Media Rooting for Al Gore in 2008

[Dos Equis]

Run Al, run!   

Friday, March 23, 2007 9:46 a.m. EDT
Media Rooting for Al Gore in 2008

Many reporters are hoping Al Gore decides to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2008 – despite his insistence that he will not run.

After his recent testimony before Congress on global warming, the New York Times called Gore "a heartbreak loser turned Oscar-boasting Nobel hopeful globe-trotting pop culture eminence.”

And Howard Kurtz wrote in the Washington Post: "What a difference seven years and two Oscars make.”

Kurtz notes: "It’s the mere possibility that he might run for president again that is tantalizing the same media establishment that was long dismissive of Gore. In fact, many reporters seem to be rooting for Gore to jump in and ignoring his repeated denials that he has any such intention. But if he did take the leap, the honeymoon would end in nanoseconds.”

John Harris of The Politico is one member of the press who appears to want the 2000 presidential loser to get in next year’s race.

"He is not raising money . . . He has said repeatedly that he has no plans to run. Shouldn’t we take him at his word?” Harris writes. "Not yet, we shouldn’t. The logic of psychology and even history suggests that Gore should run.”

At the moment Gore’s legacy rests on two opposing facts, according to Harris.

On the plus side, Gore is now seen as a visionary for warning about global warming way back in 1992, and for warning in 2002 that the coming Iraq war would turn into a disaster.

On the negative side, Harris writes: "From the perspective of people who believe, as nearly all Democrats do, that the Bush presidency has been a historic debacle, no Democratic politician is more culpable for these consequences than Gore himself. A more poised, focused and self-confident campaign surely would have won the election and not just the popular vote in 2000.

"Both Gore’s success in perceiving issues and his failure as a political leader powerfully suggest an unfinished career.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/23/95447.shtml?s=ic

[Cavalier22]

gore was on conan last night...hhaa

[rockyfortune]

didn't he invent the internet too!? 

[Oldschool Flip]

Of course the media is for Gore. Main stream media, except for Fox News, is tilted toward the left.

[240 is Back]

Of course the media is for Gore. Main stream media, except for Fox News, is tilted toward the left.

Flip, were they like this in the 3 years after 911?

[Dos Equis]

Of course the media is for Gore. Main stream media, except for Fox News, is tilted toward the left.

True.

[OKMike]

True.

agreed

[240 is Back]

Here's the prob, fellahs.

THe media was HUGELY pro-Bush in the 3 years after 9/11.  He walked on water.
Nobody was complaining back then.

Now, they're hugely anti-Bush, due to whatever perceived fckups.
And they're beating on him.
And it's being said "the media is tilted, biased, etc".

How come nobody was crying when the media was on YOUR side?  Now that they've followed public perception and flipped, you're upset.  If you're unhappy about a biased media, you should complain BOTh when your side is abused, and when the other side is.

[Hedgehog]

Of course the media is for Gore. Main stream media, except for Fox News, is tilted toward the left.

The media isn't tilted toward the left.

The media is finally starting to do their job, which is to investigate those in power.

The most powerful man in the world is Bush.

Rightfully, he is being investigated.

He wasn't a few years ago.

When Clinton was president, I remember his supporters bitching about how the media crucified him.

It's the way of the media.

The media doesn't have a "leftish" bias. They do however, rightfully, IMO, investigate those in power, more than those not in power.

-Hedge

[240 is Back]

I remember hearing OReilly complain once.

He said that 50% of the media's criticism should go to the Repubs, and 50% should go to the Dems.

I disagreed - at the time the Republicans held the senate, the house, and the white house, and had just added Chief of the supreme court.

The majority of the blame (and credit) should go to the group making the most difference.  The dems had their hands tied from Jan 2001 to jan 2007.  made zero difference.  To put 50% of the blame of things going wrong on them - when they have about ZERO % decision making power for those things - is insane.