Tonight I watched Al Gore deliver a suprisingly good speech at the DNC. In that speech, he appealed to voters outside of the Democratic party.

To Repubicans he said...



To 3rd party voters, he asked them to "not throw their vote away and asked them ""Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?".


What I myself am wondering is...

To moderate/on-the-fence Republicans: Has this speech convinced you to cross party lines or to stick with the GOP?

To "Indies": Is it unsettling that Gore implied that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is tossing your vote in the trash?

and

Did the Gore speech sway you at all to vote for Kerry?

Is it unsettling that Gore implied that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is tossing your vote in the trash?

I did not see Gore's speech and can only go on the quote here, so if there is more context well then I will think about amending this answer. Before I even saw your question my thought was what a piece work. Who is he to say that someone is "throwing" their vote away for voting their conscience! If he accomplished anything it was to tick me off! I will remember his words when I sway and think I should go with one of the major parites and he won't like my answer. We should be voting for someone they can actually believe in. Perhaps the Dem's and Rep's will get off their butts and actually appeal to the Indies and 3rd parties. They should be alarmed that their platform does not appeal to a good portion of this country.

A transcript courtesy of the Washington Post can be found here. The relevant selections:



After addressing 2000's Bush voters, he addresses 2000's third party voters:


. . .and he makes his pitch for the difference thereafter. I couldn't find any other reference to throwing a vote away. If "Don't let anyone take it away or talk you into throwing it away" refers to third party voting (and not non-voting,etc.), he specifically addresses voter who saw no difference between the candidates in 2000.

DreamPipEr:


If the quote in full context still annoys you, consider the fact that Bush partisans are actively supporting Nader's efforts- are the words of one ex-nominee actually going to sway you more than the GOP strategy of financing a weak candidate they otherwise hate in order to deflect their lack of popular appeal? At least Gore was making a direct, honest appeal for his preferred candidate, addressing the concerns of many third party voters and making his case.

Ok it still annoys me but less so. I now think the throw away had more to do with Florida then 3rd party votes.

I don't like the Republicans for supporting Nader but it is competing, no matter how ruthless. Not that I agree with this statement but it appears to me that the Republican's are using "the enemy of an enemy is my friend" and I don't agree with it. Nader and all 3rd party candidates should not be stopped from getting on the ballots and they shouldn't be stopped from debating. The Republicans and the Democrats should not prohibit debate or choice. The 3rd party candidates already have the cards stacked against them by unfair rules made by the Repub's and Dem's. The Dem's, though, are actively seeking to prohibit Nader's ballot access and that looses points for me. Not that I support Nader, which I don't, but I fully support his right to be a Presidential candidate and I do not support any party that tries to prohibit that.

Al Gore served to remind me just how important it is to vote your conscience. So, as far as I am concerned, he had unintended repercussions for his speech today. If my choice doesn't get on the ballot then my vote won't be thrown away, it will go to the next best 3rd party candidate so the Repub's and Dem's realize just how out of touch they are and yes how they are very similar they are too.

Wasn't this sad clown supposed to be launching a""progressive" radio talk show and a "progressive TV show? Gosh, the failures just keep adding up. Blows debates with a verbally challenged Goober... Can't carry his own state nor the state of his Master... "Gee Tipper, maybe if I grow a beard?"...Endorses Dean a wee bit early...



As a libertarian who sometimes votes Republican due to REALITY, Gore's speech made me yawn (as I made a mental note to myself to thank the god that I do not believe in that this geek did not become President!). Talk about sour grapes! MoveOn.Gore!



"Unsettling"... No!...Boring? Yes! Sad? Yes! Predictable? Yes! Desparate? Yes! Pathetic? Most definately!

and



Is this a serious question? It is? Oh, O.K. Sorry 'bout that! Ummmmm. No! Of course, mistress Hillary may change my mind. And I really should hold off on a decision until the multi-millionaire carreer politician/lawyer John Kerry makes his attempt at "connecting" with me...

My definition of hell right now--as I have mentioned before--is that I once thought it couldn't possibly be worse..
Gore vs. Bush.
Well I was quite wrong because I now get Bush vs. Kerry.
Trying to decide who could possibly be worse, a life long politician or a spoiled rotten massachusetts Texan.

Even worse is that the only real other choice is IMHO a personality cult who cannot recognize his time is over. Sorry Nader but with as close as the last election is you tipped the scales to someone who has never held a job he didn't have to be bailed out by others for his incompetence. All I can really give Bush overall credit for is his cabinet picks and that he listens to his advisors.

Now where the hell was this particular Gore last time around? He might have rallied the faithful and won. Nice speech, although I hope that sense of humor he rented wasn't too expensive.
i thought his call to people--3partiers and even Republicans-- sounded good. I like how the Democrats are trying to put forward as positive a message as possible.
I think the only other option other than the 2 parties this year is a waste. There are no other viable options. At least with a Democrat as president it'll deadlock the whole process and we can survive until 2008. This will also set the stage for a real option of a 3party or Indie candidate to make a bid.
I am worried about 4 more years of Bush with the way the Republicans are trying to rewrite the Constitution and feel that if Independent and 3party candidates allow Bush another term they should in no way whatsoever complain about any actions the Republicans accomplish in regards to their current wish list.
Your not voting to give a mandate to Democrats but voting to form a stale mate we can live with until 2008.
If you help to elect Nader--If it were possible-- the resulting disaster as he was ignored and used as a scapegoat by both parties will IMO make the prospects a third party President nonexistent. Nader doesn't have the personality to gain any sympathy from the public and will leave a bad taste in everyones mouth.

I am sorry for third party wannabes but Nader does not belong in this election.
WHERE is the Libertarian or Green candidate? The third parties talk a bunch of talk but come up with NOTHING and NOBODY time after time.
Justin Raimundo, Libertarian columnist and Pat Buchanon supporter talks trash all the time about how libs have sold the country out and supported a pro-war candidate in Kerry, yet he cannot stand Bush either, yet says Abbism a moral vacuum. I am at a loss as to what the third party actually wants. There is just a blank space always on the ballot and they come up with NOTHING. Nader is not an option, all of us know it. Can Libertarians ever choose a candidate before July? No.

Now people want to down Gore because he said basically that a tired, worn out, weak excuse for a third party candidate, not only is someone you dont want as President but you prefer to throw your vote away on principal, to simply rebel against a two party system will not be good enough this time around? Sorry folks, its true.
COME UP WITH A REAL CANDIDATE! If you want to be a third party advocate.
Libertarians! You are sure great at talking trash, please, try to come up with a candidate before July, dont you think you can manage the most minimal of tasks for a Party that likes to critisize both sides but cant get their act together in the least.

In the meantime, its not outrageous to suggest that a vote for a person who would not make any kind of president is throwing your vote away, its just common sense.
Ralph Nader as President? For real? No wonder noone takes third party choices seriously.

Actually I think Bush is a Connecticutian. I also think I may have just made that name "Connecticutian" up . Anyway I am very against the democrats trying to halt Nader from getting on ballots. Some of Gore's criticism in 2000 was for treating Nader like a real candidate and giving him respect. If your conscience makes you vote Nader because you feel the other two are worthless then by all means vote Nader. I am currently a democrat but have little to no affiliation with the democratic party. I do not vote along lines I do not support simply because someone is a democrat. I have views and irregardless of who is overall closest to my views (hypothetical third party candidate) I vote for the person closest to my views (hypothetic major party candidate) who has a chance to win. Just a for instance. The year is 2000. To me since I really care about the environment I would be Nader's boy but I care for the environment so much that I am willing to pick someone with a chance Gore because the end result of not voting Gore is essentially a vote to hurt the environment...Bush.

I am not an idealist. I take the person who is in the position to do more for my causes (Gore) rather then allow the person who hurts my causes to win (Bush) especially if the man in step with my causes (Nader) has zero chance to win.

Of course I want the whole cake but I would rather take half then to owe someone cake because I just had to pick the whole cake option.

That being said I am not coaxing you to vote for Kerry. In fact just to really anger you I think if you vote for Nader you are wasting your vote and in fact supporting Bush and not third parties. All third parties do is generally swing elections in favor of the polar party. What did Perot accomplish? He got a liberal elected. What did Nader accomplish? He got a conservative elected. I am not blaming either one. It isnt their fault that a given candidate couldnt appeal to all the necessary voters but all a third party generally accomplishes is in electing the political party furthest from their own agenda and I think it will always be that way. The two party system is indoctrined itno the American system. A third party will never have longevity. It will never win elections. The US has a winner takes all political system. This isnt Europe where a party gets 5% of the vote and therefore gets 5% of the house.

Okay I am slightly off topic. No. Gore's speech will do nothing. Nader is no longer a Green and it is Kerry's job to win those voters rather then being gifted them. If you are idealistic enough to still currently support Nader you are not going to be won over because if Bush wasnt enough for you to choose one of the two major parties for 2004 you are unwinnable.

Is it unsettling that Gore implied that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is tossing your vote in the trash?
It's not exactly unsettling, it's policy. The two major parties don't want competition, they want to pigeonhole American voters. They and their corporate media buddies want a nice simple A vs B contest, where its really just two sides of the same coin. The media has no interest in advancing third parties because it doesn't benefit them. But.......but, they're getting scared. At no previous time in my politically aware life has there been such a concerted effort to dissuade voters from casting a third party ballot. Both major parties know deep down inside that they are hypocritical and two faced when it come to putting ideals into policy, and they know the voting public see the same thing.
Why else do they shut third parties out of debates and black them out of any news coverage save C-SPAN.
Case in point, some people seem to not realize that there is indeed a Libertarian candidate, but one won't get that information from the canned and scripted network news. Too bad, unless more people fight the system and work to break down the monopoly, our political process will continue to be infected with two-bit political whores who sell their body and vote to the highest bidder out of the only two choices.

Did the Gore speech sway you at all to vote for Kerry?
HA! This one makes me giggle.

I frankly doubt anyone will be swayed by speeches given at any political convention. It's all preaching to the choir.

In the runup to the 2000 elections, I followed Browne's campaign for the Libertarian party. Even donated and thereby "joined," or rather got on the mailing list. Still get Libertarian materials. What a waste of resources, as I'm now in the Demo party.

But when it came right down to voting, I could not vote for Browne. It would not have mattered due to the Electoral College winner take all situation, but something in me balked at voting for Browne. My vote went to Gore, not so much for Gore as against Bush, with the dim hope that maybe Colorado would swing that way.

For state, county and local elections, I voted straight Libertarian if a candidate was running. For Congress, straight Demo. I saw the massive power plays of the Repubs going on.

When Gore won the popular vote and lost the EC vote, I started my personal tracking of the Bush administration. Let's just say that several levels of anger hell have been traversed since inauguration.

Even still, I'm darn proud of the innovation the Democratic party has displayed since the inauguration of President Bush. The Libertarian party would do well by examining and emulating some of the innovations. All third parties should get off their whine and cheese kicks and actually do something serious to get elected.

And I don't mean taking money from the Repubs.

Anyway, don't think anything Gore says will sway votes, although what he says might serve to keep votes from drifting away. The Libertarian argument that there is no difference between Repub and Demo doesn't ring true any longer.

There are amazingly huge differences, if one cares to look and see.

Times have changed and have changed significantly, even dramatically. Watch and learn, third parties. A government of the people, by the people and for the people is developing. A government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation will be retiring soon.

Although started by one man (Howard Dean -- YEAHHHHHH!) and implemented by a brilliant staff, this will be finished by many, many, many concerned citizens contributing small amounts of time and money each.

It's the way this country is supposed to work.

Overall, what Gore says might not sway any votes, but what the Democratic party does has been, is, and will continue to do so.

Third parties should realize that the Demos have no monopoly on the Internet or meetups. Knock, knock, hellooooo? Anybody home?

Repubs could do this too. I don't think they will. But what the hey, surprise me.

It sounds a bit unsettling because basically he is saying "You can't vote for this side". He's acting like a communist dictator, telling the masses that they better vote for him or else. This is a democracy,. People will vote for whom ever they want.

QUOTE

Did the Gore speech sway you at all to vote for Kerry?

I don't know. I didn't watch the DNC coverage. I was busy watching paint dry [b]end sarcasm

Al Gore couldn't convince me to drink water in a desert. His whole speech was just the same stuff I've been hearing for the past 6 months, and it still hasn't changed my mind.

Not so much.

CP

To "Indies": Is it unsettling that Gore implied that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is tossing your vote in the trash?



I didn't get that when I first heard the speech, but I did think it was a curious line. As a guy who voted for Harry Browne (twice), I'll probably throw my vote away and go with Bush this time.

Personally, I don't think that re-visiting the 2000 election over and over again does anything for this convention. All the people who really believe what Gore said are already committed democrats. Not sure that they can effectively 'motivate the base' using the Florida mantra AND move to the middle for swing voters. Should be interesting to watch the candidates balance this issue.

I think everyone should take a look at pennDerek's post and also if you have time listen to Gore's speech yourself -- it's up on C-Span right now. The way that Titus posed the questions for debate here implies things in Gore's speech he didn't really say nor did he intend.


What Gore really said was:



Now out of that, I'm not sure how you gathered that Gore told independents they were "throwing away" their vote. He is telling people to vote, he isn't telling them that voting for a 3rd party candidate is ill advised.

Did the Gore speech sway you at all to vote for Kerry?
I highly doubt you are going to get a "yes" out of anyone here because that is not the point of a political convention, they are nothing more than organized pep rallies. What asking this question does do is allow people free license to slam Gore, Kerry, whoever they want as is demonstrated in some of the posts thus far.

Furthermore, with this election far more than anoy other election we have had, the battle lines are drawn and people aren't going to easily switch sides. It is going to take much more than a speech by an also-ran politician to convince anyone.

What is it about Democrats like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter that they start giving good speeches after they lose a presidential election?

AuthorMusician is right that these conventions are little more than pep rallies that fire up the faithful and true believers. I don't expect anything less next month when the GOP gets together to tell us how George W. Bush has made America a land of milk and honey.

But conventions allow the two major parties to put aside their internal squabbles, gently dis the other side and assure voters how everything will be wonderful if you just cast your ballot for them.

Bill Clinton gave a killer speech. He used humor, sarcasm, and selective memory to whip up the faithful, build up John Kerry and make the case that Bush doesn't deserve another four years.

I wouldn't expect any of our little group's self-described conservatives to be very impressed by Gore, Carter or Clinton's speeches. This is pretty much a rock festival that wouldn't appeal to country fans.

Stay tuned. The Republicans have their chance to get their shots in next month.

It depends on what the meaning of "impressed" is.

I've only seen snippets of Carter's speech, so my only impression of that was that he looks really aged, much moreso than I recall from the last time I saw him on television. I think that was during the primaries.

I did watch Gore and the Clintons though and much as it was when I went to see F911, I knew I probably wouldn't agree with the message, so I looked more at the style and delivery. I do agree with Nighttimer that Gore's style has improved. It's not nearly as sing-songy as it used to be and he doesn't seem to be quite as stiff as he was 4 years ago. He also doesn't talk down to the audience nearly as much as he used to do.

Now, on to Hillary, and I'm being objective here believe it or not. She is a horrible public speaker, at least in this setting. She really really needs some public speaking lessons if she ever wants to run for President. She lacks any passion in what she's saying and attempts to compensate for it with long drawn-out dramatic flourishes. And it doesn't work well at all. It comes off to me as more of a "cue" to people to "get excited cause what I'm saying is really important". I've seen a whole lot of high school actors put more meaning and passion into what they say than Hillary did last night. I was quite surprised by that actually.

Bill Clinton on the other hand is a rock star, no question about it. I don't like him, I don't like his political message or philosophy and I think he's snake oil salesman. But, the man can make a speech! No question about that at all. When it comes to turning on a crowd and delivering a message, Bill Clinton is right up there with Ronald Reagan and Bobby Kennedy. I came away from that one thinking, "This guy is full of crap, but dang! He can sure shovel it like nobody else can!" Gotta give him his due.

I would tend to agree with you Aquilla, her speech was very weak in my opinion too. Her choice in outfits was also ill advised as well.

I imagine that is why the convention initially didn't sign her up to speak -- because she isn't a good speaker.

In general I found that to be a problem with the convention as a whole, with a few notable exceptions, the speakers were very bland and un-exciting.

CubeJockey, thanks for clarifying, I watched Gore’s speech last night and didn’t think he stated anything that would prompt a response to the effect of:



Communist dictator? Or else?

One of the things that bothered me during Clinton’s tenure was the continuous point made by right wing critics that Clinton didn’t even get 50% of the vote. And now we’ve got a President that didn’t receive the most popular votes and his opponent is called a ‘sad clown’. The majority of voters didn’t think so.

Does Al Gore have any political weight? Enough to win the most votes in the Presidential election 4 years ago. Does he still? Probably, and his speech could have turned a few votes. In an election this close the focus from both parties will be on the undecided and Independent voters, you couldn’t have had a better speaker than Gore who personally knows the value of those decisive voters.

And another thing that did impress me with Gore’s speech is what he could have said but didn’t.

While many believe, and rightfully so, that a convention is meant to be a pep rally for the faithful, it should also be realized that Indie's, like me, are watching carefully. So while their message is not meant for my ears I am looking for signs about where they stand and how I feel about where they stand. It is important for both of the Major Parties to realize this.

As I don't have cable I didn't get to see Gore's speech, I will probably check out the clip on C-Span later. I do, though, remember seeing Gore on one of those late night shows a few months back. I remember after seeing it thinking, wow, he is funny and not so "plastic", I saw a level of honesty that I never saw before. Perhaps if I had seen that side of him when he was campaigning I may have considered voting for him.

I also agree with the comments on Clinton. He truly is an effective and powerful public speaker. He certainly has "appealing to your emotion" down.

And Artemise, if the Republicans and Democrats stopped stonewalling the Indie and Third Party candidates perhaps they would be better equipped to have an effective run for office. Instead the Repub and Dem's have joined together to stop all other candidates making their voices heard. Who do you think is at fault when a Libertarian candidate is not allowed to debate? Certainly not the Libertarian party! Perhaps you don't think they are coming up with good candidates, I would submit that they are "better" or "could be better" then what the Republican's and Democrat's are supplying us with. Most people just don't know it because of the restraints placed on them. Until we Indie's, 3rd Party follower's, and those that think that they have to choose the lesser of 2 evils make our voices heard we are not going to see any change happening. We will be stuck with so so candidates that don't represent us. We need to realize that we are not abused children who can't break the cycle the so so candidates!

This may or may not be the place for this maybe another topic is appropriate, but this is my take on it. The Presidential election is not the place for third-party and independent candidates to wage their battles. It is really a futile battle if you think about it. No candidate is going to be able to gain enough exposure and appeal to enough people (many firmly entrenched in their beliefs) to carry a majority of the nation.

There are a few libertarians and greens I agree with (and would like to see in office), but they have no where near enough clout to become president of the united states. In order for third-party candidates to really have a voice, they need to start smaller. They need to focus on local elections, state elections and elections to the house of representatives. These are elections that can be winnable. In addition to getting their voice heard it'll also generate buzz. How many independents are in congress? I don't think there are any are there?

The only place I know of where greens, libertarians and other independents even stand a chance is in the San Francisco mayoral elections. The battle is regularly between Democrats and various shades of greens and libertarians. Until that becomes more of a national phenomenon it is simply wishful thinking that these candidates will stand a chance in a presidential election.

Just my two cents.

I have watched the Democratic Convention and I have to say it is the same old tired liberal argument about there being supposedly "two America's." This is nonsense. The way the democrats put it, they see wealthy people as being the enemy. But all of these politicians are well-off financially, so it's more than a bit hypocritical for them to claim they are on the side of the little guy. Wealthy folks run the corporations which employ the little guys. Without big business, there would be no jobs and no economy. I know there are some abuses by big business, but our system is set up for big business to thrive and create jobs for the middle class. I like the idea of a flat tax across the board, which Steve Forbes talked about. This would make it more fair. But I do not believe that we should penalize the rich and rob from them to give to someone less fortunate. When you do this. you are sliding towards communism and socialism. It is a noble idea however to ensure that everyone gets the same opportunities and I support that. But I also believe in personal responsibility. The American Dream is available to all, but you have to work for it. The government will not give a hand-out, and they shouldn't for that matter. Al Gore is a sore loser, who still hasn't gotten over the fact that he lost. Everyone says it was just 537 votes, but the fact remains that the military votes were suppressed. This would have put Bush ahead by at least 150,000 votes. Nothing I have heard could sway me to support the DEM ticket this year, although I do like some of the things Edwards is saying.

You might say it is nonsense but I would say it is TRUE.



http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/356



There are definitely 2 Americas. One is rich and making record profits off the workers. The other is barely keeping up with inflation. This seems kind of skrewed to me.

This is a big reason (among many) I don't buy into Edwards speech. I'm rich and making record profits off the workers, and I'm not barely keeping up with inflation. So there must be how many America's, really? Three, four, five? I view all of these convention speech's as tired, disingenuous soundbites for the choir.

Say what, Artemise? The Libertarians didn't have a candidate until July? Well, guess what? The Democrats didn't either. Kerry was voted the nominee on Wedneday night, July 28th and he accepted Thursday, July 29th. The Republican candidate, even though we all know who it is, won't be nominated until mid-August.

The LP nomination process is purely by convention, the old fashioned non-scripted kind with multiple ballots and delegates actually changing their minds. You know, the way the big parties used to do it.

Justin Raimondo is, well, a libertarian, sure, but not at all represetative of the opinions of this libertarian. He has a definite viewpoint but IMHO a kooky one.

Has this speech convinced you to cross party lines or to stick with the GOP?

Nope. Gore couldn't sell me a heater in an Alaskan winter.

To "Indies": Is it unsettling that Gore implied that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is tossing your vote in the trash?

It's annoying but it isn't at all unusual, just the standard two party position. As far as both the Dems and Reps are concerned, they're the only game in town and they like it that way. I don't since I don't agree with either, and it isn't just me: a large chunk of the habitual non-voters are that way because they don't like the choices, not because they don't care.

Did the Gore speech sway you at all to vote for Kerry?

Nope. It convinced me of only one thing: that Gore is still obsessed with the 2000 election. Stop living in the past, Al. The recounts done by the media all concluded that you would have lost Florida even if your proposed rules for counting had been used. You lost, get over it.