An ongoing discussion of politics, law, pop culture, and fine draperies.

Thursday, September 13, 2007



Limited Thought Update-Variety Post

I feel the need to post something, despite my apparent blogging paralysis, so
here is an article that fits within my ongoing Gore-a-phobic series.

It ran in the August issue of
Vanity Fair and chronicles the lasting impact of the political media's coverage of Al Gore's 2000 Presidential run. Here's the nut, as it were:
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."

How did this happen? Was the right-wing attack machine so effective that it overwhelmed all competing messages? Was Gore's communications team outrageously inept? Were the liberal elite bending over backward to prove they weren't so liberal?

Eight years later, journalists, at the prompting of Vanity Fair, are engaging in some self-examination over how they treated Gore. As for Gore himself, for the first time, in this article, he talks about the 2000 campaign and the effect the press had on him and the election. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my father, Martin Peretz, was his teacher at Harvard and is an ardent, vocal Gore backer. I contributed to his campaign in February 1999. Before reporting this article, however, I'd had maybe two passing exchanges with Gore in my life.) Gore wasn't eager to talk about this. He doesn't blame the media for his loss in 2000. Yet he does believe that his words were distorted and that certain major reporters and outlets were often unfair.
A little late, I'd say ... but if this analysis keeps the Gore in 2008 fires burning, then I'll nod in approval.

If nothing else, it's also worth linking to this piece because it provides a nice sidebar link to a photo spread featuring the caratin-deficient, yet ever-lovely
Nicole Kidman.


Ever-lovely, despite paleness

Labels: , , , , , ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous tim the cool guy said...

I think Nicole is pretty and I'm pretty sure Al Gore didn't much like running for President. So, unless we have him coronated, we're stuck.

Who do like of the current crop?

10:30 PM

 
Blogger Rikki said...

Basically, and inverted version of the popularity ratings ....
Richardson I like a good bit, Biden less but still a fair bit, Edwards I could stomach .... From there, I'm uninterested, but I will obviously still give them my votes. Ginsburg, Stevens, and maybe even Souter are waiting to retire. If Roberts has proved anything, it's that nothing else matters long term but what a President can do with Supreme Court nominations. And how little the Senate can do to stop. Bork would have done less damage than Roberts and Alito will do ... because he was a man of principle ... they are men of politics.

10:50 PM

 
Anonymous Grummy said...

So, is AS officially dead or just sleeping?

1:28 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home