I apologize for giving the impression that I don't think character issues are unimportant but I don't think when considering a candidate they should be considered more important than issues. I agree with the assessment of GW Bush as being arrogant and stubborn but would again point out that many of the politicians we consider great, Churchill and Truman, were considered arrogant and stubborn also. There were many people who told both of those politicians they were wrong but they pressed forward with their views. Partly what ultimately did Churchill in was that he was seen as too stubborn by his electorate even though he was a hero of WWII. Truman's stubborness on the war in Korea was part of what got Eisenhower elected and also why Truman's popularity ratings rivaled GW Bush's at the time he left office. While yes character is important but it doesn't guarentee a good president. One can say that Carter was a man of great character but a poor president. Bill Clinton is a man of questionable character but did a very good job as president. At the same time while someone may have a good character if they don't advance your issues, or issues you believe in, then what does that do for your issues. If you want the country to change in a direction that you believe is right then you should look at more than just the character but what are they advocating and how can they get it accomplished.
I will give credit to Gore coming around but, and this is off the top of my head, Gore talking about the pain that tobacco brought to his family was in 1992 and not 2000. My understanding was that he was still taking tobacco money then. I would say we are looking at subjective standards which you as an Obama defender, and me as a Clinton supporter, might not be in the best position to judge what is worse. That said it still goes to my point that pretty much all politicians will embellish and exagerate.
He made the sister reference at the 1996 convention. This has nothing to do with Obama and Clinton. You made a statement that played into the Republican meme about Gore which is just not true. It is not subjective. Comparing Gore with people pretending to duck from sniper fire or liberate concentration camps when they absolutely, incontrovertibly did not do those things is not similar. Now, you want to retreat to that old safe haven that all politicians do it to a degree. Well, yes... as we all do to a degree... but what you originally said was substantially different.
Uh howabout that the US shouldn't be involved in Korea or that we shouldn't half ass Korea? Howabout that the Soviet Union isn't a threat to Western Europe.
If you want more howabout Gore claiming he would be great on ethics, after he got caught doing something unethical. Anyway as I said its all subjective. If you believe Gore never exagerated or embellished because the evil Republicans said he did you are entitled to your opinion.
Sigh. You're repeating yourself, so I guess I will as well. No politician, including Gore, is a saint. But you made a statement, probably without thinking it through, that Gore has embellished stuff to the level of Reagan's fantasies and Hillary's recent tale. It is simply and objectively not true. Gore has never claimed to be in the Army when he wasn't or claimed to be under fire when he wasn't. Has he sunk to the hack politician's level of embellishment? Yes, but not to the degree his critics would suggest and certainly not close to the degree you implied.
So now we are going to distinguish liars based on degree. I suppose a lie is ok if it's a white lie...or if it's a lie under oath about sex. Interesting...
We always have. Again, I'm not saying Gore is above criticism, but he does not belong in the same category of claiming to have liberated concentration camps when it never happened or ducking sniper fire when it never happened. I would fully expect rocketsjudoka to embellish details in the retelling of some of his more memorable matches. I would not expect him to claim he's the Olympic champion.
Al Gore was caught making illegal fundraising calls from his official office. The fundraising laws at that time, and I believe they haven't changed in this regard, prevented elected office holders from making fundraising appeals using their official offices or other official resources.
Well put. This is a matter of subjective opinion and Rimrocker is entitled to his opinion and makes a good case that Al Gore hasn't embellished as much as others but the fact is that he has. We can disagree on how bad it is.
This is a nonsensical reply. Earlier in the thread you more or less admitted that the comparisons between Reagan/Clinton and Gore were not valid. You are incapable of bringing anything that Gore said or did that comes close to the fantasies of Reagan/Hillary. You claim it is a fact that Gore has embellished as much as these two, but again you cannot provide those facts. You cite a fundraising call and want that to be in the same league as creating imaginary sniper fire or pretending to be a soldier in WWII. They are not the same. It is not a simple matter of disagreement where you like someone's health care plan and I don't. It is an obvious distinction.
Ok, this helps clarify more. I understand your argument that stubborn/arrogant can seem ok either in hindsight, or as long as our stubborn leader is pushing the agenda we want. Thus the 'characteristic' of stubbornness may be a plus. It's a good thing that Lincoln was stubborn about the abolition of slavery, although there was obviously plenty of dissent on his stance. I think I haven't described well enough what I was talking about, so to clarify a little further: when I look at the character of leaders, I'm looking specifically at how their character contributes to how they lead. Things like a sense of humor or philandering (Bill C) aren't as directly relevant to leadership (though it can have an affect.) I assume this discussion of character/issues sprang from the usual Hillary vs. Obama discussions. If Obama and Hillary have very similar stances on issues, which they do, then how do you decide between them? (I'd like to detail one important difference between Obama and Hillary that won't go on an 'issues' list: Hillary believes in top-down democracy and Obama believes in bottom-up. Take their campaigns- Hillary looked to the big donors (as usual) to bring in the money, and power remains centralized to the elite as change comes from on high. Obama is all about grassroots campaigning, getting as many people from every walk of life involed, and seeks change by getting everyone involved and inspiring them to be involved and sacrifice and do more. His record-breaking fundrasing from small donations is a miracle of modern American politics.) Obama's leadership style (as a direct reflection of his personal characteristics, of who he is) trumps Hillary's. The ability to communicate clearly, the ability to inspire. He takes both sides of an issue into account. He pays respect to his opponents and to those who disagree with him (invaluable for consensus building and compromise leading to real action in Washington.) He genuinely believes that our commonalities as humans are greater than our differences, and seeks to unify us through that vision.
How is it a nonsensical reply? This is a matter of subjectivity. Do you deny Gore hasn't embellished his history? If you don't think it is as bad then that is a subjective opinion. I've got a bit of free time while I'm waiting for some big files to finish copying so I will try to address your argument more directly. In regard to the Al Gore invented the Internet comment, its true he didn't say "invent" but he did say he took the lead in the initiative to "create" the internet. This is quite an embellishment and one that the article that you posted earlier in regard list it as a gaffe. While Gore himself joked about it later this was an example of a high degree of embellishment bordering on lying as an act of Congress didn't create the internet. In regard to his military service Gore did state that he didn't see action in 2000 but, if I recall as this is off the top of my head, he did exaggerate what he faced in Vietnam in 1988 and 1992, part of the reason Clinton wanted him on the ticket was to address draft dodging charges against Clinton, and part of the reason why he did state in 2000 that he didn't say action was to address his previous exageration. Regarding tobacco your article correctly points out how much tobacco money had switched over to the Republicans by 2000 and it notes that anti-tobacco became a democratic issue. While Gore capitalized on this in 1996 as noted he had been taken tobacco money earlier and supported legislation benefitting tobacco. Did his change come about because he saw tobacco as a losing issue and when did he stop seeking tobacco funds? The article doesn't address that but Gore was still playing up his support of tobacco while a Senator even years after his sister had died of lung cancer. I will agree with you that Gore has gotten a rough break at times and many of his comments are taken out of context but there is no doubt that he has greatly exagerated or made mistatements that could be interpreted as lying . To his credit he has owned up to many of them, such as in regard to his military service, but then again Hillary Clinton has also apologized for her statement regarding Bosnia as a gaffe.
How is it nonsensical? Read the sentence you posted and tell me again how it makes sense. You suggest it is a matter of subjectivity, you saddle me with subjectivity, and yet you claim your position as fact. This is doubly weird because the fact is it is not true. You offer a speech about tobacco that may be seen as hypocritical and a minor ethics violation and compare it to an actor saying he actually liberated concentration camps when he only did it in the movies and a candidate who is running as a tough foreign policy expert pretending to duck non-existent sniper fire. You can't put those things in the same basket. Gore's is not like the other two. Watermelons and cherries are good to eat. You may prefer cherries and I may prefer watermelons. But there's a big difference between the two that is not based on opinion: it is a fact that watermelons make crappy pies. It is a fact that nothing Gore has done rises to the fantasies of Reagan and Clinton.
HEre is my sentence: Yes I am saying that Al Gore has embellished his history. He has made embellishments in regard to his personal history for political gain as Clinton and Reagan did. Are you saying that he hasn't? Whether you think one is worse than the other as a category yes Gore has embellished his history for personal gain. Even you acknowledge that but are hung up on a subjective standard of which is worse. The only position I claim as fact is that all politicians exaggerate and embellish. The degree to how bad they do is subjective. Read my further response. As a someone who has expressed a fondness for Gore and a dislike for Clinton it is obvious that you are spinning one as worse than the other. There is no factual standard that Gore claiming in 88 that he saw fire in Vietnam when he didn't is worse than Clinton claiming she ducked sniper fire in Bosnia. Both appologized for mispeaking but its subjective in regard to which you claim is worse.
