Well 2000 was a close election. Regardless of how you feel about it, the fact is that Gore lost by a handful of votes in a couple of key states. I am not sure if this topic has been broached, but in your opinion, simply comparing the two against each other, who is/was the stronger candidate and why?

Gore in 2000?

Kerry in 2004?

Of the two, I would say that Gore was the stronger candidate.

For one thing, he had the virtual power of the incumbency behind him. The problem there was he deliberately distanced himself from Clinton because of the personal issues. I am not sure to this day whether or not Gore liked Clinton, so maybe it was a real issue with Gore personally (who seemed to be an upstanding guy) and not a political calculation.

Gore seemed to be the better speaker. Gore seemed handsomer. Gore had experience in the executive branch.

Kerry has the war hero moniker, but we see where that has gotten him .

I would say that Gore was clearly the stronger candidate.

I would say that Gore was in the better political position in being an incumbent and a Southerner.

I think their politics are similar and their ability (or inability) to really connect with people is similar. Kerry is probably a better fighter when things are down. Gore seemed ineffective in presenting a vision of where the Dems would go, Kerry is able to point at a direction that is in process that many people do not want to go but has not painted a clear vision either.

Kerry is probably the better candidate, but Gore basically lost my vote in 2000 and I lived in his home state (which he lost)

I am not sure if this topic has been broached, but in your opinion, simply comparing the two against each other, who is/was the stronger candidate and why?

Gore in 2000?

Kerry in 2004?

I’m not sure it makes a lot of difference.

Last night I got a copy of David Brock’s The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy.

I hadn’t finished much last night when the wee hours of the morning caught up with me and I fell asleep reading I’m my recliner. Whether a book is a page turner or not, once I hit a certain point of relaxation, I’m gone.

Still I was able to make notes on some introductory passages.

Brock, a former writer for the conservative Washington Times includes in the “noise machine," the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Joe Scarborough, Matt Drudge, FNC, Washington Times and the New York Post along with countless other individuals as part of the "noise machine."

Specifically regarding Gore he writes:



<snip>



Now we come to Kerry in 2004. Brock says the same thing I’ve said on this page and others. Regardless of who the Democrats nominated, we would still see the same type assault Brock mentions in his book. He writes:



I don’t think Gore was a bad candidate or that Kerry is a bad candidate. In addition to Brock’s Republican Noise Machine, Kerry faces a well financed, incumbent president with toys like Air Force One and the ability to make news on his side.

Additionally, the president’s team did not hesitate to smear fellow Republican John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican Primary or Georgia’s Max Cleland in his 2002 Georgia Senate race.

Brock’s Republican Noise Machine is at it again. Kerry, for the reasons I’ve cited, is neither a better or worse candidate than Gore, just one with more hurdles to jump.

Republican Noise Machine... I like that. Goes back to the old saying that a lie repeated often enough is indistinguishable from the truth.

As for the better candidate?

Gore is VERY smart and funny. He's a good speaker when he doesn't try to run for President. Which, I guess, means that he's a good politician, but a terrible candidate.

Kerry is also VERY smart and very tenacious. He has trouble speaking in public forums in a way that connects with people. Which also makes him a terrible candidate.

In 2000, Bush was a relative unknown, so Gore being a terrible candidate made Bush look better than he really was.

In 2004, Bush is a known quantity, so Kerry can be a terrible candidate and still look better than he really is.

Neither are personable in front of a crowd. Kerry is a Senator; Gore was a Senator. Both spoke well enough on the floor of the Senate, but that's not the same as connecting with an audience of farmers.

My pick? Gore by 0.01% of the vote.

Hey there i am very new, very English and only 19 so i'll try, just saw this topic first and thought i would hop on.

In my mind Gore was the better candidate for reasons already cited, a major one being the fact he was coming from an incumbent position under a 2 term president. He didn't campaign as well as he could have and Bush managed to sling enough mud to swamp his efforts.

I can't remember who said it, i may well dig it up, but in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 72 HST comments on an old tactic that Nixon used, namely 'making them deny it' (or something to that effect). When the candidates are busy denying they cannot be pressing forward and that is what i see Bush forcing Kerry into, just like Gore, this time Bush has the benefit of Presidential pull.

These things Kerry cannot help so maybe that shouldn't mar him but then he has failed to react effectively or firmly in the face of the issues, the Swift Boat Veteran case being of particular note, he didn't even respond thinking it would blow over!

Anyways, Gore was a more sound candidate in a firmer position.

Welcome Rupertvdb!

Overall I think Gore was the stronger candidate, by a narrow margin. Though I think people need to bear in mind that a candidate isn't just the person. Its their collective experience, their campaign team, their family (marginally), their public service record, effectiveness as a speaker; both formally and conversationally, etc.

Gore had the benefit of 8 years as VP, though I honestly think he seriously marginalized the incumbency effect by distancing himself from Clinton. I think his campaign staff was stronger, far more consistent. Kerry has shifted gears with staffing at least 2 times during the campaign and I think that has hurt his consistency of message. Families are a wash, though I'd give Kerry the edge on public service record if you combine his military with government service.

Kerry, I think, is and will prove to be the more effective debater, with Gore being slightly stronger as a public speaker.

BoF makes an excellent point about the Republican Noise machine. Its very difficult at times to discern truth and fiction when distortions get so much playtime (arguably true on both sides).

Though I disagree with AMF, I think the margin is .526 Its a very close call. Much like I think the election will be.

Doc

Gore by far was the better candidate, and he still would be even after making hinmself look like a cry baby in Florida.

Kerry has no direction to where he is going and appears lost. And the VietNAM thing isn't working nor is Dan Blathers ANG Memo scandal.

I think most people are worried about the issues at hand and no one knows where Kerry stands.

I dont like either but Gore seemed to at least have an opinion on the issues that was his own.