Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (508159)	12/11/2003 10:36:28 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

A Class Act, Betrayed By Richard Cohen Thursday, December 11, 2003; Page A39 Al Gore didn't mean it this way, but by endorsing Howard Dean in the manner of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, he cast a spotlight on Joe Lieberman, his former running mate. Lieberman responded with style. He had pain on his face -- and a knife in his back -- but his words were not angry or bitter, showing once again what a class act he is. It's more than you can say for Gore. Frankly, I cannot tell you what Gore's endorsement will mean to history. It certainly is good news to Dean, who has yearned for some affection from the Democratic Party's establishment, and it suggests that he is an adept seducer. He got Gore to swoon -- and as Gore goes . . . well, who knows? But this is a political marriage consummated by betrayal. At considerable cost, Lieberman did not get into the presidential race until Gore announced he would sit this one out. Lieberman was warned that his loyalty would mean little to Gore, but the Connecticut senator played by his own rules -- a set of mighty convictions -- and in the end did not even get the courtesy of a heads-up phone call. "I was caught completely off guard," Lieberman said on the "Today" show. "No notice. I heard about it from the media." It was only after Gore's endorsement of Dean became public that the former vice president called him. "It was about four or five minutes in length -- and too late," Lieberman said. We are now hearing how hard it was for Gore, who was traveling, to get in touch with Lieberman, who was also traveling. Nonsense. And we are also hearing how both the Gore and the Dean camps wanted to keep the endorsement a surprise. Who cares? What matters most is the values both camps exhibited by trashing a thoroughly decent man and by rewarding his loyalty with the backs of their hands. Don't misunderstand me: Gore was under no obligation to endorse Lieberman. The two came to differ over the war in Iraq. Lieberman was very much for it, and Gore was very much against it. It is an important, overriding issue, and in politics it is the sort of thing that can rend alliances and even friendships. But Gore owed Lieberman the courtesy of a call. The endorsement would still have carried punch if it had -- God forbid -- leaked prematurely. It would still have represented a repudiation of Lieberman -- not to mention many of the moderate positions Gore once stood for. For the sake of surprise, Gore -- and by association Dean -- showed how squalid politics can be. I gave up a long time ago trying to understand Gore. I accept that he is passionate in his opposition to the war and that he thinks, as all sentient persons should, that George W. Bush has conducted a duplicitous or inept foreign policy -- never mind the budget deficit and all that jazz. Yet, overwhelmingly, I am left with the impression that policy was wed to the personal in this case. At one time, Gore reportedly didn't even like Dean much. He found him brash and crass -- or so he told others. And aside from the war -- a major aside, I grant you -- Dean has hardly campaigned as a Democratic centrist of the type who would have some appeal in the South, Gore's home region. Was Gore taking a swipe at Bill Clinton, who some think favors the candidacy of Wes Clark? Was he somehow positioning himself to take on Hillary Clinton in 2008? Was he simply chafing to get back in the arena -- and what better way than to do the unexpected? Lieberman himself was a product of Gore's penchant for the unexpected. When Gore put him on the ticket, he was a little-known senator -- and an Orthodox Jew at that. It was a bold, admirable choice -- as stunning as Gore's subsequent betrayal. In my mind, Lieberman was never going to be the Democratic nominee. His sole advantage -- name recognition -- dissipated as the campaign progressed. For the party's left wing, he had the wrong position on the war. He is a moderate in a party in no mood for moderation. It seeks the head of George Bush and it seems determined to lose its own in the effort. I don't blame Dean for what Gore did. But when I saw the two of them together -- the ungrateful Gore, the flinty Dean -- I thought that what Gore had brought Dean was not his endorsement but his baggage. The spotlight was on the two of them -- but somehow it shone brighter on Lieberman. cohenr@washpost.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (508159)	12/11/2003 10:38:08 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Yet, overwhelmingly, I am left with the impression that policy was wed to the personal in this case. At one time, Gore reportedly didn't even like Dean much. He found him brash and crass -- or so he told others. And aside from the war -- a major aside, I grant you -- Dean has hardly campaigned as a Democratic centrist of the type who would have some appeal in the South, Gore's home region. Was Gore taking a swipe at Bill Clinton, who some think favors the candidacy of Wes Clark? Was he somehow positioning himself to take on Hillary Clinton in 2008? Was he simply chafing to get back in the arena -- and what better way than to do the unexpected?