Gore vs Bush and a Lesson to John Kerry. But, did it matter? Who was

[KoKo]

the better candidate or was there NO Difference. They both were Good Candidates...but the Main Stream Media beat them out...?

A link from the archives:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/09_lesson.html
Gore vs. Bush - A Lesson for John Kerry
March 9, 2004
By Brad Peachy

On October 3, 2000, Vice-President Gore stepped up to the podium for a debate against then Governor George Bush. If ever the American people could see a razor-sharp intellect with a deep grasp of fact and policy contrasted with a frat boy who majored in beer drinking, this would be it.

Bush was already notorious for using words such as "misunderestimate" and phrases such as "is our children learning." His stump speeches were a hodgepodge of one sentence bumper stickers that actually included "don't mess with Texas," whatever the heck that means.

Gore on the other hand had already proven his dead-on debating skills. The Vice-President elect had reduced the normally combative and fast-talking Ross Perot to humiliating outbursts of "can I talk . . . can I finish?" in the NAFTA debate on "Larry King Live." In the 1996 campaign, Gore sacked former pro quarterback Jack Kemp in the Vice Presidential debates, neutralizing Dole's most effective ally to take the White House.

An Atlantic Monthly cover story just months before the debates (July 2000) opined that "Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics, a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized." That Mr. Gore didn't annihilate this poster boy for dyslexia and faith-based facts meant in essence that Bush won. How could it happen?


So Bush beat Gore because Bush ran on his record - and Gore let him get away with it, acting as if Bush's record in Texas had nothing worthy of criticism and the man was a bipartisan statesman. In fact, the one comment Mr. Gore did make about Bush's tenure was to commend him on his quick response to fires and floods in the state. On the other hand, Gore, instead of running on his and Bill Clinton's stellar record, couldn't stop talking about future plans, proposals, and provisions, as if he hadn't held the second highest office in the land for the last eight years.
If we could have seen a little bit more of that "lethal debater" and a little less of Mr. Policy Wonk, our beloved country might not be facing another four years of welfare for the rich and wars without end. Perhaps it is a lesson that John Kerry, the current Democratic candidate will not forget.

(Edited to add more of article for clarity}

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/09_lesson.html

[Leilani]

1. The Gore/Bush race was a roadmap for Kerry.

Too bad he didn't follow it.

Just my opinion, I liked Gore more than Kerry.

[Demeter]

2. I Thought Kerry Was A LOUSY Candidate!

And I think he'd be even worse next time! What's with this running around the Middle East NOW? What difference could it make? Who gives a care?

Kerry has no stick to it tiveness. He takes a powder when the going gets rough. There's no way to finesse an election against the slash-and-burn GOP fundies: you've got to be too stupid to win, not even think of giving up even though you are bleeding to death.