The CNN link to the Gore transcript is gone. Try the MSNBC link instead.
Gore’s speech was excellent in content; still too stiff in delivery, but the usual sense you get of him being over-controlled worked for him in this case; you had the feeling he was controlling the emotions he must have felt, in order to put the good of the country ahead of his personal wishes.
I heard Ronald Reagan concede the nomination to Gerry Ford at the 1976 Repblican convention (I was a radio news technician, not a delegate), and it was a speech that gave me goosebumps. But afterwards, I realized it was primarily content-free. The guy just had a fabulous actor’s delivery.
People used to say that Hubert Humphrey was a great speaker-- boy is that wrong! He could go on forever, but he had a high voice and a chatterbox delivery: after a while, no matter how much you supported his opinions, you’d find yourself thinking “natter, natter, natter…just STOP TALKING, would ya?”
Dwight Eisenhower was a HORRIBLE speaker. In radioland, we edited his remarks heavily to remove numerous “ers” and “uhs” and “ahs”, so if you hear tapes of him in which he sounds good, be forewarned: there’s been a little airbrushing going on.
The best speech I ever heard was a very short one: Archibald Cox announcing he’d been fired as special prosecutor in the Watergate mess–and why. (I forget how many levels down in the cabinet Nixon had to go to get someone to do his dirty work.) The extraordinary thing about the speech was that, at the end of it, when he left the podium, the assembled press corps stood up RESPECTFULLY until he left the room before running for the phones. Maybe you’d have to have worked in the news business to understand what an amazing tribute that was. Unplanned, and totally instinctive.
There were two things about Bush’s speech that struck me. One was what he didn’t say: he didn’t push that right-wing agenda about no gun control/no abortions/ending affrimative action. The second one was that his attitude about the Presidency seems to have changed. The night of the election and for about two weeks afterward, he came off as a cocky little frat boy. FINALLY, he appears to have gotten it: this is not a prize he’s won, it’s a responsibility. So I’ll give him some time and see if can walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I like moderate Republicans; I’d be thrilled if the Republican party were once again dominated by its rational members.
Come now, people. Isn’t it obvious who Bush’s challenger will be in the next election?
Do you really think the Democrats can pass up a chant like “Gore in Four!”?
Re-match coming.
(sigh)
ElvisL1ves, you continually astonish me.
Assume for a moment the same speech delivered by Mr. Gore delivered by a monotone robot.
Content, the same.
Graciousness, the same.
A great speech? Not in anyone’s definition of the concept, I should think, certainly not mine.
My physics professor in college had great material, but his low tone, low volume monotone delivery put half the class to sleep each lecture. Had he delivered a lecture on why he loved the color red, with animation and excitement, he would have delivered a better speech.
Nor, if you carefully review my post, do you see me asserting that content is irrelevant. I specifically drew your attention to the content of his speech, and why I thought that content made it a very good speech. You seem to have either ignored or failed to read that part of my post, not surprisingly since you seem incapable of reading anything I say without immediately dismissing it as drivel. This is apparent in your initial attack on my post about the Kennedy speech, as well as in your follow up post, both of which ignore the substance of my posts in order to make rather incorrect assertions about what I actually said. About what I expect from you, I am afraid, which is too bad because you do have the ability to do better; you will have noticed the fact I praised your cogent restatement of the main point to be considered in the thread about counting votes started by Bricker.
As for a transcript of the 1980 speech, I can’t find a web site that shows it, but I am abysmal at searches like that; perhaps someone with better skills can provide it for you, or you could go to the local library and look for a compilation of great speeches from that year.
Gore couldn’t win the presidency even though Clinton won by a landslide and the economy was chugging right along. Gore doesn’t have a chance with the '04 nomination, IMO.
That is what I would have thought before his concession speech and the reaction to it. Oddly enough the whole post-election drama has probably helped him politically in the sense that it has drawn attention from the fact that Gore should probably have won comfortably anyway and also made his final concession speech much more of a public event. Dems were probably gearing up to savage Gore as a loser now they have other targets like Katherin Harris and the Supreme Court.
I think there are several other things going for him:
1)The TINA factor; who are the other nationally known Dems who would run? Gray Davis? Bradley? I can’t think either of them are much better than Gore electoral-wise
2)No Clinton baggage: I think one of the main reasons that Gore lost was he never quite shook off the apperance of sleaze he inherited from his Clinton years. That is going to be forgotten four years from now.
3)The economy- There is a good chance the economy might go south sometime during the next four years. Depending on the exact timing and magnitude it would make Bush look very bad if after 8 years of expansion during Clinton-Gore there is a recession during his time. Voters might actually look back at the Clinton years with nostaligia.
I think Gore has a good chance of not only winning the nomination but actually winning the Presidency. That too with a Democratic Congress.
That may be the most insightful typo I’ve ever seen.
I’m not entirely sure he wants it – word is that his wife Tipper is getting very drained by the rigors of a public political life, and would rather settle down in quiet anonyminity. Gore might stay out for her sake.
The text of Edward Kennedy’s address at the 1980 Democratic Convention can be read here:
Political journalist Bill Kristol pointed this out on one of the TV shows after Gore’s speech: Did you notice someone very conspicuously absent from mention by the veep?
Someone whose been his boss for eight years, perhaps?
What’s up with that? Perhaps Gore thinks Clinton’s taint made the difference in his razor-thin demise.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rjung *
**
Where did you read this? I’d be interested to read it.
And 4 years is a lot of rest. These are young people, relatively speaking, I’m sure she wouldn’t demand her hubby stay out if he really wants to try.
Thank you, Bob. 
Now THAT was a line.