What, exactly, about that entry was a "rant?"
"Significantly, he based his entire piece on data that is more than three years old,"
Yeah, except for the part where I quoted a poll taken last week that showed Gore underperforming against McCain and Giuliani.
"as Bowers and Kos have pitifully attempted."
Way to make friends and influence people.
" failed to include the following sentence in their spin jockeying"
Yeah, except that I included that quote in my post.
"That Bowers and Kos seek to defeat a Gore candidacy through division and derision, without publicly stating their blatant bias for Hillary Clinton, is absurd and offensive,"
That you would claim to read my mind is absurd and offensive. I definately prefer Gore to Clinton, but just because I'm not willing to claim that Gore's repeated near-total denials of interest mean that he is 100% certain to run and sweep the country, you claim that I support Clinton. That is absurd and offensive.
For crying out loud Gore supporters, thicken up your skin and take a harder look at the situation. Gore has repeatedly made it clear that there is almost no chance he will ever run for President again, and when anyone simply points this out, you cry foul that we don't take him at his word. If you respect someone so much, whether that person is me, Gore or kos, you should take us at our words and not presume to read our minds and know the "real motive" behind what we are saying. I'm not anti-Gore and pro-Clinton. I never said that I was, yet you presume to argue that I am. You did the same for kos, who repeatedly has stated, including in the article that he posted today, that he really likes Gore, and would probably join up if he ran. What you should do is tkae us at our word. And if you really respect Al gore, you should do the same for him, rather than post a diary fileld with unnecessary invective that claims to read all of our minds.
This is framing. I don't expect you not to take offense, but it's something Democrats need to do more often. I'm not here to make friends or influence the few, because I'm not a politician; I'm writing to influence an audience that is receptive to my ideas, and that is largely an audience that is pissed with the way MyDD and Kos have handled news about Gore and Clinton. And I will get to why these people are pissed in a few paragraphs.
Allow me to reiterate that I DO highly respect the work that you and Kos do. I do not expect you to be my friend, or to be friendly. I simply strongly disagree with the way certain things have been presented.
"Yeah, except for the part where I quoted a poll taken last week that showed Gore underperforming against McCain and Giuliani."
Everyone loses against McCain and Giuliani; it is, therefore, a moot point and as such was ignored. If you were to use that for your argument, then we shouldn't even bother mounting any candidates in 2008.
As for the rest, I agree that the likelihood of Gore not running is pretty damn low. But something I DO know is that all these posts assuring us that Gore ISN'T running and CAN'T win anyway certainly is NOT going to make him, or his supporters, feel more comfortable about doing so, and is, therefore counterproductive to any effort, however difficult, to recruit him. And since you say you like him more than Hillary Clinton, who is obviously the front-runner for 2008, I would think that is something you must agree with. This is why a lot of people who believe this country needs someone like Gore are pissed off, including myself.
To be honest, I'm sick of talking about Gore. He is not the solution to everything, and he is certainly far from perfect. So I'm going to stop writing about him for a good while--there are more important things to talk about right now and this serves as merely a distraction, something I'm sure you agree with.
The point was that Gore was losing by far more than Kerry or Clinton. Just because all x, y and z are les than a, does not mean that x, y and z are all the same size. Is that so hard to figure out?
"This is framing. I don't expect you not to take offense, but it's something Democrats need to do more often."
Ok, fine. I wasn't aware that framing meant that you were allowed to just be a jackass to whoever you liked, but since it does, here goes: --I find your entire argument baseless and utterly pitiful, supported only by your repeated contraictions of yourself, and the absurd notion that the netroots are somehow going to draft or recruit Gore into the race, and the teenage tendency to capitlize words as a substitute for actual articulation.
Did I frame the argument correctly? Am I doing it like more Democrats should now? And if this discussion is a waste of time, why don't you delete this diary?
It doesn't matter much when Gore is behind by 7 points and Clinton, the best performing Democrat, is behind Giuliani by 11. And this doesn't take into account any campaigning done by Gore, while Clinton has been running a campaign for image for the last four years--I would naturally expect her to have an image advantage. If anything, this poll shows that Kerry has terrible numbers.
"Ok, fine. I wasn't aware that framing meant that you were allowed to just be a jackass to whoever you liked, but since it does, here goes: --I find your entire argument baseless and utterly pitiful, supported only by your repeated contraictions of yourself, and the absurd notion that the netroots are somehow going to draft or recruit Gore into the race, and the teenage tendency to capitlize words as a substitute for actual articulation."
Oh boo hoo. Speaking of articulation, what contradicitions are you talking about? I'm honestly interested since I'd love to improve my argument for the next time around. I'm also interested because most of the feedback I've gotten has been very positive.
And I don't back away from calling your argument pitiful, because it is. I don't understand how you can read Gore's mind and speak so matter-of-factly about his decisions when he's done nothing more than what any politician would do when faced with the same question. But what's more pitiful is that you argue that a netroots campaign can't have some effect on promoting candidacies, which is one of the most fallacious and self-contradicting things I've ever seen you say. Do you truly believe that all these people have no collective impact on the way a politician thinks? You surely can't be serious. There wouldn't BE a "netroots" if that were true.
I think this discussion is very important, but this is the wrong time for it to happen. I won't delete this diary because I stand by what I said. I believe we should move on to issues that need to be addressed and come back to this when it's appropriate--at no point did I suggest forgetting the issue of 2008.
We've all got a lot of respect for you, and you really don't have to go all attack dog on this guy to keep that respect.
Beneath the empricism lurks something or other.
Chris had lost his temper in this thread, and I was commenting on that. It was obvious to me that that was the case, perhaps not so much to you. It surprised me, because it's not the mode I expect from him.
Please notice that I was talking about the respect I and so many readers have for him when I mentioned his attack dogginess. I just felt like his anger got the best of him in responding to some of the static he was getting.
Chris wrote just the other day about how far we are from having a mature blogosphere. And he's so right about this. And it seems to me that one of the little details that keep us immature is the speed that discussions become heated and accusatory, names get thrown around and low ratings get delivered before we're even sure what the hell anyone is really talking about. Anyone can fall into this, but I think the established bloggers and the front-pagers could help matters if they weren't the first to get defensive and overly "robust."
It's no sign of the end times if Chris Bowers loses his temper in a Gore/Clinton thread. I'm just saying that he looks like the bigger man if he saves some of that temper for the people who are really asking for it.
In other news: you rule Gary, and a 1 rating from you is like a 3 from someone else.
In yet other news: Just look at the attack dog comment as robust disagreement.
Hugs and kisses.
I read you every day. I consider MyDD my #1 go-to blog to see what's going on in the political world.
You have a lot of power, and a lot of pull. Why are you so frightened of one guy who's got no power? It seems a little petty.
This guy basically wants to draft Gore. Why is that idea any less worthy of respect than nominating Feingold, or the inexplicable darling Clark?
I don't think Gore wants to run. I don't think he will run. But I think he'd make a great president. Apparently some of your readers agree; that's why this entry got recommended. You almost seem like you want to shut down debate on that topic. Is that fair?
We have a lot of options; one is "Draft Gore." May not happen, but no need to get hostile about it. Just because we're little guys doesn't mean we're not entitled to our opinion.
The truth is, you, as a daily main pager, have much more power than me or the attacked poster. Maybe you should cut us some slack. Heterodoxy isn't the same as evil.
There is not a more lenient site in the blogosphere than MyDD when it comes to allowing widespread points of view. Where did you and your knuckle dragging ball baby buddies come from?
"...or do I need to take a kos/MyDD loyalty oath before being allowed to participate in the dialogue?": by Blank Frank
"You need to take your head and shove it up your constipated asshole."
Well, well, well.
"There is not a more lenient site in the blogosphere than MyDD when it comes to allowing widespread points of view."
True, until two of Chris' anti-Gore posts, at least on of which does not qualify for "robust" and reasoned analyis, discourse, and dialogue, IMO. Please see my rebuttal to that one here: Chris, Yes, Gore can absolutely win again (w/ Poll). I am yet to rigorously respond to the other post by Chris.
Also, myDD has also not included Gore in its straw polls (execpt for August, after much dissent). And, in case you noticed those polls generate an enormous amount of dialogue and "robust disagreement" and "widespread points of view". Isn't that suppression (since Gore never ruled out a run in absolute terms, and especially when he leads by a mile in every netroots poll where he is included?)
"Where did you and your knuckle dragging ball baby buddies come from?"
And, yourself?
It is absolutely ridiculous to complain about a blogger expressing an opinion on his own blog. Jerome and Chris are even more tolerant of diaries attacking their position than Markos is. I think both sites are as tolerant as anyone can reasonably expect.
But Kos omitted the second part of Gore's statement. Why is that justified? (Especially when FP stories on dKos are tantamount to quasi-news, and are probably read my a million or more people?)
For the most part, Gore supporters were only asking this question, and stating that Gore did leave himself some leeway to wage a run.
"It is absolutely ridiculous to complain about a blogger expressing an opinion on his own blog."
Nope, it isn't ridiculous to complain when statements are not represented in their substantive entirety.
Very few complained about his opinion, except in the title "Gore is not running". You see, most news outlets, except for CBS News and dKos carried the headline "Gore has no plans to run in 2008", which was the legitimate way to state it. Kos was certainly not justified in putting an opinion into an FP title on a story involving a news event. He owns the blog, but the community makes the blog.
"Jerome and Chris are even more tolerant of diaries attacking their position than Markos is."
I fully concur. I think that all three of them are outstanding bloggers. But two of the three have been less than neutral with respect to a possible Gore run in 2008. That is disappointing because Gore has been one of the most pre-eminent progressive voices over the last 4 years, even before Dean burst onto the scene in 2003.
"I think both sites are as tolerant as anyone can reasonably expect."
Very true. But, asking for suitable neutrality in official straw polls and in news coverage is not unreasonable to ask for.
You can pretend that Gore's statement is no less definitive than Hillary's, but I think you are kidding yourself. Gore is young enough to run in 2012 or even 2020. I think that is what he was suggesting as clearly as possible. What you are asking Chris and Markos to do is be as biased towards Al Gore as you and his other supporters. I'm not buying into your delusion and I don't see any reason for Markos or Chris to buy into your delusion either.
You mean ALL my diaries and comments at myDD? If so, why did you feel the need to do that?
-->"In my opinion Al Gore has made a very definitive statement that he is not running in 2008."
That's your opinion.
-->"You can always play smoke and mirror games that his clear statement of intent is a non-denial denial, but I don't find your arguments at all persuasive."
I was hardly making an agrument on this front except pointing out this part of his Gore's statement. The readers can judge for themselves how much, if at all, Gore has left the door ajar: Gore: I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that".
You can take your smoke and mirror allegation and chill.
-->"You can pretend that Gore's statement is no less definitive than Hillary's, but I think you are kidding yourself."
Dude, look, I believe that Gore will run if he sees a way of beating Hillary, and right now that's quite an uphill task (no pun intended).
-->"Gore is young enough to run in 2012 or even 2020."
What in Gore's statement is suggestive of a run beyond 2008? I don't think he'll have much of chance beyond 2008.
You've got to be kidding me about 2020. He'll be 72 years old, and 20 years out of active office. That to me is clearly delusional of you to think or suggest.
-->"I think that is what he was suggesting as clearly as possible."
I have no idea where 2012 and 2020 enter the picture in his statement.
-->"What you are asking Chris and Markos to do is be as biased towards Al Gore as you and his other supporters. I'm not buying into your delusion and I don't see any reason for Markos or Chris to buy into your delusion either."
Actually, what am I asking them to do?
I would like to see them include him in their straw polls.
-->"I agree with them that until Al Gore makes some sort of statement to the contrary, he has taken himself out of the running."
I think that your opinion is sincere here, but I (also sincerely) do see more gray in his decision than you do.
Thanks.
