Now this is one hell of a speech.
http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html/
Surely even the pubbies agree.
If only.
Actually, friend, the Republicans kidnapped the original Gore and replaced him with someone less charismatic just so they could win.
Worked too.
Its a conspiracy.
Yeah, surely even the Republicans agree that Bush is “the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon”.
Reeder, assuming you’re not trolling, what’s the debate here?
What are those two things in between Gore’s legs? Why, I believe they’re testicles! Those sure as hell weren’t there four years ago.
Well Joe Scarborough and friends were up in arms about this speech tonight! They tried to make the case that Kerry hates Gore, that Gore gave this fiery speech to get attention because Kerry won’t give him a part in the campaign and that speeches like this were going to HURT Kerry’s chance’s not help him. Their justification was that people were going to be turned off by such fireworks and by calling “fearless leader” names.
Then later in the show, they featured a new book that blames Clinton for 9-11. 
Personally, I liked the speech and I think the 'pubs are getting very worried about Bush’s chances. They worry that people getting worked up about Bush will lead to further poll declines.
As to a debate here, I think the question could be - will speech’s like this and the similar one by Nancy Pelosi last week, help or hinder Kerry’s bid? Would Kerry help his chances more by attacking Bush more?
I just finished watching the speech on C-SPAN and was quite impressed. Gore was stating what I have been thinking for a long time – that this administration is in the proces of destroying the values on which America was founded and that every American has to do their part to make sure that Bush’s reign of errors ends next January 20th. I too wish that Al Gore had been this passionate during the election of 2000, but that doesn’t change the reality of the current situation one bit.
A lot of the spin that I’ve seen on this shows why the Dems can’t win when it comes to public speaking. Speak calmly and rationally, and you’re “boring” and “wooden” (see Kerry, or Gore '00); raise your voice or show any emotion, and you’re “nuts” or “bellowing” (see Dean, or Gore '04).
I think it would work well for Kerry to remain his calm, rational self while the other prominent Dems raise some hell. It’s what Republicans have been doing for years. It taps into the rage that a lot of us are feeling, and shows us that the Democrats actually share at least some of that, but it allows Kerry to remain free of the spin.
I suppose Gore made the mistake of listening to professional political handlers who get paid, win or lose.
By iamme99: “Would Kerry help his chances more by attacking Bush more?”
No. Kerry’s chances are best served by saying little and doing less. Currently, the race is between the awful Bush and the unknown Kerry. Best for Kerry if he can leave it that way as long as possible.
In my speech class, we listened to three speeches, by Martin King, John Kennedy, and Adolf Hitler. All three speeches were superb examples of speaking. They all three went places.
I think many people discount the ability of an excellent speaker to have an effect merely by the excellence of the speaking. If you look at the presidential elections in my lifetime (since 1957), the better speaker has almost always won.
I too believe that Gore should have given a speech with such fire and verve in '00 instead of now. I hope that Kerry can shake off the bad advice of people who advise against such a speech. Bush is a good speaker. Kerry’s better ideas, beliefs, and plans need to be supported by passionate, fervent, and fluent speaking.
Reeder said
I dunno, he’s been out of office for almost 3 and 1/2 years.
I actually agree with Reeder for once. That was an excellent speech, and where was that depth in 2000?
If this Al Gore had been around in 2000, he would have lost in a blowout. Presidential candidates don’t go around banging their fists and screaming at the audience. Gore can get away with that now because he preaches to the converted. Let’s see him try that on the stump in Texas.
Today’s stump speeches are little more than “preaching to the converted”. Bush was in Lexington twice during the runup to the 2000 election, and both times it was a $1000/plate affair. Bush has been rather notorious over the last few years for setting up “Free Speech Zones” well away from where he is actually appearing.
To me, it’s obvious that you don’t give the same speech to a group of ardent supporters and to a mixed group that you’re trying to win over. The problem was that we didn’t even hear this level of vitriol from Gore to those supporters. He seemed to go out of his way to avoid it.
To be fair, though, he didn’t have this much to be vocal about in 2000.
I saw excerpts of the speach, and was not impressed. All he seemed interested in doing was calling Bush names…
Gee, if only one of the Dem candidates had spoken out so boldy, with so much fire. If only someone had fanned the flames of passion in the voters. Oh… someone did, and he got dropped like yesterday’s garbage.
Yeah, screaming at supporters worked just great for Howard Dean, didn’t it?
I see. So when a candidate has a pulse and shows the least bit of passion, he’s “shrieking” or “screaming.” But when he doesn’t have that he’s boring. You’ll attack us either way.
It’s all part of the Republican spin-machine, folks. Democratic candidates are either “wooden” or “crazy,” they either make constant “flip-flops” or are “uncompromisingly stubborn” – any attribute you can describe with a negative term, they will.
Huh? Now, that’s a big joke! [roflol]
I’m a Democrat through and through but I have to ask, how is that any different from what we do, especially now, in these highly polarized times? We’re probably even worse, actually. While Kerry is a waffler, Gore is wooden, and Dean is crazy, all we use to describe Bush and his ilk are just different forms of “evil” or “stupid”.