasters in the Bush Regency.

[ballgame]

It's not clear to me how much of the War Against Gore was motivated by some peculiar and mysterious antipathy towards Gore himself, and how much was simply the now-normal hostile treatment even modestly progressive political candidates receive at the hands of the corporate media. The treatment of Gore may have plumbed new depths, but I suspect that has as much to do with the increasingly monolithic nature of the Big Media echo chamber as it does any intrinsic hostility between specific reporters and Gore himself. In the unlikely event Feingold gets the Democratic nod, I'll wager he'll receive much the same kind of coverage ... unless the fault lines in the American economy are openly rupturing at that point and some individual media CEOs realize the country really does need a progressive leader to save it from internal devastation (which also seems unlikely).

I have profoundly mixed feelings about Gore as a presidential candidate. He comes across as smart, funny, and charismatic, and his desire to avert a global ecological catastrophe seems genuine. His forthright rhetorical defense of the Constitution against Bush's claimed Article II powers was intelligent and courageous compared to the AWOL response of too many of his sitting Democratic colleagues. However, IIRC, he also made a highly misleading defense of NAFTA at an important point, which makes it difficult to fully trust his inclination to take the steps needed to salvage the American economy from total subservience to international conglomerates. (It is, of course, a fair question as to whether any likely Democratic administration would be inclined to take such steps.)

That he'd be a vast improvement over any Republican alternative goes without saying. Whether he'd pursue genuinely progressive economic policies as president is an open question.

As to your tedious recycling of the fake Gore/Internet controversy, Phantom, I'll simply cite Newt Gingrich, as quoted by Bob Somerby:

GINGRICH (9/1/00): In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.

[The Phantom]

Be careful about citing Newt Gingrich, another failed politician gussying up his resume for another try at the brass ring. I doubt that you'll want to accept his pronouncements on too many other subjects. This might be the most selective use of a quote in the history of the universe.

Can throw lots of data and quotes on this, but the subject is tired and bringing it up is tired. The plain-English reading of what he said is that he was --the-- leader in creating this technology. He wasn't. He was a supporter, he was a technology oriented guy, but he wildly exaggerated his contribution, and if some exaggerated what he had said, he's the last one to complain.

[Karen M]

"Save the Planet-- Re-elect Al Gore!

I've just started posting/commenting this all over, and would love some help meming it everywhere.

It's short and sweet, and everyone can "get" it.

[The Phantom]

Karen

Good luck to you. The fact is that Gore did get more popular votes in 2000. The weird undemocratic nature of the Electoral College did deprive him of the Presidency, and that slogan plays to that.

You never know what can happen if you play to things that really happened, as opposed to the " We Wuz Robbed in Florida " Goebbelsian canard.

[Cranky Observer]

"--I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president in his current role and in his earlier role as senator." - Vin Cerf, one of the dozen people considered the 'fathers of the Internet', Washington Post, 1999/03/21

And no, this isn't a trivial issue. The Radicals' tactics are to exaggerate, smear, and smear some more, and when the target responds with mere hard factual evidence to reply 'whaaaat evah - that is soo yesterday' and start the next smear without ever replying to the facts.

Cranky

[The Phantom]

Cranky Observer

For a more balanced perspective, see from
Wired Magazine in a contemporary article. Noone's saying the guy was not and is not smart and that he has not made contributions. But he exaggerated in a huge way, and if I recall correctly that was the larger criticism...that the guy exaggerates even more that the average politician, and that is sayin' something.

The media made fun of this exaggeration. Good! Letting it go now, the floor is yours.

[greensmile]

phantom, we have been reading different reports. That certainty you have and keep repeating about Bush "winning" the election is not any more likely to become true by your repetition of it.

I have my doubts, even if I can't call it "stolen" and there are enough irregularities in the FL and OH elections to leave that election's adjudicated outcome permanently clouded. Just go on dismissing that. It still won't make Bush look good.

[The Phantom]

greensmile

The 1960 Presidential Election was stolen. There was immense fraud in Mayor Daley's Chicago, and there was probably just as much in Texas, carrying Illinois for John Kennedy. But you sure never here of that now. And its not just because it happened a long time ago.

In the aftermath of this theft, Nixon ( you know, that bad guy ) was encouraged to challenge the results from the election, but he did not. He didn't want to put the country through a constitutional crisis.

Compare this with the actions of Al Gore and his " hanging chad " army of lawyers in 2000.

There's a lot of urban legend about " Florida " but there is zero fact. Getting entagled in this nonsense and still bringing it up all these years later is fascinating, and more than a little bit sad.

You guys can win elections, with a few good ideas. Instead, you're still whining about " Florida " and how the press called out Al Gore on the silly exaggerations on the Internet. I don't get it.

Keep focusing on Florida. And impeachment, too. If you want to help the Republican Party, I urge you to talk about these things every single day.

[aeroman]

Phantom is right that there's a legit case for there having been some genuine shenanigans in the 1960 election. It's worth pointing out that as much as we treat election tampering as some sort of rare, unthinkable transgression, it's been quite common historically. That's not to say it's not wrong. I'm fairly confident that it probably is wrong, with possible exceptions for extreme cases.

As far as the subject at hand goes, I have no doubt that the press will be just as inexplicably asshole-ish to Gore this time around. The press treatment of Gore has always been a bit of a mystery to me. I understand why they felt authorized to treat Dean the way they have. Other Democrats created that atmosphere. But why did they have such a hard-on for taking down Gore?

[Hank Scorpio]

Phantom is peddling discredited bullshit by trotting out the Kennedy stole Illinois canard.

http://www.slate.com/id/91350/

[R. Mildred]

Could everyone ignore the troll's thread jacking please, is that so much to ask? come on, the nader canard? Pur-leeze, trolly trolly trollington needed feeding did he? Fuck that.

[The Phantom]

Hank Scorpio

Of course a Mayor Daley at the height of his corrupt powers would have never engaged in any fraud. It's impossible to conceive of such a thing.

From a Washington Post article on the subject, which deals with the fact that there never was a recount in Chicago:

" But there was no recount and Kennedy was inaugurated. Not long after that, a still-angry Sen. Dirksen called Cartha DeLoach, who was then assistant director of the FBI. Dirksen demanded that the FBI investigate evidence that the election was stolen.

"I told him that the Department of Justice was investigating this," DeLoach recalls. "I referred him to the attorney general."

At that point, Dirksen asked, sarcastically, "Who's the attorney general?"

"Bobby Kennedy," DeLoach replied.

Dirksen slammed down the phone. "

---

Its no biggie, right? Besides--today's moveon.org and Kos kiddies crowd would have crucified the pro-defense, very anti-Communist JFK. He would be Public Enemy No. 1 to the Democrat Activist Base of today. So you should be happy I point out the fact that this " right winger " JFK stole the election in Chicago. It fits into your conspiracy theories!!

[R. Mildred]

The press treatment of Gore has always been a bit of a mystery to me.

Why? The repugs are corporatists, the media is the corporate media, where's the mystery?

[aeroman]

Phantom: I don't think Hank's disputing that there were misdeeds as part of that election. Certainly, the article he links doesn't dispute it. But the possibility that there were misdeeds doesn't translate rightfully into an assumption that those misdeeds actually decided the outcome of the election. I hate to resort to a tired "you're both right" trope, but really, they're not incompatible positions.

[razor]

Gore is a proven loser. The rest, beside the point now. He had a chance.

Phantom is just a typical jack ass of a breed that has emerged recently, and a nice illustration of why intolerance is necessary to vitue, not to mention progress that 'progressive' touts, and that blog comments must be constantly pruned just as surely as DNA must be constantly repaired.