Al Gore gives advice to Kerry on the debates in todays New York Times. I miss Al. I wish he were more public during the next few weeks. He would remind people, again, why it is a good thing that he did not get elected president. The advice Gore offers is that Kerry shouldnt underestimate Bush. O.K., thats the spin of the week, and it is good advice. But then Gore says, "notwithstanding the presidents political skills, his performance in office amounts to a catastrophic failure." Right. The absolute condemnation of Bush is the main reason that Kerry has never gotten any traction; it is clearly over the top and those who hold such an opinion reveal that they are out of touch with the public sentiment: only a small minority of folks think this. With the exception of Jimmy Carter no president has been simply a "catastrophic failure." It is not a reasonable axiom upon which to base a campaign. This is a boring op-ed, fully revealing of the authors character. The best line in it is from Jon Stewart.
My favorite new point in the never-ending argument with liberal friends on the "theft" of the 2000 election is this: If Al Gore really won that election, was so very popular with the American people, then why isnt he the candidate this time? I know, he said he wouldnt run, but if he is so popular, then why didnt his party draft him, insist he MUST run, demand his candidacy because of his proven popularity? Then I rehash the legal, constitutional issues in the stunned silence.