February 7, 2001

11:00 AM

Gore: It was your fault, sleazeball! Clinton: No, it was YOUR fault, automaton!Reports today indicate that Al Gore and Bill Clinton engaged in a heated hour-long blame fest over who caused Gore to lose the election. (Or, to assuage the bitter, caused him to fail to acheive enough of a majority nationwide that the Florida outcome would not have mattered.) Was it Clinton's fault? Was it Gore's? More importantly, does it matter, or does anyone even care anymore?
posted by Dreama (33 comments total)

As a semi-related aside, one staffer says that Gore came into the meeting "all knotted up." I'm wondering how he could possibly tell?
posted by Dreama at 11:01 AM on February 7, 2001

Maybe Gore lost because he never presented a compelling message?
posted by argybarg at 11:07 AM on February 7, 2001

It was Nader's fault.

More specifically, it was the democratic party's inability to keep from alienating those who voted for Nader from their party.
posted by yangwar at 11:15 AM on February 7, 2001

hey are you the same person who got all snippy in a past thread about people continuing the "bush is dumb" meme?
well i for one find the "gore is a robot/automaton/etc" meme just as cliched and tiresome.
posted by saralovering at 11:16 AM on February 7, 2001

Gore's in some serious denial, methinks.

I remember being suprised that Gore didn't use Clinton during the campaign. Obviously, his issues with Clinton ran very deep. Who knew?
posted by jpoulos at 11:17 AM on February 7, 2001

Nader's fault? Come on, Bush got way more votes than Nader. It's obviously Bush's fault, that bastard. Doesn't he care about Al's feelings?
posted by gleemax at 11:19 AM on February 7, 2001

What a pussy! Gore's just blaming Clinton cuz he can't face up to the fact that he was a sitting VP with a strong economy and a weak opponent, and he still managed to lose the election.

First he snatches defeat out of the jaws of victory. Now he's passing the blame for losing.

For the first time ever, I'm glad the little sissy didn't get elected!

posted by ratbastard at 11:26 AM on February 7, 2001

Frankly, I think Gore is probably entitled to a little bitterness. And it's not his fault that it is public bitterness - any hint of it wafting from behind sealed office doors will make it into the media promptly anyway.

I mean, really. When your opponent is an idiot, and you are a person who obviously values intelligence, then it's gotta sting a little bit to lose. Not to mention coming so close and feeling helpless as you watch the political machine snatch it away at the last second. Notice I didn't say "steal".

At any rate, I'm just surprised an argument like this hadn't already been leaked to the press.
posted by annathea at 11:33 AM on February 7, 2001

The Dems lost because they put up a moderate Republican platform. I can't believe how spineless they are on their issues. If they want to start winning elections again they're going to have to quit being so submissive.

Did anyone see Politically Incorrect last night? Nader was on, it was the first I'd seen him speak since the election.

There's more than enough ammo to sink the Republican party forever, the Dems just need to quit wavering and start using it.
posted by ritualdevice at 11:37 AM on February 7, 2001

Someone not too long noted that the conservatives are filled with rage and that the liberals are filled with guilt.
My view is that rage trumps guilt every time.
For me the election was a stolen one: the Supreme Court acted in a very political manner. there is sufficient materials now available by many law school professors who note over and over what a terrible travesty the Court has done and how this is likely to be highlghted in history and law books for many years.
Sure Gre is this and that; and sure Clnton is this and that, and maybe had this one done such and such then things might have been different.
But the bottom line is that the voter is entitled to a full count of votes and this was prohibited by the Court.
For details of what got done and how it was done, see the current issue of The New York review of Books.
posted by Postroad at 11:46 AM on February 7, 2001

beth: Tipper was that compelling a reason? Or would you have cast your ballot, leaned outside the polling booth and barf-bagged right away? I've friends who mention Mrs. Gore as part of the reasoning behind their Nader ballots...
posted by allaboutgeorge at 12:19 PM on February 7, 2001

To answer Dreama's question, this schism matters because Clinton and Gore are the strongest national leaders in the Democratic Party, and if Democrats split up into warring camps, it wastes a lot of energy that could be spent against Bush and preparing for the 2002 congressional elections.

People underestimate the difficulty of a vice president running on the record of the president he served. The public generally is reluctant to give a veep credit for anything. When you couple this with President Clinton's embarrassing personal behavior, which was an important issue to swing voters in states like Missouri, Gore didn't have free rein to make use of the president.

Nader and his cult of personality were also an undeniable factor. Without that autocratic gloryhound in the race, Gore wins Florida and New Hampshire and no one is second-guessing his campaign.
posted by rcade at 12:56 PM on February 7, 2001

Whose fault is it? I refer to the wisdom of this Boston Globe editorial on a rift between Mike Dukakis and Ralph Nader - "the real reason Gore lost is that he ran the worst race since ... ahem, let's rephrase that: The real reason is that he was the political personification of pathetic. And without the normal nonvoters Nader brought out, the Democrats would never have battled back to a 50-50 Senate split." [My emphasis]

At any rate, it's ridiculous for Gore to leave Clinton out of his campaign strategy and then blame him when he loses. I've had very little love for the ex-veep [Self-link] ever since the primaries, but, even with as low a bar as I've set for the guy, Gore's self-delusion in this instance is astonishing.

Hopefully, the Dems won't repeat their mistake and will find a more palatable and progressive candidate next time around.
posted by kevincmurphy at 1:07 PM on February 7, 2001

You know, Clinton was a bad man in office. Though he did raise the expectations on cigar sales.

Regardless, Gore lost because he is a ninny. He couldnt pick a persona to show to the american public and stick with it.

Blame Clinton, Blame Florida, Blame Everyone but, when you can not carry your home state and lose the whole goddamn midwest...well...thats a loss buddy. Go teach economics at Cornell and lick yer wounds.
posted by MrJacko at 1:12 PM on February 7, 2001

Nader and his cult of personality were also an undeniable factor. Without that autocratic gloryhound in the race, Gore wins Florida and New Hampshire and no one is second-guessing his campaign.

A second-guessing which, it hardly needs to be said, is thoroughly necessary at this point in history.

How many times does it need to be said? The Democratic Party SUCKS. The only thing going for them is that they're not Republicans.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:13 PM on February 7, 2001

The idea that Gore lost because he "wasn't liberal enough," which these Naderites have been spouting is as logic-defying as Nader's "platform" itself.
posted by jpoulos at 1:15 PM on February 7, 2001

jpoulos, I'm inclined to agree. Can anyone say that if Gore had moved more to the left, he would have done more good than harm? I can see him getting maybe half of the nader voters, but how many people would he turn off?
posted by cell divide at 1:21 PM on February 7, 2001

From the M$$$GE article:"FOR MORE than an hour, in what sources close to both men described as uncommonly blunt language, Gore forcefully told Clinton that his sex scandal and low personal approval ratings were a major impediment to his presidential campaign. Clinton, according to people close to him, was initially taken aback but responded with equal force that it was Gore?s failure to run on the administration?s record that hobbled his ambitions." So, basically, they said to each other the very things that the pundits had been throwing around since about May last year. But it was in "very blunt language." Ooooooo, snap!
posted by rschram at 1:27 PM on February 7, 2001

If only we'd heard "very blunt language" from Gore during the campaign instead of marketing-driven nonspeak, we'd be better off. And, as far as moving to the left or the right or the center -- the location would have been less important than that he stood somewhere -- anywhere -- on the basis of his convictions.
posted by argybarg at 1:56 PM on February 7, 2001

jpoulos: I don't think the problem was that Gore "wasn't liberal enough." The main problem, as Argybarg noted, was that everyone sensed there was something fundamentally insincere about him. But I do think another big problem was that Gore wasn't progressive enough.

Although it may sound like a semantic distinction, there is a philosophical difference between being "not liberal enough" and "not progressive enough." Liberalism can refer to the "don't tread on me" libertarianism of the early US, but more often than not nowadays refers to the New Deal philosophy of a value-neutral government brokering between different interest groups. Progressivism has its roots in TR and the Progressive era (1890-1915), and is concerned more with preserving the prequisites of citizenship and self-government. There's a lot of overlap here, of course, but there's a significant difference in these two philosophy's emphases. Liberals talk about the needs of groups and special interests (not always a bad thing - Liberalism's greatest success was the Civil Rights movement), progressives talk about the needs of citizens and the public interest. (For more on this distinction, I highly recommend Democracy's Discontent by Michael Sandel, or The End of Reform, by Alan Brinkley.)

Anyway, there's a good case to be made that, South Carolina notwithstanding, the most popular political figure of Election 2000 wasn't Bush or Gore at all, but John McCain. And, why? Because he was a straight shooter and all that, but also because he dwelled primarily on progressive themes, the most important of which public apathy and distrust of the system and Campaign Finance Reform.

How often did you hear Al talk about Campaign Finance Reform, other than immediately after McCain lost? Answer: You didn't. He was too busy hawking prescription drugs to the elderly (voting) population. THAT's the difference.

I've gone on long enough, but the upshot is, if the Democrats want to be rejuvenated next election, the answer is neither "New Democrat" Rockefeller Republicanism (Gore, Lieberman) or "Old Democrat" Liberalism (Gephardt). It's Progressivism (Kerrey, Bradley, Wellstone): cleansing the political system of special interest money, restoring faith and interest in self-government at all levels, funding projects that promote common endeavor and common striving.

Anything less will be a rehash of 2000. The Dems think it's bad now, but it'd have been a lot worse for them as a party if John McCain had won the White House. The GOP would then have the Oval Office and the High Road.
posted by kevincmurphy at 2:13 PM on February 7, 2001

I can't decide which bumpersticker I like more: this one, or this one...
posted by beth at 2:45 PM on February 7, 2001

*Wake Up Call*

Gore did not lose the election.
posted by locombia at 6:03 PM on February 7, 2001

*wake up call #2*

Then why isn't he in the White House? That's what winning and losing means. Inertia, Momentum, and Raw Power are important when the election is a tie. If Gore had really won the elections in the hearts and minds of the electorate, things would have been different. If people actually cared, it would have been different.
posted by cell divide at 6:09 PM on February 7, 2001

Inertia, Momentum, and Raw Power are important when the election is a tie.

Your daddy buying a few supreme court justices has been known to help, too...
posted by Neb at 6:48 PM on February 7, 2001

Gore is not in the White House because Sandra Day O'Connor wants to retire to Arizona in the next couple of years.
posted by locombia at 10:14 PM on February 7, 2001

Even if the Supreme Court was 100% wrong in its decisions (which remains to be debated for eternity) and even if Gore could've conjured up the votes in Florida (which doesn't seem possible) Gore just wasn't as compelling a candidate as the American public needed him to be for him to capitalise on the last 8 years with an unquestioned victory. In an era where the last five presidential elections were landslides, for neither candidate to have managed to break even 51% of the popular vote speaks volumes.

We wanted something more than what we were offered. We ended up with chaos and disgruntlement on every side. Blame Gore, blame Clinton, blame the Supremes, blame Canada -- ultimately, we've become complacent, we nominated complacently and we're all reaping the resultant harvest in our own ways.
posted by Dreama at 10:24 PM on February 7, 2001

Gore forcefully told Clinton that [...] his low personal approval ratings were a major impediment to his presidential campaign

I thought clinton's approval rating was through the roof?

Why do the far right and Tipper (peaches and cream vibes there) have a problem with the fact that most americans thought Clinton's affairs was no big deal.

I've just realised, probably the same reason why us lefties have a problem with America having no problem with Bush's lack of "academic curiosity"
posted by fullerine at 1:59 AM on February 8, 2001

Even if the Supreme Court was 100% wrong in its decisions (which remains to be debated for eternity) and even if Gore could've conjured up the votes in Florida (which doesn't seem possible) Gore just wasn't as compelling a candidate as the American public needed him to be for him to capitalise on the last 8 years with an unquestioned victory.

The only thing Gore needed was one more Supreme Court justice who wasn't corrupt.

In an era where the last five presidential elections were landslides, for neither candidate to have managed to break even 51% of the popular vote speaks volumes.

Clinton didn't win in a landslide in 1992. As many conservatives noted at the time, 56 percent of the people didn't vote for him.
posted by rcade at 8:07 AM on February 8, 2001

I've just realised, probably the same reason why us lefties have a problem with America having no problem with Bush's lack of "academic curiosity"

Ahhhh. And the light dawns in my head.

Thanks.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:51 AM on February 8, 2001

Dreama:

I've been critical of you in the past, but today we agree 100%. Let's bask in this feeling. It may not come again. :-)
posted by jpoulos at 12:22 PM on February 8, 2001