The 2000 election was most noteworthy because of the absence of a wildly popular President in support of his own VP now running for the vacant job. I believe that, despite the flaws of the Gore campaign, and they were noteworthy, despite the damn wooden appearance all too often of the candidate, it was this absence that most impacted the race. He lost to George Bush for gosh sakes!

Of course one has to insert the obligatory ," Gore actually won and his victory was snatched from him blah blah". I do believe it, really , but history has been written and we move on.

The single most annoying thing I got from this piece is the assumption, and it is a correct one, that the election is a popularity contest, it is a race to gather the most money, it is a contest between those who strive to mouth the most platitudes, make the least meaningful speeches and that we the people want it that way...BAH! We do get the government we deserve.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Oct 18, 2007 at 8:09:16 PM

  (0+)

Ardee,

Thanks for your comment.

However the basic assumption of the piece is the opposite of what you assume. In 2000, Gore was so busy trying to appease different parts of the electorate, that he forgot to think through who he was and what he really believed in.

It was when he set this pandering to popular opinion aside and started saying what he really believed and what he stood for that he started to connect with people.

That's the issue with the lead candidate today. It's a question of authenticity. Who is she? What does she stand for? What does she believe in? Can she communicate that compellingly to the electorate?

If she is perceived as focused mainly on calculating what will work with which segment of the electorate, then she risks suffering the same fate as Gore.

by SteveDenning (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Thursday, Oct 18, 2007 at 9:12:54 PM

  (0+)

In a political climate wherein every word of every speech is poll driven, where every plank of the platform is carefully crafted to appear one thing to the voter and quite another to the campaign contributor your request for principled honesty is fallen upon deaf ears.

I honestly believe that what you seek from a candidate can only be found in the third party world.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 8:44:23 AM

  (0+)

Ardee,

If we expect the worst, that's what we'll get. If we insist on principle and authenticity, then there is a chance, perhaps not a large chance, but nevertheless a chance, that we'll get it.

by SteveDenning (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 8:59:37 AM

  (0+)

First of all, every press recount of the Florida vote showed that by any methodology, Gore won Florida. The American public were slapped in the face by a Supreme Court that cited "irreparable harm" to George W. Bush as a justification for halting the vote count in Florida and awarding the presidency to someone who had not earned it and did not deserve it. What about the irreparable harm to Gore done by failing to count all votes? What about the clearly unconstitutional decision NOT to count votes? What about the complete disregard for state's rights and legal process in Florida? What about the civil rights of Florida voters?

As a second point, I must remind the author of the disgraceful treatment of Gore by the national mainstream media. How could anyone hope to establish a positive message or image with the distortions and lies constantly broadcast in the most snide and sophomoric manner? It was like a pack of jealous prep school wannabes piling on the valedictorian. If you need a reminder or convincing, please read Paul Krugman's article, "Gore Deragement Syndrome."

by nellie blogger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:14:52 PM

  (0+)

I agree, Nellie, that you can point fingers at the Supreme Court and at the national media and think, "If only..." However long before the Supreme Court got into the act, Al Gore was setting himself up to lose by having failed to master the basics of the language of leadership.  
At the time, he came across as an unlikeable candidate who could not connect with the electorate. You can say that the national media weren’t fair to Gore, but the fact is that they were drawing attention to flaws that became plainly visible to 90 million Americans during the first presidential debate.  As I explain in the Introduction to my book, those flaws were not dreamed up by the national media. They are there on the record for everyone to see. The national media indeed unanimously declared that Gore had “won” that debate, but the people decided otherwise.
The situation of the “obvious” Democratic nominee is eerily similar to that of Gore in 1999. Again, you can blame the national media for drawing attention to her lack of mastery of the language of leadership. But unless those flaws are remedied, they will become all too obvious when the campaign really gets under way.

Like Gore in 1999, Hillary is said to be charming and personable in small groups. But unless and until she can learn how to project that a larger audience, she will remain a very vulnerable presidential candidate. As the example of Al Gore shows, this is not a particularly difficult problem to solve. However she needs to solve it before the election, not after.

by SteveDenning (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 6:05:38 AM

  (0+)

I think Steve is essentially right here.  While Gore may have had a tight and close electoral race (the popular race was anything but) stolen from him by the Supreme Court, there is no reason it HAD to be that close.

Had Gore run a better race, he would have TROUNCED Bush in the popular count and been far enough ahead in the electoral count that just stealing Florida wouldn't have been enough for Bush.

Greg Palast said this in a speech before the 2006 election: "We have to win it so big that they can't steal it."

This will be the same in 2008, and if the Democratic Candidate can't have all the progressives, all the left of centers, all of the centers, and some of the right of centers in their camp, then they are doing something wrong.

The "base" of the criminal, lying, cheating, stealing, immoral Rethuglican Party is around 25%.  Add to that another 10% that can be gotten through bribary and lying, and they should get 35% in the next election.  If the Democratic Candidate is dull, centrist, uninspired, and poll-driven, they will give the Rethuglicans the additional 12% they need to get up to 47% where they will be well within the "margin of theft."

Look for another 51% victory by the Rethuglicans and the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 1:23:34 PM

  (0+)

Maybe Democrat's could do things differently.  But, I blame the MSM and 4th Estate for the loss of these elections.

The GOP will lie, cheat, and kill to stay in power.  They will attack a Democrat's strengths and turn them into weaknesses.  This strategy only works with a compliant media.  The GOP is in power because they cheat to stay in power.  For all of Scalia's "originalist" constitutional arguments, at the end of the day SCOTUS invented a one-time decision to get "their guy" in power. 

The media never questioned, scrutinized or investigated with zeal the Bush naratives (National Guard Service, Harken, drunk driving, missing records, cocaine use, etc.).  He got a free pass.

The only language problem that exists is the publication of the truth.  Whether it is the honest sentiments of the troops, or the citizens of Iraq.  It's okay to out secret agents, torture, treat people in USA custody inhumanely, as long as its outside our borders. 

The will of the people has been traded to a mere handfull of media conglomerates.  And that's the language of money and power.

by sdk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 1:21:49 AM

  (0+)

It’s easy, sdk, to blame those those shameless Republicans or the Supreme Court, and they certainly played their role in Gore’s defeat. But the fact is that Gore set himself up to lose. He had every possible advantage going into the election, except that he was an unlikeable candidate who wasn’t sure who he was, someone who tended to fudge the facts, someone who didn’t connect with the electorate.  

Those flaws were not invented by the national media. They became visible to the entire electorate in the first presidential debate, of which the national media, remember, declared Gore the “winner”.

A good proportion of the electorate took a look at Gore and decided that they didn’t want to have to listen to this guy lecturing them for another four years. And so Gore created the opening for the Supreme Court to determine the result. The reality is that Gore should have been so far ahead that the Supreme Court should not have been in the picture at all.

What I’m suggesting is that Democrats would do well to learn the lessons from this experience. Like Al Gore, they can develop the capability to project authenticity and to connect with the electorate, if they take the trouble to learn. It would be better for them to do it now, rather than after the election.

by SteveDenning (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 6:19:45 AM

  (0+)

Yes, commenters are right that the electon was stolen by the Supreme court traitors to democracy.

Yes, the media was not fair to Gore.

But if Gore had done as Steve suggests, as Gore finally woke up to-- being a leader, true to his principals, rather than trying to pander... then Gore would have resonated with the voters far more and the Supremes would not have had the opportunity to decide an election that was so close. Gore would have won in a landslide.

Now, the question is, which candidates meet the leadership criteria. Lately, I've been unsuprised by Hillary's failure to meet it, disappointed by Obama's unwillingless to meet it and surprised by Chris Dodd's repeated straight out leadership, again and again, in the senate, taking stands. John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have also done a great job. What's your take? 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 7:36:03 AM

  (0+)

Before Al Gore was a VP he chaired a meeting of physicists around the world. An East Indian scientist came home to his wife from the meetings (my physician at time she tells me this account )and made this statement. "I believe I have met a future president of the US! He not only was an exceptional listener but he could converse with us on our subject!" A very intelligent man. Unfortunately, like Bob Dole, he appeared wooden and stiff. Only twice have i appeared on TV in my life, and it was a gruesome experience. Those lights are horrid. Couldn't wait to get off the show. But then again, TV does not tell the truth. It has conditioned the public to look for looks, charisma, and showmanship.(no one saw the fear and infantilisim behind Bush's facade?). Thank goodness TV was not around when Abe Lincoln was elected. Granted, Gore may have had other flaws, but SO WHAT in comparison to his intelligence,international expertise, and many other accomplishments. Too bad GWB's resume wasn't circulated at time of election. TV does not reveal The truth. Dennis Kucinich has spark, fiestiness,honesty, hard worker, has been poor, and has courage to walk his talk. So does Gravel and Ron Paul. These three are the true representatives of our great nation and who speak truly for the people of this nation.So does Edwards.I am weary, and have been for months now, to read of the vast sums of money raised by these people. I seek a president with moral courage, intelligence, honesty, who has definite goals, plans, ideas, solutions for our ills and who states them clearly, consistently. I am not voting for fundraisers. Let the top runners join PR firms. Give me a Kucinich/Gravel, Kucinich/Edwards, or Gravel anyday. Obama should have waited until 2012, and Hilary is as article describes her. She reminds me of the story of the Turtle and the Hare. Up front, winning far too early too fast. Who will be the Turtle?

by Joyce (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 10:20:11 AM

  (0+)

Rob

You ask which candidate is speaking the language of leadership?

The first, and often the most difficult, story to get straight, is the leader's own story. For any kind of enduring enthusiasm to emerge, this story must "hang together" -- be consistent with the known facts -- and the leader must believe in this story intensely and act consistently with it.

As we look at some of the candidates, we see obvious problems on this front.

Edwards: How does he reconcile his interest in helping the poor and sensible energy policy with his 28,000 square feet house?

Clinton: What are her real goals in life? Is it: "We're in it to win it." What does she feel most intensely about? How does she feel about Bill? What is her life about? Is it about winning? Or something else?

In both these cases, the question is: Is there an authentic story that the candidate could tell that could put the disparate pieces of their life together in a coherent fashion? Or is this just another politician bobbing and weaving to win the nomination and the election? What's his/her story?

Once the candidate's own authentic story is in place, then one can move on.

But while this story is still fuzzy, and the candidate's commitment to it, unclear, or the actual behavior inconsistent with it, we never really get to first base.

With these kind of issues lurking in the background, it's going to be hard for them craft any story that will generate enthusiasm for their cause.

by SteveDenning (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:17:57 PM

  (0+)