Why Gore Failed to Become President

Post Election Summary of
Year 2000 Presidential Election

What Gore did Wrong

Gore failed to become president by distancing himself from Clinton and being untruthful and spineless. This page contains a detailed critical analysis of the Gore 2000 campaign and e-mail correspondence between me and the Gore team urging Gore to not be stupid. I created the first Gore 2000 web site. Gore ignored all my suggestions. For historical purposes, and for anyone who is writing books about the 2000 election, I offer this opinion and emails for the purpose of historical accuracy.

I also make the point that in the 2000 election, there were no good guys. That the fact that Bush stole the presidency doesn't make Gore the good guy. This page contains information and language that will offend every reader no matter what side you are on. But, this is my web site, my web page, and I can say whatever the fuck I want. I'm a connoisseur of free speech and free expression and use language of color to make my points.

Index to Original Pages

No Gore in 2004

As you know, I posted the first Gore for President site on the Internet back in September of 1996. Because I posted it so early, and because I'm damn good at indexing pages with search engines, my site was far more indexed and linked to than Al Gore's site was. In fact, in spite of my many notices, (including my crudeness and obscenities) people started thinking my site was Gore's site. When Gore finally put up a web site, I linked to it. And a huge amount of traffic that went to Gore's site came from me.

Currently I am not very happy with Al Gore and I want to be the first to post a Gore go away site. I don't want Gore back in 2004. I want a new Democrat, a Clinton Democrat, for the next election. I will support Hillary if she were to run. Or someone like Tom Daschel. (Although I'm really hoping for Jesse Ventura.) But I definitely don't want Gore or Lieberman. If I'm stuck with them running against Bush, I will vote for them as the lesser of two evils. But as far as I'm concerned, Gore can stay out of public life permanently.

What changed you might ask? Gore changed. Clinton picked Gore in 1992 as his running mate. The Vice President isn't really elected, he's appointed. Gore was basically a hired hand in the Clinton administration. I think he did a good job as Vice President, but he did a good job under the direction and supervision of President Clinton.

In 2000 it was Gore's turn to run. Not because he earned it, but because he was Clinton's Vice President. Clinton was one of the most successful presidents of the 20th Century and because of the Constitution, he was prohibited from running again. Thus Al Gore became Clinton's heir apparent. Gore inherited the nomination from Clinton. Gore would never have won a presidential primary on his own. So we ended up with a race between the Clinton appointed Democrat and the Republican with the most money. (Don't get me started!)

During the primary Gore beat Senator Bradley on the basis that he was part of the Clinton presidency, convincing the Democrats that he was more like Clinton than Bradley was. But then the pandering began. Gore decided he had to suck up to the right wing and made statements suggesting teaching "Creationism" in science classes. Then he sided with the Cuban Exiles in Florida in keeping Elian Gonzales in America, an obvious ploy pandering to the Cuban nut case vote. A ploy that really angered both Democrats and fathers across the nation, and one of many things that sunk his election. My enthusiasm for Gore started dropping.

Then came the Democratic Convention. That's when Gore really started fucking up big time. (I use the word "fucking" for accuracy of expression and is not intending to reference a sexual encounter - for those of you who object to politically incorrect speech.) Gore started getting anal about Loretta Sanchez, the congresswoman who defeated extreme right wing whaco Bob Dornan and a rising star in the Democratic party. Sanchez had a fund raiser at the Playboy mansion scheduled. Hugh Hefner is a big contributor and a free speech civil rights advocate. The Democrats had held many fundraisers there in the past, and it was a fundraiser, not an orgy.

However, Gore, who is now claiming to be "his own man" starts getting religious and anal and all of a sudden, Hugh Hefner and Playboy are no longer good enough for him. He's now morally superior and again, sucking up to the Christian Right, tells Sanchez to either cancel the event, or be denied a speaking role at the convention. Sanchez caved, and I think she also declined to speak at the convention as well.

This act showed that Gore was willing to impose his religion, or his faking of religion, above free speech issues and to use his powers to silence the voices of people who I agree with. Gore was not only religiously intolerant, but politically intolerant as well. The type of behavior one would expect from someone like John Ashcroft or Jerry Falwell. Certainly not something that a Democrat should be doing. I was very angry about this.

Running for President by distancing yourself from Clinton is as stupid as running for Pope by distancing yourself from Jesus!

But that was nothing. All of a sudden he was distancing himself from President Clinton, a move so stupid that it was absolutely fucking unbelievable. The Republicans and the news media had suckered him into believing that Clinton was bad news. His campaign did polls and focus groups to determine this, and it showed me that, unlike Clinton, Gore really did determine policy based on pandering. It represented everything that honest people dislike about politics and it was extremely insulting to Clinton supporters.

Gore figured he had Clinton supporters in the bag. After all, he reasoned, a Clinton supporter isn't going to vote Bush. I scanned Gore's web site and not once could I find the word "Clinton" anywhere on his web pages. I was furious! I emailed Gore's webmaster and told him how angry I was, and that I was going to remove Gore's name from my web site and replace it with "[Clinton's Vice President]" if they decided to move away from Clinton. I even did it for a week, but the dumb fucks didn't get the message.

I am not betraying Gore and the Democrats. Gore betrayed us, the election is over, and it's time to talk about what really happened.

Then Gore picks Joe Lieberman, a Clinton critic and an orthodox Jew. Having been raised Jewish myself I have no problem with a Jewish vice president. But I do have a problem with an orthodox Jew (or orthodox anything) as vice president. An orthodox Jew is a Jewish extremist and damn near as bad a Pentecostal Christian who flaunts their religion and is in your face about their beliefs. I found his remarks about religion and public life offensive. Freedom of religion DOES mean freedom from religion, especially your religion.

If Joe Lieberman wants to practice his religion and take the Sabbath off, that's fine. Do it! But, the office of the Vice President and office of the President are seven day a week jobs, and if you can work seven days a week, don't take the job. The whole Sabbath thing is based on the ridiculous belief that the world was created in 6 days. As an American, he has the right to believe it. But it's stupid. And I don't want a vice president who's going to be knocking on my door asking me, "do you know Moses?"

Lieberman lacked the "faith" to get fully into the Vice Presidential race. Some "Man of God" he is!

Additionally, Joe (I'm more moral than you) Lieberman never really got into the race. While running for vice president, he refused to drop out of his race for senator for his home state. He was running two campaigns at once. Unlike Bob Dole, who in 1996 put his butt on the line and dropped out of the Senate, Lieberman decided not to take a chance. What he did was like playing poker and not putting your money on the table until after you've determined you have a winning hand. For someone who praised God that he was selected VP, he didn't have enough "faith" to give up his fallback position, risking control of the Senate for his own personal gain. Men of God suck, but that's a different topic.

Gore gave Clinton a minimal role during the convention. Just enough to pacify Clinton supporters. But afterwards, it was back to distancing himself again. No joint appearances with President Clinton, insisting that he's "his own man".

Then came the debates. Something that gore was supposed to win, and he did. Gore won all the debates handily, and dropped in the polls after every one, even though he made Bush look like a moron. Why? Because not one time in all three debates did he mention Clinton's name. He tried to take credit for all the work Clinton did for the last eight years, but too good to mention him by name, because Clinton got a blow job and was therefore tainted. Al Gore was too good to even mention the name of Clinton, but not too good to try to take credit for his work. So Gore political ratings dropped because when it comes down to it, people would rather have a moron than a dishonest president. Bush is dishonest too, but his moronness distracts you from his dishonesty.

By declaring that he was his own man and distancing himself from Clinton, it was obvious that voting for Gore was not voting for Clinton one more time. We had no idea what Gore was going to do as president. Gore made it clear that he was going to go in a different direction, and that made him just as much and outsider as Bush was. And it made him look stupid because he was dumb enough to run away from success. How can you be that fucking stupid? It makes a guy wake up in the morning thinking that this can't be the real world, and that the movie, "The Matrix" is a personal message to me. That may sound crazy, but is it crazier than a Vice President running away from success? I think not!

Gore's "his own man" now! Enjoy it mother fucker!

So Gore can't figure out why the accomplishments of the Clinton years didn't count in his favor. He kept trying to change his message looking to figure out what we wanted to hear. What we wanted to hear was that he wasn't his own man. If Gore had said, "I love President Clinton. Voting for me is just like electing Clinton one more time, less Monica Lewinsky," he would have won by a landslide. but nooooo. "I'm my own man!" You sure are now, dumb ass!

It looked like Gore was making a comeback towards the end. With the revelation of Bush's D dubya I conviction people were just beginning to realize that were electing a drunk as President. They even let Clinton out a little to appease people like me. But he kept Clinton out of all the key states that were close. Clinton couldn't campaign in Arkansas, Tennessee, or Florida. Big mistake. They let him show up in California, that's all. they even prohibited Clinton from campaigning for members of the House and Senate costing the Democrats the Congress as well.

After the election Gore played it politically correct. Then the Supreme Court broke the law and stopped the recount and Gore folded. He gave into the coop. The Supreme Court breaks the law and commits treason to the constitution and Gore folds. He should have appealed to the electors who could have voted for him anyhow, but who's going to fight for a someone who won't fight for himself. Then to further insult patriots who stand up for the rule of law, when the black caucus in the Congress wanted to protest the illegal seizing of power, it was Al Gore who gaveled them down and wouldn't let them speak the truth.

In Summary ...

Al Gore ran a stupid and dishonest campaign. I find the combination of Religion and personal dishonesty to be extremely offensive. Gore and Lieberman emulated the worst aspects of the Republican far right fringe giving the voter a choice between real Republican nut cases and Democrats trying to pretend to be Republican nut cases. I am not interested in your fucking Christianity and your fucking Judaism and your fucking moral superiority.

Gore and Lieberman owe President Clinton, Clinton Supporters, and the Democratic party an apology. Clinton passed you the ball and you fumbled it. The Democrats should have had control of the Presidency and both the House and the Senate. Now we are stuck with president fucking moron. And it is your fault.

We in America are tired of fucking phonies. The same old guys, lying to us over and over again while wrapped in God and the Flag. Who did we have to chose from that wasn't a liar? America is now two Americas. The Government has separated itself from the People and no longer serves it's constitutional purpose. I think it's time to start Burning the Flag until we restore the government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

There are Democrats who aren't going to like this page, but we can't be in denial. We can keep our mouths shut and let jackasses like Gore and Lieberman, acting in the name of God, take over the Democratic party and fuck it up. We have to much invested in fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, and individual freedom to afford to squander our political capital as Gore did. But the time the election occurred, Gore had betrayed Clinton and the Democrats so much that I felt dishonest in supporting him. He became no more than the lesser of two evils and I question how much less. Had Gore become president, the Democratic Party would have lost it's identity. It is now time for us to look upon what happened realistically, not in denial, and make sure it never happens again.

Anyone who goes up against Clinton loses. That's why Gore lost.

One thing that was accomplished was that your defeat vindicated Clinton. You again proved that anyone who goes up against Clinton loses. Clinton was an awesome president and now he has the opportunity to separate himself from Gore. Now it's time for Gore to fade off into history and join Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakus, and Bob Dole and let us find new candidates who will work hard and do what's right. Further, although the Nader supporter might have been impractical, Nader didn't get Bush elected, Gore did. It's his fault. Gore didn't lose the election, he gave up. Gore wussed out. In contrast, when the right wingers tried to drive Clinton from office, he stood up to them and prevailed. Many Republicans fell in their attacks against Clinton. But Gore lacked the spine to stand up and claim an election he won. And a person who is supposed to be the leader of the free world has to have spine.

He's not my president ....

I do also want to make it clear that Bush is not the President of the United States. He is occupying that job, but he was not elected, he was appointed by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint the president. The Supreme Court broke the law and committed treason against the people in doing so. These people are criminals and traitors and have overthrown our nation through a right wing coop. Technically, the presidency is vacant. America has no legal president.

Bush is NOT the President of the United States. The Supreme Court committed Treason to the Constitution. We must commit ourselves to driving the right wing coop from power.

The Supreme court is above the law and broke the law. One must distinguish the difference between what is legal and what they can get away with. Just because they can get away with it doesn't make it legal. It merely shows that the systems of government have failed due to corruption at the highest levels. It therefore becomes the duty of the People to rise up against these criminals and take back the government. I therefore commit myself to the goal of driving Bush from power and restoring a government elected by the people, not appointed by the courts.

Conversations Behind the Scenes with the Gore Team

As I had said, I had the first Gore for President site on the web. It didn't take the Gore people long to realize that I controlled a lot of the traffic to his site. So I at least got noticed. It was a foot in the door and gave me some e-mail contacts. Here are some of the exchanges between me an the Gore team. I post them for historical purposes so everyone can see how stupid the were in rejecting Clinton.

Unfortunately, I didn't save everything. So here's the best of what I did save.

Hi Marc - I am the webmaster for Gore 2000. I have noticed that your site generates a considerable amount of traffic to our site - thanks - we really appreciate it. On Friday we added a feature which you may be interested in - the Gore 2000 FasTV player. Check it out at http://www.algore2000.com/video. best, Ben Green Director, Internet Operations, Gore 2000
Hey Marc - I'll be sure to let Al know how you feel about Elian. Have you seen www.gwbush.com? Apparently GW has named Elian his running mate. But seriously - the FasTV player is a big deal for us because it allows all our supporters who have web sites to add Gore 2000 streaming video. Lets be in touch. Ben
Subject: Running 4 Senate BTW, did you know I'm running for US Senate, as a REPUBLICAN? I'm running against Ashcroft. If Bush picks Ashcroft for veep, I'm the Republican candidate for Senate. What fun that would be .... Marc Perkel
As you know, I'm the webmaster at the first Gore 2000 site on the internet. We talked in the past. I send a lot of traffic to your site. Anyhow, I'm gearing up for the big fight and wanted to keep in touch. We both know how important it is for Gore to win. I don't know how connected you are to the powers and decision makers there but I want to establash a relationship with some insiders as I come across important information that you all need to know. For what it's worth, my 2 cents, I'm rooting for John Kerry for Veep. I wish he'd drop Dick Gephardt from the list. Not that I don't like Gephardt, but he's old gaurd democrat the way Cheney is old gaurd Reoublican. I look at John Kerry as someone who is very smart and a good Clinton democrat. What do you think? Marc Perkel
Hi Mark. Its great to hear from you. I see the traffic coming from your site, and we all appreciate it very much. I am rooting for John Kerry as well - you see I got my start in Internet Politics doing the Kerry '96 Senate re-elect web site. He and I go way back and it is my hope that Al Gore puts him on the ticket. (nothing against the others, who would all be fantastic). We are getting ready to do a redesign of our site and it will really kick ass. Lets be in tocuh. best, Ben Green Gore 2000
My initial reaction to Gore's choice of Leiberman is not good. I am a strong Clinton supporter and if Gore is going to distance himself from Clinton, then I will distance myself from Gore. I will wait till the convention to see what the postition of the platform is with regard to Clinton. I would remind Gore than in 1994 the Democrats distanced themselves from Clinton and they lost both houses. If the Gore campaign distances themselves from Clinton, this site is coming down and I will not support Gore. Neither will I support Bush. And I can't get behind Nader ot Buchannan either. I need to be convinced that Gore will stay the course to recovery that Clinton put us on. Marc Perkel
Marc - Joe Lieberman is anything BUT anti-Clinton. He did NOT vote for impeachment, he argued AGAINST impeachment. So what if he spoke out against the affair? I thought it was very disappointing too. Please wait to hear what President Clinton says about Joe Lieberman - I think you will hear him give the CT Senator a ringing endorsement. Ben
I will wait until the convention and to she how he explains his support for impeachment but i am highly upset buy picking someone who is anti-clinton and if this ticket distances themselves from Clinton, my site comes down. The first Gore site on the web may turn into a don't vote site. In 1994 the democrats distanced themselves from clinton and lost because we like clinton and not democrats. I feel like Gore just threw away the election and we're going to be stuck with Bush and his moonie contributors. Pass this on to the decision makers that the first Gore for President site might come very publicly down over this, but I will wait till after the convertion to see where the ticket stands. I hope I'm overreacting but this looks like really bad judgement to me. I am soooo disappointed. Marc Perkel
My religious concerns are not trivial either. I am pro-jewish. Jews tend to be much smarter on average than most other religions. Am Leiberman is a smart man, but I don't get the feeling he is deep on wisdom like Kerry is, and is public criticism of Clinton is an example of that. I suppose that affects my initial reaction to him. Orthodox Jews still practice acient customs that were relevant 5000 years ago but don't apply today and I'm concerned that if the jewish religion were portrayed in those terms that it will be bad for an otherwise good religion. Jews don't normally attract attention to themselves and if he were a reform jew I wouldn't have near the problem with it. Clinton and Jerry Fallwell are both Baptists. So is Jesse Jackson. But Fallwell and Jackson are extremists in the context of religion and Clinton is not. I'd rather have a president that gets a blow job because it makes him more of a real person. I'm concerned that this is going to turn into a religious war and this will cause polarization and it will be a Christian vs. Jews election. Marc Perkel
Don't worry about that. I saw a Gallup poll this morning - apparently they have been asking since 1937: "would you vote for a jew as president?". In 1937 only 35% said they would. Today 92% polled say they would vote for a jew as president. LETS KICK W'S OIL-SLICKED ASS! Ben
When Joe Lieberman first ran for state senate in CT in 1970, a Yale law student named Bill Clinton volunteered for him. Joe Lieberman just told that story as he spoke live on CNN from the CT AFL-CIO convention in Hartford. The bond between these two men goes back 30 years and is VERY STRONG. Ben
Other than old speeches, I can for the word Clinton on your web site. Are you trying to distance yourself from President Clinton? Marc Perkel
NO! and remember that this is Al Gore's web site, not Bill Clinton's. Hows things? Ben
I saw the bush ad with RATS in it. On one of the morning shows they stepped through the sequence frame by frame and, for what it's worth, I think it was unintentional. It looked to me like it was part of a video effect where they were making the text zoom onto the screen. I think that they just didn't catch it. What you see in frame by frame is the phrase moving around the screen and in one frame it says RATS. If it wasn't surrounded by other frames of motion I would say it was deliberate. It is also the same font as the font used in the phrase. I'm saying that as someone who is experianced and knowledgable in both electronics and video effects. I'm not saying this to defend Bush, but to let you know what my opinion of reality is. This same thing could happen to you, in fact, it may have if they start digging. So I'd be reluctant to make a big deal out of it, other than that the Bush camp continues to be in disarray. If it were me I'd send chicken man out and hit him on other issues while the media hits him on this one. Having said that, I also predict that the media doesn't have the mental bandwith to understand that. This is red meat for them. But if you want to criticize Bush and be honest about it, I think the best way is not to feed into it and just let it run it's course. I think it is good for throwing him off message for 2 days, and may hang around like "potatoe" hung on Quayle. Marc Perkel
I've been wondering about that package that was sent to you by someone inside the Bush campaign with the debate materials that was turned over to the FBI. The thought occurred to me that Bush might have been setting you up so he could claim you were spying/cheating in order to win. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Marc Perkel
I got this email and thought you'd find it interesting. Marc Perkel ---------- Marc, George Bush is pushing for increased domestic production to offset OPEC reductions. But OPEC has actually increased production 3 times in the last year, while the non-OPEC sources (supplying over 50% of our oil - Exxon, et al.) have decreased production to keep prices high and increase their stock prices. Source of this: Business Week magazine.
That's the problem. Swing voters understand that and don't want to vote for Clinton one more time. We're damned if we do and damned if we dont: millions of our "base" voters (people like you and me) love Clinton and would love to see him campaigning. But there is another set of millions of "swing" voters who would apparently be more likely to vote for Bush if they saw Clinton campaigning. Eric
Gore beat Bush better this last debate than the other two dabates. And, the last debate counts the most. However, Gore again avoids talking about Clinton and he is taking credit for what he did the last 8 years, when in fact, Gore didn't do squat. Clinton was president for the last 8 years and it was Clinton's plan and Clinton's vision. Even the work Gore did in reinventing government was done as part of the Clinton plan under the direction and approval of the president. I personally find it extremely offensive for Gore to keep clinton out of the campaign. I already voted for Gore yesterday, by absentee ballot, but after the debate I am less enthusiastic about Gore even though he smeared Bush in the debate. And my feeling of being offended is shared among the core Clinton supporters who worked hard 2 years ago against the impeachment. In addition to offending Clinton supporters, there is a theme in the news that Gore should be way ahead of Bush in the polls because the nation and the economy is in such good shape. They say that these accomplishments aren't sticking to Gore to help him. There's a reason for that. Gore is separating himself from Clinton and as a result, his accomplishments. Gore avoids the word "Clinton" and it leaves the impression that he isn't on board with Clinton's policies. Therefore, everything that Clinton did is not inherited by Gore because Gore has rejected the inheritance. Additionally, the public understands that Gore was the VP and those accomplishments are not his. If Gore were to give credit where credit is do and embrace the accomplishments of Clinton as Clinton's, and say "Clinton and I did this" then he would be able to share in Clinton's accomplishments. Again, I want to try to make it clear how offended I am by Gore trying to take credit for Clinton's accomplishments, and my friends who support Clinton are very very very very offended by Gore's additude. Even to the extent that some Clinton supporters are thinking about voting Bush to show that when a candidate lies about the clinton recored and tries to smear the president's record, then he will be punished by losing the election. Bysh has been smart enough to avoid smearing Clinton's record. But in Gore's case, by taking credit for Clinton's work, and by deliberately moving away from Clinton, Gore is smearing Clinton's record in a way that we Clinton's supporters find to be offensive in a traitorous way. The other thing it says to me is that Bush is smart enough to not slam Clinton and Gore is not that smart, and that tells me that Gore really isn't any smarter than Bush, perhaps even less smart. So, Gore won the debate, but the goal is to win the election. Additionally, I find myself becomming more and more angry about this issue and as you know, I have mentioned this to you many times. I strongly suggest that you pass this message onto Al Gore. I feel that because I put the first Gore site up on the internet, and that a significat percentage of your traffic comes from my web site, that I deserve that Al Gore has to read and respond to one email message, and this is that one message. I want a response from Al Gore to this email. And I want to say that if these issues aren't dealt with, the issues of Gore shutting out Clinton, that I may express the thoughts contained in this email on my web site instead of what I have now. I will say that I'm having a difficult time containing my feelings about this. And if it's affecting a supporter like me this way, it may explain why you are losing to Bush. It something that needs to be addressed. I am not convinced that in the long run that it is better to have Gore as president than Bush if Gore is stupid enough to smear Clinton's record. I will be on the road till Monday. I want a response from Gore by monday. And I want that response to bring Clinton into the campaign. Marc Perkel
Marc, Ben asked me to say hello and discuss your email with you. I am the software engineer for the campaign, so I suppose he figures we have a lot in common as fellow nerds! Anyway, I'd like to work with you to make sure you get the recognition you deserve. You have two distinct requests in your letter. Your first request is that Ben help you get strategic advice to the Vice President. That is a near impossibility, but if a lot of people feel the same way, it can happen. The second request is basically for recognition: you've done good work for the Vice President, and we all want to make sure you are rewarded with explicit recognition of some kind. But these are definitely seperate issues and we should discuss them seperately. On the one hand, you have a good piece of advice that needsnto be brought to the attention of the campaign's strategic apparatus -- a whole organization within an organization. That's one thing. On the other hand, you are asking to translate the importance of your efforts for the campaign into a personal email from the Vice President. That's another thing. For example, suppose Bill Clinton reads your email instead of Al Gore and President Clinton decides to continue his strategy of laying low? Or what if Bill Daley reads your email and works hard over the next week to change the strategic course of the campaign, but he forgets to ask Al Gore to send you an email? Do these scenarios justify your using your influence to undermine the campaign? I think you will see that these hypothetical scenarios actually fulfill your request, because the strategic advice component is in fact seperable from the personal recognition component. That is why I think we will make more progress if we discuss these issues seperately. I will be happy to discuss campaign strategy or recognition of your achievements, but let's please keep them seperate. All the Best, Eric Loeb, PhD Chief Software Engineer Gore 2000
I don't intend to undermine Gore's campain. I intend to try to save him from being stupid. I just arrived in San Francisco and just getting my email. I do not need a response from Gore. When I see him and Clinton campaigning together, that is sufficient. I do not need recognition. I want Bush to lose. But Gore is really pissing off Clinton supporters by trashing Clinton's reputation by making his name unmentionable, and by trying to take credit for Clinton's work. Your campain is on course to lose this election, and the reason is because you are moving away from Clinton. This is exactly the same way that the Democrats lost in 1994, but learned their lesson and won in 1998 by moving back to Clinton. I am going to email my list of 650 newspapers demanding Gore apologize to Clinton supporters for his behaviour toward Clinton. The correct response from Gore will be to bring Clinton in. If Gore fails to do that, then there's no campaign to lose. Isn't it obvious you are losing? It's it obvious why? Gore has done nothing in the last 8 years other than to execute Clinton's plan. Gore is little more than Clinton's employee. The reasons Gore gets no credit for the last 8 years is because he is rejecting Clinton. Three presidential debates and Clinton isn't mentioned. That make Gore come across as a phony, he wants to take credit but not give credit. Gore seems to think Clinton is a liability. Clinton is the greatest president of the 20th century, and if Gore thinks he's a liability, the Gore is dumber than Bush. I'm going to call Clinton tonight and urge him to campaign even if Gore doesn't like it. It's not Gore's campaign because it's the People who have to live with the results. So if I or Clinton have to intervien to put Gore on course, it's the right thing to do. I strongly suggest you get this message to Gore so he can prepare to embrace Clinton. Nothing I do will hurt Gore as long as he does the right thing. And if he doesn't, you're going to lose anyhow, so it doesn't matter. Like I said, the response I'm looking for is action. Not regognition, other than an invite to the innauguration. I don't know who's idea it was to distance Gore from Clinton, but they should be shot for it. Marc Perkel
Marc, Have you seen the news? You are part of a groundswell of similar sentiment, and something will surely be done. I don't see why you think that sending a letter to all the newspapers demanding an appology is helpful. Can we perhaps talk about (a) doing something behind the scenes to get the strategic outcome you'd like to see, and (b) using your mailing list to send out a positive message? This approach seems to me to be the way for you to be most helpful on both the internal and the external fronts. Regards, Eric
I am very good at getting letters published. I have already got several positive Gore / negative Bush letters published. USA Today runs my letters frequently. What do you have in mind? If you look at my Gore page, you'll see what I think is the deciding issue. Marc Perkel
You're the strategist who picked out the need for Clinton two days before it became the dominant national story! What message do *you* think will be most helpful? The message you have on your web site seems like about the right thing. Gore is exceptionally experienced. He can keep our prosperity going and extend its benefits to more people. Bush wants to do to the country what he did to Texas: give tax cuts to the weathy before dealing with the basic problems. Where Bush has over-promised $1trillion of the social security trust fund, Gore has a realistic plan to protect social security by paying down the national debt. Gore is eager to find ways to protect the environment, and Bush has a record of letting poluters write their own laws. Gore wants the federal courts to protect Americans' privacy; Bush wants our federal courts to overturn Roe v Wade. But, again, I'm quite curious to know what you think the message should be! Thanks, Eric
Yes, just catching up on the news. And pleased that Gore finally figured it out. No need for my letter. I suggest you make a TV ad for Gore with Clinton speaking the message. I know Gore wants to be "his own man" by he can do that over the next 4 years. Marc Perkel
That's a really radical idea. Maybe an ad with the 2 of them? Anyway, I'll pass it along. Eric
Glad you like it. Feel free to forward it to anyone/everyone. Don't trust the polls, you're losing right now. You need to get solid with Clinton. Marc Perkel
Marc - we are going to win. Ben
Anyhow, needs polished but you get the idea. It connects Gore with the progress the last 8 years. Reagan held Bush win the same way saying that voting for Bush was like voting for Reagan one more time. Voting for Gore should be like voting for Clinton one more time. That's the problem. Swing voters understand that and don't want to vote for Clinton one more time. We're damned if we do and damned if we dont: millions of our "base" voters (people like you and me) love Clinton and would love to see him campaigning. But there is another set of millions of "swing" voters who would apparently be more likely to vote for Bush if they saw Clinton campaigning. Eric
Pass this on to "he's his own man" Gore. ************************************************ The Gallup Poll: Presidential Election NewsAlert ************************************************ The latest presidential poll results are now on www.gallup.com Results for Oct 24-26, 2000 ** Bush: 52% Gore: 39% Buchanan: 1% Nader: 4% Don't Know: 4% Marc Perkel
I passed you excellent letter along. I don't know what else to do about the campaign strategy. My read on the situation is that all the key people, including Clinton, have discussed what to do and come up with the current end-game strategy. Let me know if your call goes through and how it turns out. regards, Eric
The news reports that your campaign has prohibited Clinton from appearing on the talk show circuit. This is a serious mistake because if Clinton did as little as three talk shows, Gore would win. The news report that you are using focus groups to make decisions. If you did a survey you would find that most people don't want to elect a president who makes decisions based on focus groups. Having said that, here's the flaw in focus groups. One of the polls reported that the focus groups didn't want Clinton to campaign. But this group is basing this not knowing what Clinton is going to say. Clinton is extremely convincing and I would think that after Clinton spoke a much higher percentage would say he did the right thing than a poll taken before. Another example. If you took a poll on August 19th 1998, 2 days after Clinton confessed to getting a knob job and asked if he was likely to lose his office, a very high percentage would have said yes. If you ask them how many people thought that it would lead to Clinton keeping his office but Newt losing his office, probably not one would have predicted that. And thus is the flaw in forward looking polls predicting what will happen with Clinton. Again I point out the 1994 and 1998 congressional races as the difference of democrats being with clinton vs. without clinton. I would further point out that Gore was a Clinton appointee and that Gore won the primary for only one reason, he was Clinton's VP. If not for that, Gore would have been running against 6 other candidates like he did in 1988 and came in last. The only reason Gore is in the came is because of Clinton. In distancing himself from Clinton, it reminds me of a cartoon where the character is sitting on a tree branch that he's sawing off. Gore can be his own man for the next 4 years. But for now, he's losing, and losing big. Think about it. When a Democrat has to fight to get West Virginia he's got serious problems. The fact that Gore is so far back from where he should be means he's doing something wrong. Surely you have to agree with that. So let's look at the list. 1) Gore won the debates. 2) His ideas are better. 3) He's not a moron like Bush is. 4) He's pissing off the Clinton supporters and trying to take credit for Clinton's work. Now, which of the above explains why Gore is losing? If I'm not right then what is your explanation as to why Gore is losing to a Republican moron when the economy is so good? I challenge those who don't agree with me to explain why Gore has to fight for Tenessee and West Virginia. You are losing. Something has to change. What are you going to change? It's still not to late to being Clinton in. Put him on Letterman, Leno, etc. Hit the talk shows next sunday, and schedule at least one joint appearance. Or .... lose the election. Gore needs to get humble, swallow his ego, and do the right thing. The future of the world is on the line here. That's more important the how people look. Marc Perkel
The facts are: 1) Gore is losing. 2) Gore should be winning by a landslide. Assuming the above is true, it is safe to conclude that Gore is doing something wrong. OK, if you're still with me so far, if Gore is doing something wrong, the correct course of action is: 1) To accurately determine what he is doing wrong. 2) To determine a course of action that will reverse the error and win the election. Are you still with me? Assuming that we agree on the above, I submit to you these two questions for you to answer. (By "you" I mean Gore and his decision makers) 1) What is he doing wrong? 2) What are you going to do to fix it? Please pass this on to the powers that be. My # is ###-###-#### if you want to hear me swear at you. Marc Perkel
OK, if you don't agree with me that we should bring Clinton in answer these two questions: 1) Why is Gore losing when he should be winning by a landslide? 2) What are you going to do to fix it? The answer to either of these questions can not be "I don't know". At least put Clinton on the talk shows, Letterman, Leno, 20/20, and the Sunday morning curcuit. I am still trying to call the whitehouse to try to convince Clinton to override Gore's bad decision. This race is more important than Gore's pride. Consider this, if you lose this election to Bush, the headlines will read: "I'm my own man" Al Gore loses election to "dumber that Dan Quayle" Bush because of his "risky scheme" of distancing himself from President Clinton". Gore gets suckered by a moron! Staff shares in blame! Do you think that any of you will ever get another job in politics after that? They wouldn't hire you to take out the trash? I'm glad I'm not you! I expect an answer to the two questions. Marc Perkel
OK, if you don't agree with me that we should bring Clinton in answer these two questions: 1) Why is Gore losing when he should be winning by a landslide? 1) He is winning 2) How do you know he "should" be winning by a landslide? 2) What are you going to do to fix it? Work hard to get out the vote on Tuesday Eric
Tell me you guys are not just in denial about the fact that you are going to lose this race. Tell me you have figured out what you're doing wrong and you have a plan to recover. You do have a plan ...... right? Marc Perkel
On the question of Clinton's effect on this election .... Clinton is campaigning for his wife, who has never held office, and she's winning. CLinton was campaigning for Mel Carnahan of Missouri and Mel was proud to be a close friend of Clinton's and he's still beating Ashcroft even after being DEAD! On the other hand, Gore is distancing himself from Clinton and he's losing. Care to explain that? ??? Marc Perkel
As they are saying this morning on the talk shows ... denial is not a river in Egypt. Elections are all about perception, and this election will depend on the mood of the people on Tuesday. Now to the message. I think Bush's message of Gore being a big government big spender is winning. I think there's an opportunity to hit him on that issue calling him the big government big spender. Look at the spending in his campaign. But, more fundamentally, Gore's disconnect from Clinton, in both not mentioning his name and the "I'm my own man" statement is interpreted by voters that Gore believes that Clinton's policies were wrong and that under Gore those policies are going to change, and for the worse. I don't think anyone believes that under Gore spending will be less than Clinton, but will increase. Additionally, Gore does not come across as intellectually solid as Clinton and actually will govern by focus groups and cave in putting the perception of reality ahead of good sound thinking. You have to realize that I am on your side, a Gore supporter, and I have these questions in my mind. So the average uninformed voter will be worse. Because of the distancing from Clinton, Gore inherits NONE of Clinton accomplishments because the issue isn't what Gore did or Clinton did, but what Gore will do. And since Gore is publically and clearly separating himself from Clinton, it's a clear message that GORE WILL NOT CONTINUE CLINTON'S POLICIES. That's what the voters believe. Because of the separation, the fact that the economy is good and he is the vice president means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this race. And that's why you are losing this election. What Gore will do as president remains more of a mystery in the minds of the voters that what Bush will do. In fact, Bush, in stealing lines from Clinton (Hope vs. Fear) is winning the perception that he is more like Clinton than Gore is. By distancing yourself from Clinton, Gore is like a ship that sawed off the anchor, adrift. Or like a popular store that changed it's name but failed to inform it's customers that it's still the same store. OK, getting to the POINT of all this. There is a waelth of power in connecting to the accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore administrations accomplishments for the last 8 years, but Gore has to make it clear to the voters that HE WILL CONTINUE CLINTON'S WORK and that things will not change. He has to at least mention Clinton to get any of this credit, because if he doesn't mention Clinton by name and with praise, he doesn't connect with Clinton's accomplishments. And if he doesn't connect, he disconnects, and Bush wins. Therefore, in the final argument you need to connect the accomplishments of the Clinton administration with the future of the Gore administration. Marc Perkel
OK, other than Clinton .... If/when you go negative. Call Bush a BIG SPENDER and say that Bush is for BIG GOVERNMENT. Talk about that the government of Texas got bigger. Use the words BIG SPENDER, HIGHER TAXES, and BIG GOVERNMENT to describe Bush. Call Bush IRRESPONSIBLE. I think that you should use that word and that it's an effective labeling word that defines Bush. BUSH IS IRRESPONSIBLE. Say it! If you really want to get nasty, uses this in stump speaches, say the word SMIRK! But only if you can do it right. Summary of phrases to define Bush: Bush is an 1) IRRESPONSIBLE, 2) BIG SPENDER, who creates 3) BIG GOVERNMENT, and will result in 4) HIGHER TAXES. Say the words ... win the election! Please pass this on to those who will make it happen. Marc Perkel
I'm not sure that Gore is failing to do any of the things you mentioned. It seems to me that we're not getting a lot of coverage one way or another. Anyway, at this point it looks like people are focussed on barnstorming the key states in order to get out the vote. How could we change message at this stage of the game? Eric
irresponsible might work Eric
I think that IRRESPONSIBLE is a magic labeling word and it's not to late to use that word. It creates a mental image of Bush as a drunk frat boy. It might put you over the top. Please use that word! Marc Perkel
ok. we're good to go with "irresponsible". Knock it out of the park! I'll do what I can on this end too. Eric
In contrast, Gore is responsible, or Gore will take responsibility and do the responsible thing, that being paying off the national debt. Bush is irresponsible and will squander the money by giving it to his rich friends and returning to his father's deficits. This is a choice between being responsible and being irresponsible. See how it works? Marc Perkel
I hope to read in the headlines tomorrow that Gore accuses Bush of being irresponsible. Right? Marc Perkel
No. Gore can't do that. Eric
Well, Perot endorsed Bush. The question is, how much of a tax cut is he going to get under the bush plan? Marc Perkel
fabulous question. I passed it along Eric
It's also about getting even for Gore beating him in the NAFTA debate. Marc Perkel
I again make this plea. Call Bush IRRESPONSIBLE. Squandering the surplus is IRRESPONSIBLE. Doing [Bush Issue] is IRRESPONSIBLE. Prehaops call is [plan, issue, idea] IRRESPONSIBLE. I thing that IRRESPONSIBLE is an effective defining word. Please pass this word on. Say the word, win the election. Marc Perkel
ok. I passed it along! Eric
My spelling is attroshus! ;) Marc Perkel
I'm hoping: 1) That the media is manipulating the polls and/or just wrong. 2) You have a last minute closer. Please get Gore to say Bush is just too irresponsible to be president. Good luck! Marc Perkel

They never actually took any of my advice and didn't do any on the things I suggested. What a waste! This is an election that shouldn't have even been close.

Other Related Sites

Sponsors
Shopping 		email
EMail 		Home
Home

Copyright Terms

People before Lawyers

A project of the People's legal Front

-----