Great piece. Gore hits the nail on the head but can he translate what he is saying to the average American? Gore is doing all the right things at this point to position himself for a rematch with Bush in 04. He is not doing what every other spineless Democrat is doing by attacking Bush's stances on the WOT, the tax cuts for the rich, the economy, etc., which is a good thing. Independent and Democratic Americans are DESPERATE for someone to stand up and challenge Bush and that's what Gore is doing. He needs to keep this up for the next 2 years. Gore's biggest mistake in the 2000 election was to agree with Bush on almost every issue. Agreeing with Bush made Bush seem more moderate, more palatable and thus easier to vote for. I doubt Gore will make this same mistake if he runs again.

Finally, someone sticking it to the righties. Way to go Al.

Al and Daschle are doing what we should have been doing for years calling the conservative media bias what it is.

If Democrats can come out forcefully with a number of substantive policy initiatives and succeed in defining the Republican party as the right-wing propaganda machine beholden to big business and in control of the media's "fifth column" that it is (and with such overwhelming evidence to those facts, it really should be easy), they can win big time. Perhaps the Democrats first policy initiative should be the total elimination of the off-shore tax loophole while pledging to give that added revenue back to the people in the form of tax breaks for the lower, middle, and upper-middle classes.

And another thing, I'm really tired of Democrats letting Republicans bully them into playing only defense by cowering in fear when Republicans use the phrases "liberals" or "tax and spenders" to define their opponents... I don't think this plays to the voting population anymore, but Democrats still seem to think it does.

I agree "tax and spend" and "liberal" have lost their potency. Whenever I hear it-I yawn. What goes through my mind is that can't they come up with a new phrase. Gee, they have been saying the same tired old phrases for years.

But is Gore damaged goods is the real question. Is he electable? I think not, because he lost once (or rather won by an inexcusably small margin) when he had all the advantages. In 2004, Bush will have them all.

Democrats have CNN, MSNBC, and i could go on and on...
Its nice to see A Right leaning station. A station by the way that is cleaning the clock of the others in the ratings.

Gore had all the advantages in 2000? The point of this post and thread is that conservative media bias put Gore at a huge disadvantage in 2000. Please stop with the canard about Gore losing a race he had no business losing.

The Dems had CNN and MSNBC? In an alternate universe maybe.

If you think Cnn and MSNBC lean Right you are on the moon...
All you need to do is look at who runs them and you have your answer.
Just like Right WIngers run the Fox News Channel...Lefties run the rest.
Lefties run the editorials and print pages too

The right wing owns the media. CNN has not been liberal since Ted Turner sold it. MSNBC has canceled Donahue even though his ratings were higher than Hardball which is hosted by that baboon Chris Mathews a "Democrat" who does nothing but bash other Democrats

The right wing owns it eh?
If fox news is a right wing channel..what is everything else???
ahhh..the answewr grasshopper is LEFT WING...
If you think CNN and MSNBC with all its liberal talk show hosts and anchors are centrists...you are not being honest
Matthews gave H. Clinton a free pass when she was on...

If fox news is a right wing channel..what is everything else???
ahhh..the answewr grasshopper is LEFT WING...news.

Anyone who believes that the fawning obsequious media has a liberal bias is seriously deluded. This is a press corps that will not hold Bush accountable for Harken and eminent domain for the Rangers, and for dodging the Alabama national guard. This is the press corps that repeatedly echoes GOP spin and parrots Ari Fleischer's every word, while barely ever allowing Democrats to respond. On the few occasions they do, they usually dismiss it with snide cynical criticism or commentary on how this reflects the difficulties the Democrats are having in getting their message across. Al Gore and Tom Daschle are right, and until there is a truly progressive media outlet on TV and Radio, and/or a concerted Democratic effort to hold the media accountable, this will not change.

The print media with few exceptions is conservative and the ridiculous cable news channels don't qualify as news any longer.

Anyone who believes the media has a liberal bias, I suggest you read the following article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=14976

Gore's comments were terrific - but thinking this will play outside of the party faithful is a huge gamble.

I think this approach could get Gore the nomination, but then enable Bush to define him as out of touch, condescending, superior, smug, anti-American, and by extension arrogant and unlikeable. In short, the old Gore isn't gone.

Will his new message be "I'm a cogent social critic?" That's not a winner.

There's a long history of anti-intellectualism in the U.S., and I think the likely result is that he'll turn off the multitudes of ordinary folks in the middle of the road that he needs to win.

I'm guessing most of you are, like me, disturbed by the disinterest (or even outright hostility) toward anyone who wants to express complex thoughts, criticism, and analysis on the public stage, but it's a fact of life.

I'd give him credit for trying, because it would be bold and maybe unprecedented. But I just can't believe it would work. I think the media would just define it as Eisenhower vs. Stevenson. We know how that turned out.

Gore absolutely has to take on the media after what they've done to him. He's going to be portrayed negatively by Republicans and the media? Gee, that'll be something new.

It looks like Democrats in general are starting to recognize their media "problem." Now they all need to keep hammering the message home. Screaming "liberal media bias" for decades has paid off for conservatives. It's time to return the favor.

I will be interested as to what John Kerry says about this. He is on "Meet The Press" this Sunday and I'm sure Russert will ask him to comment on it.

Adam, why do you think the Republicans lie about Fox being "fair and balanced" when even you admit it's right wing? I mean, you are being honest, why are they lying?

The other networks probably do have some liberal bias, but certainly there is conservative bias on board those as well. Look, doesn't Keyes have a show on MSNBC? That's be akin to seeing Molly Ivins on Fox.

Conservatives seem to think that ANY liberal on the network means it's a liberal station-- whereas no liberal on a conservative station like Fox, means it's a conservative station.

That paragraph right there sums up the situation.

And "look who owns it" to see that it's liberal? Did you even read Krugman?

MSNBC: Owned by NBC, which is, in turn, owned by GE, which is a publicly held company, albeit, one with ties to the military contracting industry.

MSNBC: Also owned by Microsoft, also a publicly held company. Microsoft has a couple of issues with the government.

CNN: Owned by AOL/Time-Warner. A publicly held company, also facing regulatory action from the government.

None of these institutions has any particular reason to lean right or lean left, other than the belief that, as business entities, they will face an improved political environment for their interests with "business conservatives" and, in the case of GE, pro-military forces, in power. Why would any of these owners be "liberal"? If anything, their mission is to improve ratings, and they look at the ratings that FOX News is getting, and try to mimic them.

Also, Alan Keyes is no longer on MSNBC, and Donahue is not cancelled. Yet.

OF COURSE the media is biased agasinst liberals, and it's terrific to hear Gore finally say so.

However, what this bias needs is a term that everyone can understand. How about "corporate media?" When the Limbaugh-FOX axis tells a lie about Gore, covers up a Bush scandal, fails to cover a peace rally and ignores the links bewteen campaign contributions and legislation they buy ("terrorism insurance?" PLEASE!), condemn the corporate media. For our side, it's a compelling narrative -- reporters pumping out pro-corporate bias to appease their wealthy bosses.

Corporate media. Repeat often.

Hmmm, my nic was stolen

I agree with much of Al Gore's point, but I don't like the way he expressed himself or his conclusions. Complaining about the Republican 5th column is largely accurate but whiny. The job for Democrats is not to complain about the success Republicans have in putting out their spins and half truths, but to become much better at doing the same.
Democrats have to become much better whiners. Like the Republicans turned 1 overly partisan speech at the Wellstone memorial into "a 3 hour fundraiser", Democrats should be demonizing Georgia Republicans nationwide for wanting to bring back the confederate flag and for suggesting a tripple war amputee was somehow unpatriotic.

Sure it's divisive stuff, but it's equally divisive when Republicans go on about "San Francisco Liberals" and "Virginia values not Vermont values". When the Republicans were calling Nancy Pelosi a "San Francisco liberal", Mark Shields on PBS and Crossfire did a brilliant job pointing out the completely out of the mainstream positions put forth by the Texas Republican party. Democratic party leaders should be reciting these positions every chance they get until every voting American citizen is aware of them.

Gore pretty much has the Democratic nomination locked up, drawing over 50% in a poll by Time Magazine, while everyone else (Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Dean, Daschle...) combined draw less than half. Therefore, Gore now needs to look at how he can dethrone Bush.

The only reason that Bush beat Gore in the first election was money. If Gore starts fundraising now, he can be competitive with Bush come 2004. He doesn't need to match Bush dollar for dollar, but he does need to begin fundraising immediately.

Also, Gore should select John Kerry as his VP choice. Kerry is a demon fundraiser since he is able to draw on the trial lawyers of New England, and has a huge family fortune as well. Also, he is a dynamic campaigner, and is smart enough to easily be able to beat Cheney during a VP debate.
Also, a Gore-Kery ticket would be two men who served during the Vietnam War, and Kerry is a decorated war hero, giving them appeal to conservatives. Can Bush and Cheney match their military credentials?

The only thing holding Kerry back from a presidential run is a lack of name recognition and the fact that Gore already has the nomination in the bag. Thus, Gore should tap Kerry's benefits by adding him to the ticket, and look toward 2004 as a chance for revenge.

My viewpoint on the media (this from a Scoop Jackson Democrat)is that they're influenced by whoever gives them money. I'm sure most of us would be influenced if, say, Mydd gave you $10,000 to praise him to high heaven on this site (I doubt that would happen, though, but it's an example).

The point is, humanity in general (and this includes the media)is good only when it is not tempted by outside forces. If no one gave money to politicians, they could vote their conscience.

That being said, I consider Tim Russert a fair individual, Donahue as liberal, Eleanor Clift as a major liberal, NBC and MSNBC (I watch both every evening) as leaning liberal, CNN and CBS as moderate, and Fox News as leaning conservative.

That being said, I thank Mr. Gore for trying to tear down the idea of the "liberal media". Quite frankly, it's simply a "corrupted media", and doesn't lean to one side or another, overall.

Oh, and Paras, Kerry anounced he's running today on Meet the Press (my favorite TV show)today.

Well, Mr. Liberal, AVADem, etc.

Gee, I haven't spoken to any of you since Election Day.

How's life?

Life's okay for me, BushRep. My High School's production of "Don't Drink the Water" was a smash hit, and while I am dissapointed that the Democrats lost most close races this year (mind you, the Republicans made a net gain of 2 seats in the Senate (3, probably, with Landrieu losing), which is less than the Democrats' gains in 2000), I am happy that Pelosi, Hoyer and Menendez are leading the House now.

How's life in PA? Congrats despite losing the Governorship, as your party expanded its lead in the Legislature, and Pat Toomey easily won a very competitive race. Besides, Rendell led by 19 going into election day, and won by 8-9. That's a good showing for Mike Fisher, and I doubt his political career is finished.

Is Toomey going to run against Arlen Specter in 2004? I hope so-it would give us an opening to winning that seat. I've already got a communications link with State Senator Allison Schwartz, and I'll be getting a response soon on whether she plans to run or not. Realistically, picking Schwartz is nuts, but she's my favorite anyway.

Mr. Liberal,

Great! Glad to hear your play went well. Congratulations about holding that New Jersey Senate seat. It was very impressive. I'm sure you were disappointed over Sumers and Pingree!

Thanks about Pennsylvania. Coattails have never existed in PA. I never believed the polls in PA, and the race would have been a lot closer without them. I recently wrote a column about Pat Toomey for Politicspa.com. Quick tip: Specter is the most popular pol in Pennsylvania, and no one will beat him if he runs.

Say, I have an e-mail account, and you and I can discuss the recent and future election.

Here it is: pagopguy@yahoo.com

I'm okay-still reeling from getting screwed in our football game against Marshall. Virginia was boring as hell-Warner was unopposed (and unless I knew the Democratic nominee or one of their offspring, I would've voted for him anyway), and every Congressman was re-elected with at least 60% of the vote, even as Cantor, Goode and Boucher had reasonably credible challengers (Moran could've been vulnerable against a good opponent, but with our district, which gave 55% to Gore and even more to Mark Warner, made even more Democratic so that Tom Davis' Dem-leaning seat would be more likely to stay GOP if he sought higher office, put up a computer programmer who my father, no big fan of Moran's, has done business with and burst into laughter at the thought of him being a Congressman).

As I understand, there is a real lack of talent in the Virginia GOP.

Personally, I wish Warner had stepped down after Kennedy said she would not run. Earley or Gilmore would have taken the seat easily.

That being said, do you think it would be smart for Mark Warner to forego challenging a popular icon like Allen and wait until John Warner retires in 2008?

Right now, neither party in the Old Dominion has a particularly strong bench. From what I understand, part of the reason Warner didn't retire was that there was no real worthy successor to take his place. Who would've run if he'd retired? I don't know. I have to disagree with saying that Earley or Gilmore would've won-Gilmore is damaged goods after the budget wars of 2001 and his simultaneous chairmanship of the RNC-at a time when we needed serious leadership, people thought he took running the RNC more seriously than running the state (exit polls, unreliable as they moght be, showed that, had he been able to run for re-election, Warner probably would've beaten him), and Earley is a terrible campaigner, with no particular strengths.

I still think it would've leaned GOP, probably with one of the Congressmen-Wolf would've been the best choice, but Goode or Goodlatte would have a very good chance too. I think Tom Davis would've wanted to run, but he's not nearly conservative enough to win the nomination at the convention that would've probably decided it. The Democrats would've had a harder time, since none of the Congressmen would be good candidates (Scott's too liberal; Boucher could win, but his House seat would be a toss-up and he 's 60 and fourth on Judiciary; and Moran has his ethical problems-and even without them, Virginians will not elect to statewide office someone with a thicker New England accent than anyone in the Massachusetts delegation)-I think Kennedy would've reconsidered for an open seat, but I don't know what she would be as a candidate.

As for Mark Warner, I would love to see him challenge George Allen (who is reasonably popular but by no means an icon), and I think he would have at least a decent shot of beating him, but I doubt he will. I don't think he'd risk challenging an incumbent when there will probably be an open seat two years later, and he and Allen are friends who would rather work together than against each other. I think he'll run in '08 (the GOP goes with a Congressman or, if he beats Kaine in '05, Gov. Kilgore), and I think he'll win.

We will see who and what the liberal media slant is once a supreme court justice retires/dies.

Thanks for the response, BushRep. Yeah, I was sad about Pingree and Sumers losing, but I expected both of them to lose. Pingree surged at the end, cutting the gap in half, and reaching 42%. She'll be back, I'm sure. Sumers, on the other hand, suffered the same fate as Max Cleland-a moderate who was tarred and feather for a few little errors. She lost 60-38, so I don't think she'll be back. I did get a very nice letter from her today, and I still wish her the best.

As for NJ Senate, I honestly thought that if there was a Republican tide, Forrester would win. However, Lautenburg's true lead was probably 12-14, so it wouldn't have been enough.

I'm really beginning to like Jon Corzine-he's smart, competent, and a real progressive. I like the idea of him heading the DSCC-he could self-fund every Democrat's Senate campaign! :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/02/politics/02SPEN.html

The right in action.

The newly elected senator from Georgia should be charged and found guilty of treason for the comments he said about Vietnam war hero Max Cleland. This new (Republican) senator and G.W., who was not in Vietnam, are gutless cowards to attack a great man like Max Cleland. Please, Mr. Cleland run again in 2008 and kick that republicans behind. Now that republicans have control will they lead or just play the blame game like they always do. Taxes are going up and the economy is lagging typical republican politics.

Mr. Liberal-
Kerry didn't formally announce he's running. He announced that he is forming an exporatory committee for the presidential nomination. A subtle but significant distinction.

Of couse, for all practical reasons, he is running. However, we've known that for months now and the announcement on Meet the Press was expected. It really doesn't change that much.

I know that Kerry is running, but I'm confident he'll lose to Gore if Gore does in fact choose to run. However, if Gore does beat him, he can still choose Kerry as a running mate. That was the point of my previous post.

Wasn't there a survey that produced a result of something like 90% of D.C. journalists admitting to voting for Clinton over Dole? Now tell me again how the conservatives are the majority in the media.