How Barack Obama Could Become Al Gore 2.0

July 27, 2008 Filed in: Commentary

The Presidential Campaign of Al Gore 1.0

In 2000, the Democratic Party was all but assured another term in the White House. Al Gore swept the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Though widely criticized for his dishonesty regarding an affair with Monica Lewinsky, departing President Bill Clinton was leaving with an approval rating of 68% – a higher departing percentage than any president since polling was established seventy years earlier (unless you count presidents who died in office i.e. FDR and JFK). Al Gore's running mate would be the then-popular Joseph Lieberman, a man who could reach across party lines and attract conservative and value-based voters who might otherwise have shied form voting for Gore.


Al Gore image by Breuwi. Geroge W. Bush image by Shawn Clark
On the Republican side, numerous potential candidates were jockeying for power. There was Steve Forbes, John McCain, Elizabeth Dole, Dan Quayle, and Pat Buchanan among others. Thrown into the mix was Texas governor George W. Bush, son of a former president. The primaries ensued with Bush trailing McCain by 19% at one point, but Bush pulled out ahead to take the nomination. He was considered by many to be intellectually inferior to Gore, and McCain's campaign accused him of mudslinging his way to victory.

In one of the most controversial elections in this nation's history, Bush narrowly defeated Gore by five electoral votes. He lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 and 0.5%. The outcome ultimately came down to a Supreme Court decision ruling Florida's recounting of votes as unconstitutional. Suspicion also fell upon Florida's governor – George W. Bush's younger brother.

Regardless of the political nuances regarding counting the votes, the election was a huge upset because Gore was such a certain candidate. He wasn't expected to defeat Bush. He was expected to overwhelm Bush, but he didn't.

Al Gore and the Liberal Media

How could Gore have lost this election? One of my family members has suggested that the nation seeks refuge in conservatism after being subjected to liberal politics for too long. I tend to disagree based on the numbers. Again, Bush did win the electoral vote, but he lost the popular vote. The general population did not exactly flock to the Republicans after Clinton, and remember that Clinton – despite scandal – remained a popular president throughout his two terms. Certainly, Al Gore did himself few favors by keeping his emotions so close in check and playing to the middle, a strategy that Ariana Huffington thinks hurt his chances.

In October 2007, Evgenia Peretz published an article in Vanity Fair called Going After Gore. It was the first truly in-depth interview with Mr. Gore since his 2000 defeat, and the author takes a very critical look at the role of the media in that election. The article opens with this blurb:

Al Gore couldn't believe his eyes: as the 2000 election heated up, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other top news outlets kept going after him, with misquotes ("I invented the Internet"), distortions (that he lied about being the inspiration for Love Story), and strangely off-the-mark needling, while pundits such as Maureen Dowd appeared to be charmed by his rival, George W. Bush.


Several eye-opening quotes fill the piece, paining a picture of a media that turns against the candidate it's assumed to be biased for. These are just some samples. Ms. Peretz goes much deeper in her article and examines the election coverage (or mis-coverage) in great detail.

Eight years ago, in the bastions of the "liberal media" that were supposed to love Gore—The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, CNN—he was variously described as "repellent," "delusional," a vote-rigger, a man who "lies like a rug," "Pinocchio." Eric Pooley, who covered him for Time magazine, says, "He brought out the creative-writing student in so many reporters.… Everybody kind of let loose on the guy."


"Particularly in presidential elections … we in the press tend to deal in caricatures," says Dan Rather, who was then anchoring for CBS. "Someone draws a caricature, and it's funny and at least whimsical. And at first you sort of say, 'Aw shucks, that's too simple.' In the course of the campaign, that becomes accepted wisdom." He notes, "I do not except myself from this criticism."


In 2000, the media seemed to focus on a personality contest between Bush, the folksy Texas rogue, and, as The New York Times referred to Gore, "Eddie Haskell," the insincere brownnoser from Leave It to Beaver. ABC anchor Claire Shipman, who covered the 2000 campaign for NBC, says, "It was almost a drama that was cast before anyone even took a good look at who the candidates were."


As with all campaigns, the coverage of the 2000 election would be driven by a small number of beat reporters. In this case, two women at the most influential newspapers in the country: Seelye from The New York Times and Ceci Connolly from The Washington Post … "They just wanted to tear Gore apart," says a major network correspondent on the trail.


The article paints a picture of a media that created a far more favorable characterization of Bush than it did of Gore, a media that glossed over Bush's misstatements while overanalyzing Gore. The author describes the media's treatment of Mr. Gore as toxic, and the Democratic candidate had to spend as much time fighting fraudulent information from news outlets as he did attacks from his opponent.

While Gore's presentation of himself was far from the dynamic and engaging speaker and activist he is today, his campaign was severely damaged by a media that was all to willing to deal in caricatures and silliness rather than focus on issues and objective reporting.

How 2008 Could Be 2000 Version 2.0


image by the Center for American Progress Action Fund
Again, we have a clear contrast between the Republican and Democratic candidates. In fact, basically the same intellectual and personality contrasts can be drawn between Obama and McCain as could be between Gore and Bush. Again, the Democratic nominee seems to be a sure win. One advantage Obama has over Gore is a somewhat undefinable presence that demands rapt attention, but, like Gore, Obama has been moving to a more centrist platform as his campaign evolves. Likewise, McCain's positions on several issues have been drifting to the right.

How is the media faring? Recently, McCain and conservative pundits have been complaining that Obama has received more than twice as much airtime after the primaries. However, according to the Los Angeles Times, that coverage has not been kind.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.


Writing for the New York Times, Frank Rich reinforces the idea that Obama is succeeding despite the media rather than because of it:

The growing Obama clout derives not from national polls, where his lead is modest. Nor is it a gift from the press, which still gives free passes to its old bus mate John McCain. It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was “wrong” about the surge. More than five years and 4,100 American fatalities later, they’re still not demanding that Mr. McCain admit he was wrong when he assured us that our adventure in Iraq would be fast, produce little American “bloodletting” and “be paid for by the Iraqis.”


Again, the media has begun to deal in characters rather than people, and they are tailoring their coverage of the candidates and events to fit those roles they have cast – McCain the grandfatherly war hero and Obama the socialist (potentially) Muslim elitist.

Think of the sheer number of media blitzes that have surrounded Obama's campaign: the Jeremiah Wright soundbite, "guns and religion," flag pins, "terrorist fist-jabs," madrasah, etc. Every move this man makes, every word he utters, every association he has comes under the most sensational scrutiny. In contrast, McCain receives free pass after free pass from the media.

Here are some examples from Media Matters. Please note, all of these examples focus on only one network, and it's not Fox.


This is just a sampling and doesn't cover numerous flip-flops by McCain that the media has largely ignored as well as various offensive jokes he has made or claims to not know how he voted on some issues. On Crooks and Liars, Jon Amato, commenting the media glossing over one of McCain's misstatements once rhetorically asked, "What if Obama had said this?"

"What if?" indeed.

Avoiding a Repeat of History

While I think my political leanings are somewhat evident, I'm not writing this to tell you for whom to vote. I am, however, writing this to tell you how to vote – not as a Republican or as a Democrat, but as an informed individual.

Vote informed, not educated by the mainstream media which doesn't inform so much as it entertains through information. Do your own research on the candidates. Fact-check everything. Read the candidates positions from their own websites (Obama, McCain). Read independent commentary. Go look at their voting records yourself (Obama, McCain). Go to a rally and ask them your questions in person, but don't trust what you see on TV or hear on the radio at face value.

And never, ever use the term liberal media again. Two main contributors hurt the Al Gore campaign of 2000: a political move to the center and a media that was more interested in drama and caricatures than facts. WIth both candidates in this election, political drifting is potentially damaging to their campaigns, but you can eliminate the other variable. Don't vote for some two-dimension cardboard cutout as portrayed by the mainstream media. Look beyond the hype. Don't become acquainted with characters on TV. Acquaint yourselves with the people, and make a decision based on information rather than infotainment.

Update: Media Matters Action Network is creating on online pledge regarding monitoring media bias – especially in regards to Republican candidates and talking points. Check it out if this interests you.

Tags: , ,