More on Gore and the media

Greg Sargent has an excellent post about media coverage of Gore's reaction to the media coverage of his last campaign.

Ad Nags is dusting off the old slurs:

But in a feisty and frequently argumentative telephone conversation, Mr. Gore brimmed with disdain at the state of American politics and political journalism, urging his interviewer to quit a career of covering politics to turn to matters of real consequence.

"Stop covering politics; cover the climate crisis. It is not too late!" he said, with a boom of laughter.

"Have you read my book?" he asked a moment later. "Have you seen the movie?" Mr. Gore cluck-clucked at the "not yet but I will" response.

To hear Mr. Gore talk about the state of politics and journalism today — this from a man who has a history in both professions — it is hard to imagine him ever running for office again. Politics, he said, has become a game of meaningless, mindless battles, conducted by unscrupulous methods and people, designed to transform even the most serious policy debates into sport. [NYT]

Adam Nagourney just declared war on Al Gore's candidacy. The narrative is that Gore is a bitter man who hates the press:

Hey, journalists. Al Gore thinks you're stupid. He thinks he's better than you. What a big phony! Just listen to cluck-clucking asshole. He talks all kinds of shit about us, but deep down, he's just wants us to kiss his ass. How pathetic is that? And who does he think he is, anyway? I mean, what kind of twit goes to the environmental reporters to talk about his environment movie. I don't know shit about the environment, but I sure know how important I am! Why doesn't Gore get it?

Comments

[mudkitty]

I'm thinking that with Gore at the top of a Gore/Clinton ticket, no one on earth would be able to resist the pull of that symytry(sic). It would round up all the righties who are leaning towards her (and I know few in real life.) It will pull in all the enviros. It will pull in all the progs. It will pull in all the independents. It will pull in all the immigrant sympathizers. It will pull in all the interest groups from center right to far left. It will pull in all the centrists and moderates. It will pull in all the bread and circus spectical lovers. It will pull in all the women. It will pull in all the vindicators. And it would mesmerize the press.

[John]

If I were Al Gore I wouldn't run for president again. He seems to be pretty happy right now just doing what he's doing, so why throw his hat in the ring and deal with those assholes again?

[bob mcmanus]

"...so why throw his hat in the ring and deal with those assholes again?"

As a public service. Because he has nothing to lose. As a diversion. A Gore/Clinton ticket could be difficult. But Gore running alone in an open war with the media, publicly saying that the media determine elections, not the candidates, parties, issues, or voters; going on full-attack mode, doing his damndest to discredit and expose the boys on the bus...could be revelatory, useful, and keep them off HRC's back.

I happen to like HRC. She is not my preferred candidate, but my preference can't get elected. I think she is a liar and a phony, and this is a good thing. I believe the progressives don't like her because she is a peacenik pretending to be a hawk for political advantage. But open doves will never become President. Bill & Hillary and their crew have probably decided that the big mistake of their Presidency was to not invade Iraq in 1997. Tens of thousands of lives could have been saved, the Iraqi economy thriving, Iran scared or bribed into cooperating, and we would into Gore's second term with a Democratic Congress.

[John]

Personally I'd rather see Feingold run, but I'll be the first to concede that Gore is probably more "electable", partly because Feingold is more liberal and that would alienate some moderates with conservative tendencies. Feingold is also (gasp!) Jewish, and the sizable Israel-loving-but-Jew-hating base of the Republican party would turn out in droves to vote against him. Plus the Republicans also hate him for his censure proposal of Bush. Despite these "strikes" against him (which are "hits" in my book, except for him being a Jew only because I don't care what his religious and ethnic background are), I'd vote for Feingold any day before Gore.

[punkass marc]

John,

Gore should run because he stands at least a tiny chance of actually addressing the environmental threats at hand, and I think he knows that he's one of the few electable people in the country who would be willing to do so. This is very important to him, obviously. Kicking back and watching the world crumble doesn't seem his style.

Lindsay,

Excellent follow-up. Looks like I was maybe too optimistic yesterday. Still, hopefully, if Gore actually announces he's running and the tired tropes from 2000 are brought out reflexively, perhaps a less tolerant reaction from the public will help squash them.

Heck, reading that excerpt, even though it's intended to slam Gore, I think a lot of disaffected moderates may be inclined to say "right on!" Perhaps the "Gore hates politics and the media and is all mean to us wahhh" crap will accidentally make him look like the maverick who won't take no shit from nobody.

I am so schizo on this subject. I can't decide if I am giddily, legitimately optimistic or totally fooling myself. Too weird.

[President Nobody]

Al Gore has moved beyond politics and, in my opinion, has become a better man for it. I don't think that he would run for office, (or at least I hope he wouldn't), because that would entail re-entering the SleazeWorld of American Politics...something I think he is smart enough to not want to dirty himself with, ever again.

[John Emerson]

As I was saying before flaming was experienced:

I highly recommend Jamison Foser's The defining issue of our time is the media".

Neither Gore nor Kerry responded effectively to the media's dishonest coverage, but Gore and Kerry were not attacked because of anything about them personally. There is no Democratic candidate whatsoever who will not receive exactly the same treatment.

The question is NOT "Who should we nominate?" It's "How can we neutralize / bypass the media?"

More at my URL, including Somerby's reminder that Gore was not trashed by anonymous surrogates of any type, but by the Times and the Post.

[Alon Levy]

Adam Nagourney just declared war on Al Gore's candidacy. The narrative is that Gore is a bitter man who hates the press:

How is that different from the right's shrill attacks on the media, which have slowly pulled it to the right and made it afraid to criticize Bush too much?

Personally I'd rather see Feingold run, but I'll be the first to concede that Gore is probably more "electable", partly because Feingold is more liberal and that would alienate some moderates with conservative tendencies.

On the contrary, Feingold is far more electable than Gore, despite his liberalism. Unelectable candidates don't win Senate reelection races in swing states by 12-point margins. Feingold's reputation for honesty and representing the little man, and his ability to turn cultural liberalism into a winning issue, are invaluable to the Democrats in 2008. In contrast, Gore's ability to connect urban liberal issues with populism is lacking; there are plenty of ways to turn environmentalism into a populist issue, but for Gore populism and environmentalism have always been opposite poles.

I'm thinking that with Gore at the top of a Gore/Clinton ticket, no one on earth would be able to resist the pull of that symytry(sic). It would round up all the righties who are leaning towards her (and I know few in real life.)

No, no, no... HRC's a faux liberal who should never be elected to anything, down to and including dogcatcher. Like Kerry, she's a flipflopper; she was one of the leaders of the speak-against-the-war-and-then-vote-for-it movement. In addition, her weak ability to connect to the people makes her far less electable than Warner, who is about as liberal as she is.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Well I love Hillary Clinton (in spite of the comments about college graduates expecting too much), but the sad truth is that no matter who's running, the problems facing us won't be possible to resolve, even with a conscientious person at the helm. I'm afraid our fall as a nation won't be complete until a Democrat president has a term as miserable as Bush's is. My only hope is that a few public works projects, like rebuilding New Orleans, might be quietly taken on.

I predict that a Democrat, either a competent one or an incompetent like Bush, will again be elected, but elected to a job that's impossible to do properly.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Some of the problems, by the way, being:

- Iraq and the Middle East

- Our economy and our financial system, following the fall of the dollar as the world's reserve trading currency, which fall is taking place as we speak.

[Karen M]

Not only do I not want to see Hillary run at the top of the ticket in 2008, I wouldn't want to see her at the bottom, either. Let her wait a bit longer. I would love to see a woman elected as president, but I don't really think she would be elected. Besides, wouldn't she really be a better Supreme Court justice anyway? She seems to have a more judicious than executive temperament, which would be great for the Court, but right now is driving everyone else bonkers.

A few months ago, when I still thought Gore would definitely not run again, I did a post about Feingold/Conyers: A Heartland Ticket, that I thought would nullify the respective baggage of the two coasts, the northeast, and the south, and instead balance everything right there in the midwest. The religion/race/ethnicity issues could make it an interesting ticket, and given their progressive records, would draw in the coasts. Another thing: they've both been carrying the water for their respective houses, and deserve recognition for their leadership.

More recently, though, I have been hoping that Gore might run, not by throwing his hat in the ring, but by being drafted at the convention. If that happened, I really don't think money would be as big an issue for him as some of the pundits think it would be in a typical primary race. The shock & awe value would be worth a lot of free press, and wouldn't the press also have to play a lot of catch-up journalism, trying to figure out what happened (unless they just spun their way out of it...)

There would be a good field of vp candidates to choose from, either by Gore, or by the convention. I don't know enough to know exactly how that would work in such a case, but wonder if it might make sense to vote in primaries for candidates who couldn't win, if only to elect some non-committed delegates?

In the meantime, I am posting & commenting: "Save the Planet-- Re-elect Al Gore!"

(Which implies that Florida really was stolen-- but without saying it outright-- as well as the obvious fact, that while under GWB's clueless leadership we might all perish, under Gore's wonkier leadership, important fields like Science will once again receive their due, etc., etc., etc.)

[John]

Alon,

I sincerely hope you're right about Feingold's electability because I think he'd make a great president, though I temper that with the knowledge that 1984 could be right about any president being able to do the job properly. If we could win back both houses of Congress by 2008 then I think President Feingold (doesn't that sound nice?) could do a lot of good, or at least undo a lot of the bad that will be Bush's legacy. He would certainly have his work cut out for him. Here are just a few issues that need prompt attention, in no particular order:

- Iraq
- Afghanistan
- Israel
- War on terror, including Gitmo
- Repairing America's image & international relations
- Reducing the deficit
- Stopping warrantless domestic spying
- Energy
- Health care
- Environment
- Immigration
- Reproductive rights
- Ending "faith-based" initiatives, i.e., separating church and state again
- Rebuilding the Gulf Coast
- Improving our preparedness for disasters
- Education
- LGBT rights
- Passing a flag-burning amendment

Okay, that last one was a joke, just to see if the class was paying attention. Don't forget about the test this Friday, people, and I'm NOT going to grade on a curve. Well, technically my graduate assistants will be doing the grading, but I've given them very strict instructions....to not disturb me until happy happy hour is over at the 18th Amendment. Maybe I'll see some of you there. Extra-credit for anyone who can show the goddamn bartender how to make a decent Bloody Mary. Jesus, it ain't fuckin' rocket surgery! Now where's that bottle of Yukon...

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

>I am so schizo on this subject. I can't decide if I am giddily, legitimately optimistic or totally fooling myself. Too weird

If my prediction comes true, then you are legitimately optimistic to hope for another Democratic Party victory at some point. However, I think the totally fooling ourselves part will come in if, like a George W. Bush supporter expecting a return to the more-confident Reagan years, we expect our new Democratic Party candidate to return us to the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. They won't. John's list of items that need prompt attention is certainly apt, but the fact is that:

1) China is arming up. Many believe that they'll never risk the economic and financial advantages of their trade with America, but I think that such people confuse China with America. China is surrounded by countries with huge, million-person armies, and nuclear weapons. Their trade with the US will take a back seat to military security issues for them, and their tensions with neighbors that we're allied with, like Japan and perhaps Taiwan, will unfortunately boil over before the next President is out of office.

2) The Dollar is falling. Since China announced that they're pegging their currency no longer to the Dollar, but to a basket of currencies including the Yen, the Euro, and the South Korean Won, China and Japan have both stopped propping up our Dollar. Last year, China stopped buying Treasury Bonds; Japan not only stopped buying them, but actually sold off about 19 billion dollars' worth. Norway also sold 19 billion dollars' worth of our bonds, and that's a bigger deal for Norway, because Norway only had 36 billion dollars' worth to begin with. Last year, as these nations began selling off dollar bonds, others stepped in to buy them, to bolster the dollar's worth. Among the buyers were Germany and South Korea, which have huge, influential manufacturing sectors, which would be hurt by a fall of the dollar and a rise in the Won and the Euro. But the main bulk of the buyers were unnamed concerns buying through Caribbean and London banks. We don't know who these buyers are. People have guessed that it's the oil cartel, which mostly still deals in dollars and sits on huge stockpiles of dollars, or that the US government itself is propping up the dollar. But if China and Japan are getting out of the dollar, then others will follow suit soon enough, and the dollar will no longer be the world's trading currency. Interest rates will rise, the stock market will fall, and coupled with the softening of the housing market, this will all lead to a decrease in private spending. Public works projects, like the Works Progress Administration under Roosevelt, aren't in vogue now, so I think it will take some Hoovervilles before someone throws us a lifeline. But what's going to be going on with the war in the Middle East by that time, I don't know.

These situations will combine so that even a very competent Democrat president couldn't make a silk purse out of the sow's ear he or she will be handed. Don't be surprised if, presuming that the dollar falls before the 2004 election, Republican leadership steps aside and lets the Democrats take the election so that they can scapegoat them like Carter. R: "After you." D: "Oh, really? Thank you so much! I guess the Republicans have become kind, haven't they?"

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Nevertheless, John, I hope that whoever's there listens to you. I wouldn't be surprised if some positive things actually get done during the next administration, even if things are generally screwed.

[Alon Levy]

I sincerely hope you're right about Feingold's electability because I think he'd make a great president, though I temper that with the knowledge that 1984 could be right about any president being able to do the job properly. If we could win back both houses of Congress by 2008 then I think President Feingold (doesn't that sound nice?) could do a lot of good, or at least undo a lot of the bad that will be Bush's legacy.

One of the good things about Feingold is his ability to work with Republicans on issues that aren't clearly ideological. On the other hand, I think that if the Democrats fail to win back Congress in November it will be entirely due to their own wanton incompetence, so it may not matter that much.

He would certainly have his work cut out for him. Here are just a few issues that need prompt attention, in no particular order:

Most of these issues aren't that urgent. Right now, the two most urgent problems are by far the deficit and Iraq. China and Japan's jumping ship will hurt the US a lot less if it starts paying off the national debt. It'd of course be simplistic to say that the entire deficit can be slashed by repealing Bush's tax cut and leaving Iraq, but these two would seriously reduce it. Of course it may not be politically feasible to repeal the tax cut, but assuming it is, it will do a lot of good.

Urgent problem #3 in the making is Iran, which is much, much more complex than Iraq, in that there are multiple players involved. The problem is that even if the President of the United States is someone who wants to make things better, as opposed to rattle sabers to increase his approval rates, he needs to a) back down without letting Ahmadinejad claim victory and b) make sure Olmert doesn't do anything stupid.

The other problems are real and deserve prompt attention, but they're less urgent, or relatively easy to fix (e.g. health care can be universalized without increasing government spending by a cent).

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Iran. Yikes. We think of them as a third-world country, and they are in many ways, but their military is huge. And, since their wars with Iraq, they haven't exhausted themselves the way we have. I think if we go after Iran, it'll be like that scene where Richard Pryor "loud-talks Little Seymour," not realizing that the little man has martial arts skills. Though their anti-Israel rhetoric is loathsome, and their pursuit of nukes worrisome, I continue to feel that Iran are much more conservative than we think, in the sense of not wanting to randomly nuke people if they get nukes.

[mudkitty]

I just think that with Gore at the top of the ticket, he and Hill could cast the widest net.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

That too.

[Mike Nilsen]

Gore is right. The reporters are biased, untalented, trivia-obsessed and uninformed. But they've arrogated themselves the role of kingmaker. How dare he have the nerve to not kiss their asses? How good a President a candidate would be is directly proportional to how willing they are to make a clown of themselves for the press corps, right?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Gore is absolutely right about the media, and global warming, and the war, and a lot of other things. The question is whether his one-man war against the press would be a liability if he were to seek the Democratic nomination, or the presidency in 2008. I think the answer to that question is an unequivocal "yes."

Any progressive candidate will have a tough time with the press. That's a systematic problem with we need to address by creating progressive media. We need a full-fledged progressive noise machine to counterbalance the ideological right wing media and the corporate media who love pop and fluff and hate policy. However, Al Gore has problems over and above the average progressive candidate. He hates the press and the press hate him. The battle lines have already been drawn.

Ezra Klein took the Nagourney interview as a signal from Gore that he's not planning to seek the nomination. I hadn't considered that angle until Ezra pointed it out, but on reflection I think Ezra nailed it.