That’s not quite how I remember it. Sure Gore’s supposed stiffness was an
issue, but there could have been all sorts of ways to dispense with that some
of which he had already done. For the debates Gore chose just about the worst
thing he could do, looking like he was cozying up to Bush and agreeing with him
more than disagreeing, which had the net effect of making Bush look “smart” or
at least smarter than he was. Here’s a couple of excerpts from Michael Moore’s
book Stupid White Men that expresses it better than I can:
Privately, I think most people in the Nader camp thought what I thought-that
once Gore had a chance to wipe the floor with Bush in a debate, the election
would be over. So we figured, let's get out millions of votes for Nader to show
the next President--Al Gore-that there's a large number of Americans who don't
want him pushing the Democratic Party further to the right. A strong vote for
Nader might be a way to check Gore and his promise to do things like spend more
on the military and less on jobs.
Yeah, we were real geniuses.
Then came the debates. Ralph was shut out of them, which left America with
three ninety-minute shows in which Gore and Bush agreed with each other more
than they disagreed. In the second debate, the two of them said they agreed
with each other on thirty-seven different issues. It was stunning to watch.
Gore had blown it. He had failed to unmask Bush's ignorance and stupidity. He
had failed to set himself apart and show the nation there was a real difference
on the ballot. He had three chances to nuke that smirking son of a Bush, and he
couldn't do it! Message to the country: If this is how he caves with Junior,
what will happen when he gets in a room with the Russians? Or the Canadians!
I was shocked by the implications. It was starting to look as if Gore would
lose. He was going to lose his home state. He was going to lose Clinton's home
state. He couldn't convince the Democratic dean of the Senate, Robert Byrd of
West Virginia, to endorse him until five days before the election (thus
sacrificing West Virginia, a traditional Democratic stronghold, to Bush). Any
one of these states would have given Gore all the electoral votes he would need
to win the White House.
And the money shot: Then Al Gore failed to win the third and final debate with
George W. Bush. Now where I come from, the smart guy wins in a debate; the dumb
guy loses. It really is that simple. But not this time. I couldn't believe my
eyes. It was clear that Al Gore was doing everything he could to lose the
That was exactly my feeling too: it looked like he wanted to lose, and I
couldn’t quite believe what I was seeing either. It was almost like he was in
some sort of trance. If Hillary attempts anything like that, I believe all is
lost. But hopefully she won’t. Hopefully she’ll dispense with any and all
doubts bout whatever by being the best Democratic candidate she can be, not by
trying to do everything she can to lose. We’ll find out soon.
On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:07 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
<salsunshineiniowa@...> wrote :
There’s really only one way Hillary could lose this debate IMO, and that’s if
she pulls a Gore and tried to play down her own massive intelligence and
experience in an attempt to make Trump look smarter than he is. Why anyone
would do that is of course the big question, which I’m sure still leaves
psychologists scratching their heads about Gore and his first debate to this
Gore wasn't so much trying to make Bush look smarter. Gore had been brutally
mocked for being too wonkish and was portrayed as stiff and boring, and he was
attempting to counter that image.
Hillary actually has a similar problem. She needs to come across as human and
charming as well as intelligent and experienced. Not fair, but that's the way