How can we prevent our nominee from getting "Gored" by * and Faux?

[mot78]

AThe last thing we need next year is for * and Faux to define our candidate on the issues in the same way they did to Gore, and in the way Shrub 41 did to Dukakis. How can we combat their "Goring" strategy?

[imhotep]

1. easy

Don't nominate a coward like Gore.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Resistance Is Futile]

16. Al Gore conducted a cowardly campaign

Gore's campaign made no effective moves to go on the offensive against the right-wing monolith or to fight back against Republican attacks. 'Coward' is the term for someone who collapses under fire for no reason other than the lack of their own will.

[BadFaith]

7. Not so much a coward...

But ill-quipped to fight against a campign run by Lee Atwater proteges Karl Rove and Karen Hughes. Campaigns that require incredible guile, millions upon millions of dollars, and the moral compass of a AMWAY agent. Most party-unaffiliated voters chose Bush over Gore because they felt the latter was "dishonest", an image foisted upon the hapless former VP through an extensive smear campaign that was far too relentless for him, for any candidate, really, to effectively fight. Gore lied when he said he invented the internet, Gore lied when he said he was the basis of Love Story, Gore lied about discovering Love Canal, Gore lied about going to a disaster with James Lee Witt, Gore lied when he said there were no dead hookers in the trunk of his car....

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. The only way that you are going to fight off these....

"Mother FUknow the rest" is going to be to have a candidate that will fight these slanderous allegations in a successful manner in which Clinton did! Also, our candidate should not be so aloof like Gore was! We could also use some more freindly media if you know what I mean!!!

[Kahuna]

3. Clark is already being "Gored." I think I know the REAL..

reason why.

Basically, I think the media when overboard in "goring" Gore because of his association with Bill Clinton. I think that when Clark took on ex-Clinton/Gorers the assholes decided to have another round at it.

[mot78]

4. That and the fact that they want Dean

Their manipulating our primaries reminds me of what Davis did with Riordan and Simon last year.

[elperromagico]

8. Clark scares them

When you put a four-star general next to an National Guard pilot, the National Guard pilot naturally looks scrawny in comparison. Problem is, Clark is a rough gem right now. He needs some serious polishing before he can be put up against Walker, Texas Dumbass.

[maggrwaggr]

10. Clark is getting Gore-d badly right now

He needs to go on the offensive and quit "responding" to criticisms and shit like that.

You don't let them set the tone, you set it yourself.

Dean has proved to be very good at this.

[elperromagico]

6. Easy

Go over the filter. (ha ha)

[maggrwaggr]

9. You go on the offensive, you stay on the offensive

and you put them on the defensive.

You don't play "nice". Ever. You don't trust them one bit. You want them on the ropes until you knock them out.

[Renew Deal]

12. Ok, this is the last one...

You are right. We can do this by taking over our neighborhoods. We need to organize and be going door to door from June to november. Talk, table, flyer whatever. That's what it will take to fight the freeps. Take them head on and in their face. We need to spread our word.

[Renew Deal]

11. My last post and then I sleep... Grassroots.

It will take the largest on the ground political movement ever. And we are capable of that as long as Dean, Clark, Kerry are the nominees. Possibly Edwards too.

[knight_of_the_star]

13. We fight with word of mouth

Its that simple. Defeat the media by spreading the word on the street.

[oustemnow]

15. Hell, the various Dem candidates get "Gored" on DU daily

I doubt the right will have to do anything to attack the Dem nominee (though of course they will; it's their nature). The fractiousness of the Dems will accomplish their goals for them.

[0rganism]

17. We can't. All we can do is contribute to alternative media outlets

$200 Million.

That's money as good as paid to the media whores for the Goring of whatever candidate is nominated. So, on the one hand, the candidate has to be strong enough to put up with the bullshit. On the other, s/he needs to call it what it is when it gets to blatant. This may go so far as having state Democratic parties launching class-action libel or slander suits, if appropriate.

Since we can't count on anything resembling a fair shake in major media, alternatives like internet forums (other than DU) and chats, flyers, and community radio/catv become very important tools.

[DeepModem Mom]

18. Think we need a high-profile truth squad, with a website,

starting now --

I wish the candidates, and the Party, would set up a group of high-profile people to start responding now. They would have taken CNN and Judy Woodruff to task after the CNN debate. They would blast unfair coverage of the last debate -- coverage that ridiculed and diminished all of the candidates.

And it's not just Rove and Fox. It's almost all of the media. I respond to negative coverage frequently myself, with phone calls and emails. We should have an army of people doing this. I often point out that the country is already virtually a one-party state, and that the opposition party, and its candidates, must be given respect and covered fairly. It's a matter of the survivial of our system.

If anyone has thought along similar lines, do you have an idea about how this effort could be accomplished?