The War Against Gore
| Mon Oct. 27, 2008 4:39 PM PDT
THE WAR AGAINST GORE....Today Bob Somerby finds yet another excuse to remind us all of how badly Al Gore was treated by the press during the 2000 campaign. And, as usual, he's pissed that the rest of us aren't as obsessed by this as he is:
To this day, our side has agreed to keep its traps shut about the trashing of the Clintons and Gore. As we've done so, we've given away a giant political advantage. Millions of people [] hear that the press corps just hates Big Republicans. And they rarely hear a peep from our side. We've agreed not to tell them the truth.
In large part, our side has kept its traps shut about the Clinton/Gore era for corrupt, careerist reasons....Kevin won't tell you. Josh won't tell you. Ezra spoke once, then shut the f*ck up. Your "nominal allies" are very quiet. Atrios rarely offers a peep.
First things first: Yes, Gore was indeed treated badly. He never said he invented the internet, he never said he discovered Love Canal, he wore pretty much the same clothes he'd always worn, he didn't hire Naomi Wolf to teach him how to be an alpha male, and he wasn't a serial liar. Etc. Bob is right about all that stuff.
But here's what I don't get: why does Bob think that liberals are giving away a "giant political advantage" by not harping on this constantly? Frankly, I'd be delighted to harp away if I actually thought this was one of the top 100 issues that might help the future of liberalism, but it's not, is it? Media criticism in general helps our side, but what exactly would it gain us to relate everything back to Al Gore's decade-old mistreatment with the Ahab-like intensity that Bob does? Wouldn't it just cause everyone to tune us out as cranks and fogeys? Anyone care to weigh in on this, on either side?
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by neill (not verified) on Mon Oct. 27, 2008 4:42 PM PDT.
just daydreaming about al gore as enviro protection czar or energy, or or or...
as for old fogeys... why kevin, i'm 59, and you dont look quite that yet... relax...
(but stay off my lawn)
Submitted by Craig (not verified) on Mon Oct. 27, 2008 4:42 PM PDT.
Well, "Remember the Butterfly Ballot!" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "Remember the Alamo!" But it is worth remembering our history a few times a year, even if only for the young ones coming online.
The 2000 election was a tragedy for the nation. But the world didn't stop in 2000. Bob, as good as he is at what he does, doesn't seem to recognize this.
It's a bit like the Republicans who constantly harken back to Reagan, not realizing that this is a very different world 28 years later.
Senator Obama's approach to unfair or inappropriate criticism directed at him works better: respond quickly, using all of the tools that the web gives us, but be cool and brush it off in public. I hope that his success means that this becomes a model for others.
Wouldn't it just cause everyone to tune us out as cranks and fogeys?
I know it's caused this diehard liberal to tune out Somerby for quite a while now. He's just lost the plot. It's a shame, because he used to be an important and enjoyable read. Now he's irrelevant. Actually, he's become an object lesson in how not to fight for a progressive agenda.
I'm sure Bob could give a poop about what you think about him.
To me it is an injustice that more people didn't speak up for Gore the way people spoke up for Hillary and/or Obama this time. I see it as a cautionary tale and I, for one (and maybe Bob) have some regret at what could have been if we had rallied around Gore instead of being bored by him.
Thank goodness the blogger boys are around to help get the word out when Obama is being attacked, so Obama doesn't have to be limited to the mainstream media to try to get a fair shake.
Surely the whole fiasco has taught the left & blogosphere about dealing with the press.
Lesson 1) Whining about coverage never works.
Lesson 2) See lesson 1.
The entire premise of sites like "crooks and liars" is to document the atrocities, misstatements.
why does Bob think that liberals are giving away a "giant political advantage" by not harping on this constantly?
I'll tell you why.
There's a great, vast majority of the voting public that still believes the "media" has a liberal bias; that Republicans are strong on foreign policy and Democrats are weak appeasers; that John McCain is a straight-talking maverick.
In short, any Democrat in almost any race starts with a serious handicap. Why? Because elements within the Washington press corps have been telling voters strange tales, not just in this election cycle, but for the last 16 years.
The "War Against Gore" wasn't the only example of this bizarre conduct, but it was the most egregious. Most of the public doesn't know about it because only "obsessives" like Bob Somerby will tell them.
Let's put it as plain as we can: The press threw an election to George W. Bush for no reason other than to satisfy their own vanity. The disastrous history of the last eight years is attributable to the behavior of the press in the 2000 election.
Some people, Kevin, still don't want to talk about it.
Submitted by Howard (not verified) on Mon Oct. 27, 2008 5:02 PM PDT.
I deeply admire Al Gore and believe he got majorly hosed by the go-along-to-get-along media being led by the nose via Repug talking points.
There is value in understanding how and why it happened. Not to dwell on the outrage. That's just stupid and self-destructive. But it's good to remind ourselves again and again how and why to make damned sure it never fucking happens again.
Here's the thing: Somerby is calling out the liberal web for:
a) not talking about this in real time, when it could have made a difference.
b) when they do talk about it now, they act like it was Republicans, and not the actual media, who were at fault.
He has documented, in extensive detail, the when and how of this sorry state of affairs. It is only because he has been harping on it all these years that "conventional wisdom" has changed.
Somerby is most concerned that the liberal web is becoming like the media circa 2000: enmeshed in groupthink, and willing to distort the truth or believe a distorted truth (his "howlers") if it serves our interests. I don't know him personally, but it seems like he wants us to honestly discuss the issues. How would that hurt our discourse?
You are exactly right Kevin. One of the most unpleasant aspects of modern Republicanism and Fundamentalist Christianomy is their constant whining and harping... oh, everyone is biased against us, and oh everyone hates us ( oh boo hoo )...
We liberals and progressives should stick to our courage, integrity, compassion, and intellectual bearing in political matters. In the long run, it will pay the highest dividends.
Gore will go down in the history books as the better candidate who had the presidency stolen from him, and then went on to contribute in a different way, eventually winning both a Nobel and an Oscar. Bush will be the abject failure whose maladministration eventually produced the second Great Depression, not to mention failed wars, titanic deficits, and a tsunami of criminal conduct. Gore should have been president, but at least the historical comparison will have a measure of justice in it.
WRT how to deal with MSM's corporate bias, there's nothing to be gained by complaining about Gore's treatment in 2000. In any case there have been too many more recent atrocities for us to want to go back and unearth those from two election cycles ago.
I absolutely agree that we dems have a strategic disadvantage in that we are less atuned to a basic principle that almost always give you a longterm advantage.
You should stick up for your guy, as long as he is on your team. If he was wronged, you should in a principled and consistent way make the argument, and try to punish those who wronged him.
If you do, then he will stick up for you, and he will have confidence that you got his back. If you don't he may either next time see that incentives are stronger to betray you and play for the other team or he may end up resentful and feeling betrayed.
It's bad for morale, and it makes us weaker.
Somerby does good work and should get credit for that work. But he's also a one-trick pony, even if the trick is exactly what most of the media outlets should be reflecting on. Once, after reading dozens of angry Somerby posts and despairing about how to make it All Go Away, I wrote a desperate e-mail to him. "What can we DO?" I asked. He had nothing, and although he responded, he responded with nothing. He points out, but he cannot solve. His schtick is to point out how Al Gore was trashed -- duh -- but he really doesn't know what to do beyond pointing out. God bless him, but he doesn't have solutions, he only has gripes. The fact that he has the right gripes does not preclude the fact that he has no solutions.
Jape:
You pointed out the difference in my tone commenting about the Japanese experience. When I wrote the first comment, few weeks ago, about Japanese being happy and productive despite a sinking Nikkei, I was calm and collected. When I wrote the second comment, last night, about consequences of not doing the right thing, it was a bit emotional. When you watch the tickers as closely as I do, sharp, abnormal moves in indexes have an emotional impact.
Hope this explains the difference in tone. I do think that once we get past the current wild swings and settle down, we will accept the market reality and return to happy, productive lives.
"Here's the thing: Somerby is calling out the liberal web for:
a) not talking about this in real time, when it could have made a difference."
---------------------
To tell you the truth, there wasn't really such a thing as a "liberal web" in 2000.
As far as Kevin's question, I think that the answer is that Somerby has a screw loose. I stopped reading him two years ago and don't miss him at all.
Remember that horrible car crash when Steve was driving and he kept saying no, no we should drive through the woods and we all said the road was good for driving and Steve says no, no the stupid road is just made of glue and will get our tires all gummed up and we decided not to say anything about how the road was actually not made of glue, but instead made of good-for-driving-on asphalt?
We should have said something then about how Steve was full of crap.
And now, after we've crashed and miraculously the car still kind of runs, good ol' Steve is going on and on about how we told him to drive through the woods and how we all told him that the road was made of glue. So now he says we should get back on the road, which is fine by us so we all say okay that's great, let's be bygones be bygones and not bring up the fact that Steve's just being a big crazy liar who drove us into the woods and crashed our car?
Bob's the guy saying we should let someone else drive. Why anyone thinks he's crazy is beyond me.
Submitted by Chuchundra (not verified) on Mon Oct. 27, 2008 5:33 PM PDT.
There a threshold past which talking about past injustices just makes you sound like a crank. Sommerby passed that line like five years ago.
Does anyone sane really think that harping on stuff that happened eight years ago to Al Gore would help the Democrats one bit in this election? Of course not. It would just make us sound like idiots.
Submitted by Mark Adams (not verified) on Mon Oct. 27, 2008 5:36 PM PDT.
Wouldn't it just cause everyone to tune us out as cranks and fogeys?
I tuned Bob out a couple of years ago, Kevin. The day he updates his site to at least 1986 levels of technology (think Drudge without the sirens) I might tune in again if he installs an RSS feed.
As it is, I have to make a special effort to visit him instead of being attracted by an interesting heading, and I am usually disappointed by the same old Gore/Clinton recriminations.
Now he's pissed at Ezra and you and some others who happen to be moving up the career ladder.
Jealous much?
Somerby was Gore's college roommate. If he can accuse
Keven Drum, Atrios, and Ezra Klein of being corrupt and careerist, the least I can do is accuse him of turning the personal into the political.
James: The Tribune itself endorsed Obama.
There was an ad for maybe TNR online this year that, had a picture of Gore and the tagline "What he invented the internet for". People have been dismissing Bob as mad for years. And still the lies about Gore go on. He's not mad, he's furious.
At a time when many are claiming that the treatment of Palin is the worst meted out to any candidate, trying to persuade people that she has been treated unfairly, surely it's worth a straightforward rebuttal?
What happened to Gore is just an object lesson. The point is that the media is largely controlled by monied interests which are naturally inclined to support Republican positions and candidates. And because they are highly partisan they are at war for their positions in a fairly well organized year after year fashion. Some of the left media does not attack these interests because they want jobs at the places these interests represent. Others are simply morons that have bad memories or are simply hypocrites. Because we tend to not want to think of ourselves as co-opted or hypocrites we tend to memory hole the fights ducked or thrown in the past, in particular the Clintons and Gore. Bob represents memory. And it's a good reminder. And i think he picks on you, Kevin, because he respects you as an analyst and wonders why the impactful liberal bloggers don't call out media bias and incompetence more forcefully. At the end of the day, if the media can't be forced to address the issues, are going to continue to bitch about candidates that give wonkish policy speeches, then we are going to have to continue to live in a political culture driven by winks and sighs, clothes and haircuts, and beer drinking buddy-ability and other such crap. One might think that if Obama is successful it's the end of the old politics and the start of a new one based on issues. Or one might think that at the first sign of trouble, Maureen Down will pull out Obambi and turn him into a wife whipped pussy and keen for how we had the opportunity to elect a real man: Sarah Palin.
Submitted by Zeno (not verified) on Mon Oct. 27, 2008 6:14 PM PDT.
I remember bombarding the Gore campaign with requests for a webpage on the campaign site that provided detailed rebuttals to the smears being launched against the vice president. It was a good idea back then and it's a good idea that Obama did just that this year with his "Fight the Smears" retaliation site.
Since those unhappy days of 2000, I have mostly contented myself with firing off little flame-grams every time I see a journalist or reporter make some crack about "Gore invented the Internet". One guy even wrote back to say, "Yeah, I know he didn't say that, but it's humorous and fit the nature of the piece I was writing." Bastard. I am not amused.
True, Somerby is a one trick pony. True also that hearing the lessons of the 2000 election over and over is sometimes tedious. But the central point that we are enmeshed in Iraq because the *liberal* press, repeat *liberal* press threw the election to GW will be valid for a long long time.
His lesson about McCain and this election ie how McCain hasn't changed, only his coverage has, alone has made him worth reading this election cycle.
I say: long live Somerby.
As for Kevin's question, I'm not sure that Somerby expects the lesson of 2000 to be tattooed on everyone's brain. Rather, it's about keeping journalists accountable for the their narratives and about-faces. The more their own deceits, shadings, twists and turns in a word shortcomings are thrown in their faces, the better the chances of reasonable coverage.
Wouldn't it just cause everyone to tune us out as cranks and fogeys?
I know Somerby's obsession with Gore is the reason why I tuned him out long ago. His analysis is correct and was in many ways relevant all the way up to the 2004 election, but that was the end of it.
Al Gore has moved on. It's high damn time Somerby did too.
The reason it's important to keep bringing it up is because it's still going on, for pete's sake, as Somerby documents day after day after day. What's so hard to understand about that?
It's not some weird aberration that popped up out of nowhere and will quickly sink back into oblivion. It's the permanent--or at least long-term--condition of our news media.
It's done us terrible, terrible damage and will continue to do so until we find a way to put a stop to it.
One way to ensure it continues is not to talk about it. That's what drives Somerby around the bend.
Somerby's point is not to harp on it for the sake of it. It is to remember it so that the next time you read Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Joe Klein, Chris Matthews, etc. you remember that they are hacks of the first order. Or better yet maybe enough people stop reading and listening to them altogether and we get better media.
One thing I think people are missing. It's true that Democrats have faced a hostile media environment for years, going back to Gore (and before - see Monicagate). Yet the end result is that we've produced, here in 2008, a whole slate of presidential candidates far superior to the collection of sad sacks on the other side, with our winner able to run rings around their nominee.
Their nominee, amidst a whole series of unforced errors, managed to pick as his running mate someone even more ridiculous than the clowns he beat out for the nomination.
I'd argue that the cushy propaganda environment the GOP built for themselves hasn't ended up doing them any favors. Their pundits and candidates (and their president) live in a reality-distortion bubble where they rarely have had to deal with unpleasant truths, and as a result, are unable to deal with unexpected reality.
Our people, on the other hand, have had to live off the land and compete with both a vicious media environment and one another, eventually evolving into giant-slayers.
If we'd had our own version of wingnut welfare then our spokespeople would be more comfortable, but probably much less prepared for the opportunity this election cycle has presented. We are poised to win a transformational election, something we probably couldn't have done with a less hungry crew.
I think, of all the responses above, dd gets it best:
"Senator Obama's approach to unfair or inappropriate criticism directed at him works better: respond quickly, using all of the tools that the web gives us, but be cool and brush it off in public. I hope that his success means that this becomes a model for others."
The press is what it is, an industry that sells eyeballs to advertisers. Regardless of the ethical ambitions of individual reporters, the media overall is biased toward reporting stories that people will find "interesting", i.e. emotional, prurient, degrading, rewarding of individual prejudice. The key to "good" press coverage lies with the candidate's ability to recognize the underlying bias of the media, and manipulate it to their advantage. Obama, by virtue of his consistency, easy, comfortable self confidence, and grasp of detail, has managed to gain control of the press narrative without explicitly striving to do so. That is something that Gore or Kerry could never do - and arguably, that W. did.
You're still not "good" to Al Gore.
Anyone who challenges the current power brokers will be vilified and made to seem slightly off. Maybe a bit too feminine, not strong enough.
I despair that the people who most need an independent view are the least likely to recieve it.
Speaking of Gore, I just saw STEALING AMERICA on tv tonight. It is a riviting look at the state of our voting system. Must see!
GWB got a lot of his early popularity because people felt that GHWB had gotten a bad deal in losing his second election. So I think that sense of righting past wrongs does work in the minds of some, particularly for centrists who think of this all as a personality competition.
He harps on it, dude, because it illustrates a phenomenon that continues today. The major problem we face today as liberals in Big Media Land isn't the wingnuts like Fox who trash us. It's the MSM that eagerly laps up right-wing talking points and bizarre personal shit and spews them against the Clintons, Gore, and Kerry, while our liberal "leaders" (like you) stood around gawking and hoping for scraps from the Big Kids Table by not squawking about it. Even this year we got HR savaged for the cackle, fake tears, pimping her daughter, the "dark Muslim" photoshopping, the false charge that she was using Wright, her alleged desire to see Obama assassinated, and dark hints post-primary that she was sabotaging Obama. And all of this was eagerly lapped up not by Fox but by our friendly liberal Blogger Boiz. So forgive Poor Old Deluded Somerby if he thinks the phenomenon of liberal media types sitting with their thubs up their asses while Big Dems get savaged continues to this day. Exactly how thick are you, anyway?
Submitted by Arachnae (not verified) on Mon Oct. 27, 2008 6:49 PM PDT.
One of the most unpleasant aspects of modern Republicanism and Fundamentalist Christianomy is their constant whining and harping... oh, everyone is biased against us, and oh everyone hates us ( oh boo hoo )...
I hesitate to point this out but... it worked. People otherwise not invested one way or the other now think Christians are pitiful victims of a big bad biases media.
There is some value in debunking false-truth, even if you get labeled a 'whiner' for it.
What Quaker said.
What a horrible tragedy that 2000 election was. Think of all the thousands of people who are now dead, who would still be alive if that spoiled, lazy frat boy had not gotten to the Oval Office.
We Democrats should never forget that and should keep reminding people of that. Just as the thousands of families -- in the United States and Iraq -- *can't* forget the photo on the wall of their father, mother or child who died needlessly on 9/11, or in Iraq.
Miller and Quaker, basically nail the situation. I might be belaboring the point, but these are my additions.
How come when ever anyone summerizes the War against Gore it is always minimized?
It is a framing issue and Somerby realizes that if we always accept the minimalist version, then Dems and Progressives will always be at the mercy of that version.
Secondly, he "harps" on it, because everyone else always gets it wrong, Drum included. No one ever seems to describe exactly how egregious and heinous the coordinated effort was and the guilty parties were not just the Right Wing outlets, but Dionne, Rich, TNR, Dowd, Matthews, etc. Another reason for the constant Gore coverage, the majority of Americans are dense and continuously going over a topic or subject is usually needed until it is accepted or at least acknowledged.
Lastly, everyone now wants to pretend that everything is ok, because Obama seems to be winning. However, the dishonesty that the media and the "liberal" web codify as "the" mainstream narrative does none of us as Americans any good. If we don't change the culture and the presentation of the news then we will never get the leadership we feel we deserve, we will get mediocrity or worse. For example, see current White House occupant.
Until, we push back and eliminate the coverage of dividing minutia like, Edwards $400 haircut, Kucinich is a UFO nut, etc. Or the unfair coverage of all candidates (Repubs and Dems), for example, the differing media presentation of Clinton's and Obama's driver's license responses, or Romney's great grandfather being a bigamist and Obama's father being a bigamist, we will be limited in our choices, which is what the monied interest want. This will manifiest itself in the Medicare debate, Social Security privatization, outsourcing of government responsibilities, etc. Keeping Drum, Atrios, Marshall, and others honest is a neccesity. Anyone who has read Marshall and Atrios since 2000, that hasn't noticed a decline in their quality of thought and a creeping groupthink that is more akin to Fox propaganda has either not been paying attention, or ignored it since they are "nominal" allies.
People state that Somerby doesn't provide answers, but his basic answer is we need honesty and competency in our media. Until that issue is resolved, the problem will not go away, even if "our" side is winning in a very favorable environment. Somerby knows the environment will not always be so favorable as it is at the moment, and the current situation in terms of national narratives needs to be corrected to rectify the decay of the nation.
As was said, but I want to second, Somerby harps on these things because they're still going on. The lies about Gore continue, the inanity still rules the airwaves, and until they stop, I will be glad that he continues to write the truth, and will read it happily (and you should, too, Kevin).
What Kevin said, but also: Gore and Christopher bear a heavy responsibility for giving up that fight like little mewling lamb fawns. They let Baker steamroll them, let thousands of invalid absentee ballots be counted, failed to insist from the start on a statewide recount, failed--unconscionably--to expose Harris for what she was, allowed this farce to take place all while thousands of Democratic voters had been illegally purged to begin with. When Baker arrived they should have been ready to come at him with a shiv! Instead they were falling over themselves to concede. What a travesty. I'm afraid Gore's loss, while unjust, and a lie in terms of votes, was symptomatic. Just like the fact that he kow-towed to the ultra-right fever swamp in keeping Clinton under wraps instead of using him on the stump.
Obama, thankfully, has none of these faults. This is what we should be focused on.
Submitted by nathan (not verified) on Mon Oct. 27, 2008 7:03 PM PDT.
The "War on Gore" can be relevant to 2008 in the following way:
every time that a conservative blames Palin's, or Bush's or any GOP pol's failures on the liberal media, we should be bringing up Gore and the other examples of conservative bias up. As things are now, the Conservatives are getting a free pass. If we make this argument successfully, and can make a dent in the liberal media narrative, it will force conservatives to fight on the merits of their arguments rather than sticking their fingers in their ears and closing their eyes.
What Quaker said, again.
And Somerby takes on TGK Josh Marshall, here.
