by Mark Silva
Al Gore is shrouded, and in the eyes of some people enshrined, in myths.
Those myths surround Gore both now – as he shares the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming – and Gore then – when he only narrowly “lost’’ the presidential election of 2000.
Those myths hold that Gore actually won in 2000, and that Gore could step in again now and win in 2008. In both cases, those myths probably are wrong.
Had Gore taken a serious look at another campaign earlier this year, he could have been a contender. Early doubts about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s ability to overcome her famous radioactivity left an open door to any serious Democrat willing to invest early in the nearly two-year-long slog of the modern campaign.
But now, just three months from the premier presidential nominating caucuses in Iowa, Clinton has not only solidified her commanding role in the eyes of Democrats nationally, but also started to erase some of the doubts around the edges of people who say she is too polarizing a figure to win the election.
The latest Oct. 4-7 Gallup Poll on the 2008 election shows that 51 percent of Americans surveyed hold a favorable view of Clinton – and 44 percent hold an unfavorable view. That sort of split might be considered fatal for anyone else. But this is someone who, just last month, had split the public right down the middle – 49 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable in September.
The latest measure on Clinton could be a fluke. The 51-44 split stands where it did in the early summer of 2006. Or it could be a sign that she is starting to change some minds.
In any event, among Democrats surveyed nationally, the senator from New York holds a commanding lead that has run steady for more than a month: 47 percent of Democrats surveyed name her as their favorite candidate for the party’s nomination.
The closest contender: Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, at 26 percent. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina trails them at 11 percent, with the rest of the party’s pack holding low single digits in the survey.
Clinton also has commanded this advantage over Obama and Edwards in a similar mold since early August. The contest appears much closer among the three in Iowa, but then polling of the preferences of likely caucus-goers at this stage is a questionable undertaking from the start.
For those intent on drafting Gore, a potential candidate who repeatedly has said that he has no interest in running and may even have lost his taste for politics, the current scenario leaves little room for a late-arrival such as he, unless Obama and Edwards are both willing to step aside now – and cede the opening Iowa and New Hampshire contests to Clinton and Gore (interesting ring).
The idea that Gore actually won the election of 2000 – and that the Supreme Court stole it from him – is the other myth.
Gore beat then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush by more than 500,000 votes in the popular vote nationally. But Gore narrowly lost the Electoral College count. He could have won the Electoral College vote if he had carried Florida, which held 27 votes. (He also could have won if he had carried his own home state of Tennessee.)
But Gore lost Florida by a disputed 537 votes in an election that was marred by misleading ballots and poorly cast ballots.
In one county, Palm Beach, the so-called “butterfly’’ ballot was so confusing that people in precincts who would be inclined to vote for Gore voted for Pat Buchanan.
But in many more counties, the punch-card ballots collected by elections officials were strewn with “hanging chads’’ not fully punched, “dimpled chads’’ that appeared pressed but not punched and “over-voted’’ ballots on which people had punched more than one candidate’s position.
Gore contested the outcome of that election, but then concentrated his ballot-challenge in four counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia -- places where it appeared that successful challenges could put Gore over the top.
After 36 days of recounting ballots and court battles in Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court put an end to it. For the court, also narrowly divided, it became a question of equal protection – recounting the ballots of some voters but not others denied all voters the equal protection they are due under the Constitution.
In the months that followed, with Democrats decrying a “stolen’’ election, newspapers set out on their own examination of the disputed ballots. Chad by chad.
I was part of the first wave of newspaper ballot counters, in a venture which The Miami Herald undertook in partnership with a major accounting firm. I was the senior political writer for the Herald at the time. I personally examined tens of thousands of punch-card ballots.
For weeks on end, going county by county, Herald reporters sat side by side with accountants at the tables of elections officers who sat across from them handing the reporter-accountant team, one by one, the disputed ballots of 2000.
The reporters kept their own counts. The accountants kept theirs. We counted ballots on a scale of those which easily could be construed as a vote, if a machine had been able to count them properly, and those which any reasonable person might consider questionable. In many cases, the intent of the voter was clear. In many cases it was not.
But, under the most liberal interpretation of those ballots -- in other words, giving them the greatest benefit of the doubt for the candidate for whom they appearerd cast -- had they been officially counted, we found that Bush most likely would have maintained a narrow margin over Gore.
And our survey was followed many months later by the longer, more ponderous work of another consortium’ of newspapers led by the New York Times, which conducted similar work and reached a similar conclusion.
Another outcome of all that work was the suspicion that perhaps Gore’s lawyers had taken the entirely wrong tack in challenging the election. Had they gone for a statewide review instead of cherry-picking counties, they might have averted the ultimate constitutional challenge that ended the recount.
And, following that course had they challenged the over-voted ballots as well as the under-voted with the dubious chads, our own review suggested, they might have overcome Bush.
Many of the discarded punch-card ballots of the Florida election carried two holes in them: Sometimes, a voter punched Gore and then punched a “write-in’’ candidate, and wrote in Gore. Sometimes, a voter did the same thing for Bush. In some counties, the antiquated machinery permitted double punches for Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. In some, for Gore and Sen. Joe Lieberman.
But the official outcome of any full, legal review of the Florida election of 2000 will never be known. Its possible result, that it might have favored Gore, remains the greatest myth of all.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Remember when Algore took $60,000 in contributions from Tibetan monks and when accused of wrongdoing said there is no controlling legal authority. Most liberal Dems believe this literally or they couldn't hire Norman Hsu's to bundle illegal contributions.
Gore wrote a book Earth in the Balance in which he condemned all fossil fuels the book never sold many copies. Now his inconvient lie documentary has 9 problems according to a UK Judge who ordered British schools to run disclaimers if they show it because the book is unscientific and it is partisan.
Gore is pushing his carbon credits and even owns a company to sell them to guilty liberals to offset their carbon footprints
It is all balderdash the greatest nation on earth can't turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater as Jimma told us--we have a world class economy to protect. This is America not Europe. We can't go back to horse and buggies with all the manure on the streets they're too slow for progress.
Algore is a fraud. He never won in 2000 although he and Bill Daley made us go through a 36 day election night. He is and was a sore loser.Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | October 12, 2007 9:23 AM
You forgot the myth that Gore claimed to have invented the internet. What Gore actually said was that he took the initiative in getting the internet started, or words to that effect, which he actually did do.
Gore sponsored a Pentagon program to create a data network that was the precursor to what we now know as the internet.
He promoted this idea way back in the 1980's by saying we needed this because of the Cold War (as a backup means of communicating) and it would also become "the information superhighway," that would help companies and scholars communicate and share information.
Back then nobody knew what he was talking about. He was talking about the internet.
Posted by: Walter | October 12, 2007 9:25 AM
Mr. Silva, your research really does not prove anything. To the contrary, it was only the result of a politically divided Supreme Court that Shrub was selected. For example, I see no reference to the counting of invalid ballots coming from offshore military bases. The MSM 'consortium' has no more validity than PRAVDA reporting.
The media has a lot of responsibility for their terrible reporting back in 2000, and a lot of us have not forgotten nor forgiven.
Rutherford B. Hayes is still known as 'Rutherfraud' more than 100 years later. History will be even less kind to the Chimp.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | October 12, 2007 9:37 AM
Mark:
Nice hit piece on Al Gore - did Brucey and Johnny D. put you up to this??
Posted by: BobinATL | October 12, 2007 9:41 AM
Walter, very well said. People like Jerry White and a couple other idiots who post here are very jealous that Gore has a brain and the guy they support is an idiot.
Does anyone doubt (besides the 20 %)that our country would be in much better shape had Gore been President the last 7 years?
Posted by: Raving Loon | October 12, 2007 9:43 AM
Jerry White,
Yeah, we all know that global warming is a fraud. All we have to do is listen to all of you "experts" telling us that they're wrong.
Obviously, the Nobel group has looked at the information and decided that you're group is totally wrong. But, why should we listen to them? They're only some of the most famous and learned scientists in the world. And your sources are?
More to the point, what's the down side to being concerned about global warming? New technology might be developed that could be used throughout the world? We try to do things and nothing changes? It isn't as if DOING something is going to have a negative effect on the world.
You know, how when a country attacks another one and disrupts the political balance of a critical world area might do.
Posted by: dogjudge | October 12, 2007 9:50 AM
I agree with Jerery W. that Al Gore is a fraud. His winnubg of this "prize" shows how insignificant the "prize" has become.
If he wins it, than every other hard working American that goes to work each day to support his/her family should win!
Posted by: Rob S | October 12, 2007 9:54 AM
If Gore is so smart, why did he lose the debates to George Bush?
Posted by: Lars | October 12, 2007 9:59 AM
What about all of the African-American voters who were turned away in 2000 because they were told they couldn't vote because of bogus felony charges. 40,000 black people were wrongly taken off the voter register in Florida, are you telling us that if they had voted Gore would have still lost? The election was stolen, read anything about Greg Palast and Florida.
Posted by: Shawn | October 12, 2007 10:02 AM
If Gore is so smart, why did he lose the debates to George Bush?
Posted by: Lars | October 12, 2007 9:59 AM
He didn't. He even won the popular vote in case you forgot. That means that more people in America voted for Gore than they did for Bush in case you are not sure how elections work.
Posted by: Marko | October 12, 2007 10:02 AM
I can't really take any Bush supporter seriously. Look at the person they support. He can't even read scripted speeches without adding his own grammatical mistakes. Republicans should take an IQ test before they post comments on forums!
Posted by: DM | October 12, 2007 10:11 AM
Al Gore joins a list of other distinguished Americans who have been granted this prize. Quit all the negativity, you nattering nabobs of negativity on the right. Go back and look at past recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize and see that it is almost devoid of right wing, conservative Americans. Who can say why?
Posted by: GW | October 12, 2007 10:18 AM
Gore got the Nobel fair and square and he deserved it. More, the Earth, we, deserve it. Ever think what happens when we need to live in Polar Cities in the future, say year 2500 or so? Don't knock Gore. Google or Wikipedia the term "polar cities" and you will see how important this Nobel is....
Posted by: dan bloom | October 12, 2007 10:27 AM
I agree with Jerery W. that Al Gore is a fraud. His winnubg of this "prize" shows how insignificant the "prize" has become.
If he wins it, than every other hard working American that goes to work each day to support his/her family should win!
Posted by: Rob S | October 12, 2007 9:54 AM
Wow. Did you pick up that argument on the playground?
Don't worry, Robbo. Recess is only a couple hours away and then sooner than you know it, mommy will have the cookies and milk in front of you.
Posted by: a blinkin | October 12, 2007 10:28 AM
YEs Loon, I doubt highly that the USA would be in any better shape if Gore had won.
There is a lot for Dem's to be proud of now. Mayor Daley, Todd Stroger. They are pretty good indicators of what Gore's administration would have been.
Posted by: Rob S | October 12, 2007 10:37 AM
I always love it when democrats complain about voter fraud... democrats are known for their massive attempts at voter fraud. Just before the 2000 election, Clinton mailed out millions of letters to aliens that weren't even American citizens asking them to vote and in his letter he attached a democratic voter I.D.. card. Nope, nothing illegal about that!
Posted by: Russ Burgett | October 12, 2007 10:41 AM
Just so we're clear here: Al Gore won the Nobel PEACE Prize, a political award, not a scientific one. The Nobel Peace Prize is not proof of any scientific theory, merely agreement by the committee with Gore's sociopolitical goals.
Posted by: JB | October 12, 2007 11:13 AM
It amazes me that ALGORE supporters are still exorcized about 2000. What about the FALSE media announcement that the polls had "closed" in FL - even while there was still an hour to go in the Panhandle (due to differing time zone). Many estimates suggest this cost Bush a net of 10,000+ votes. Also, what about when the Miami voter count bosses tried to remove the recount from public view and only failed because Republican activists stood in the halway chanting "let us in"? Suffice it to say, for each point a Dem makes a Repub can make one too. Now think about this: Those who advocate eliminating the Electoral College, invite FL 2000 scenarios to occur NATIONWIDE! Close election? Not happy with the outcome? Let's recount EVERY VOTE in EVERY city and town NATIONWIDE! If you think 2000 was a mess....
Posted by: ed | October 12, 2007 11:30 AM
Mr. Ed, can you tell the difference between a ballot and a TV show?
Sorry, your Republitard talking points don't fly.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | October 12, 2007 11:45 AM
Wow. Did you pick up that argument on the playground?
Don't worry, Robbo. Recess is only a couple hours away and then sooner than you know it, mommy will have the cookies and milk in front of you.
Posted by: a blinkin | October 12, 2007 10:28 AM
My mother passed away 2 years ago from cancer. If this is the best you can do it responding to people's comments than I suggest you shut up.
Also, I am a hard working person doing everything I can to raise my kids. I do not feel I derserve a "prize" as this is my job. But, if they are going to be giving "prizes" out like Gore, anybody can have one.
Posted by: Rob S | October 12, 2007 11:54 AM
dogjudge:
first of all the idea that all scientists are "unbiased" is a myth. take that hansen guy from nasa. he was paid 750,000. by george soros. so much for his scientific opinion. and yes, doing something could seriously hurt economies and destroy the poor. as in africa where the desperately poor still use coal inside their huts to cook causing lung damage. they die because they don't have electricity for water purifying pumps. thank you greenies. secondly the nobel "peace" prize has meant absolutely nothing since it's been given to such miscreants like yassar arafat and bigot jimmy carter. al gore is a liar and he won't run for president because it would never do to be a twice defeated liar.
Posted by: Deane Pradzinski | October 12, 2007 12:04 PM
Mr Silva gives us a piece of ugly carping here, bordering on hate.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | October 12, 2007 12:09 PM
Wow. Did you pick up that argument on the playground?
Don't worry, Robbo. Recess is only a couple hours away and then sooner than you know it, mommy will have the cookies and milk in front of you.
Posted by: a blinkin | October 12, 2007 10:28 AM
I do not think my response was posted.
My mother passed away frmo cancer 2 years ago. If this is the best response you can give, shut up. The only recess that exists is your recess from intelligence. There are many, many people that post here. Many take their little jabs at each other, which is to be expected. But to stoop to your level ignorance is unthinkable.
I am a father working hard to give my kids the tools they need to survive in our 21st century madhouse. When you have al with house bigger than all of my siblings combined and uses a private jet daily, and environmental Nobel is simply a way for the Nobel people to get attention. gore does not deseve this anymore than me or any other citizen trying to make a living.
So, I hope your mother is alive and healthy. That is a gift you never truely appreciate until is is taken from you!
Posted by: Rob S | October 12, 2007 12:40 PM
SCOTUS voted 9-0 to vacate the SCOFLA decision to extend the vote-certification deadline, noting that the SCOFLA did not have the authority under the U.S. Constitution to overrule the Florida legislature in this matter. The appropriately-name SCOFLA did not comply with this ruling.
SCOTUS voted 7-2 that the recount process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
SCOTUS voted 5-4 to halt the counting (which, based on the first decision, should not have been ongoing anyhow). This was obviously the only "closely divided" decision of the three pertaining to the 2000 election.
Many analyses by newspapers (such as the NY Times, that definitely lean Democratic) have determined that even if the recount had continued according the the (unconstitutional) manner in which Gore wished it to, he would have lost.
Whether Gore got more popular votes than Bush is insignificant in this country, because (if you remember your high-school history classes - or even if you don't) it is the States who elect the President, not the people.
BTW, watch "Key Largo", the 1948 movie with Humphrey Bogart and Edward G. Robinson (and other stars). Robinson plays a gangster bragging about how he manipulated Florida politics and got his people elected: "...Then after the election we count the votes and if they don't turn out right, we re-count them and re-count them again until they do."
Do you think the Gore team ever watched this movie?
Posted by: Nick in Virginia | October 12, 2007 12:57 PM
Al Gore has now won an Academy Award, a Grammy and now the Noble Peace prize. How Americans can say that?
Posted by: Brian | October 12, 2007 1:13 PM
Shawn says: "What about all of the African-American voters who were turned away in 2000..."
Name one. Name ONE! Even the DNC, with its lawyers and its race hustlers was unable to provide the name of even ONE voter who was improperly denied the right to vote.
And concerning the newly-invented Nobel Prize for Globaloney, keep in mind that the UK legal system has rejected "An Inconvenient Truth" as inaccurate propaganda:
http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
Posted by: Smokey | October 12, 2007 1:36 PM
Walter - I, too, applaud your post. It's a shame our media helped the Republicans spread that lie against Gore 2000.
Posted by: Paul | October 12, 2007 2:19 PM
Wow. Did you pick up that argument on the playground?
Don't worry, Robbo. Recess is only a couple hours away and then sooner than you know it, mommy will have the cookies and milk in front of you.
Posted by: a blinkin | October 12, 2007 10:28 AM
My mother passed away 2 years ago from cancer. If this is the best you can do it responding to people's comments than I suggest you shut up.
Also, I am a hard working person doing everything I can to raise my kids. I do not feel I derserve a "prize" as this is my job. But, if they are going to be giving "prizes" out like Gore, anybody can have one.
Posted by: Rob S | October 12, 2007 11:54 AM
I obviously was not literally suggesting that you were getting a recess or cookies, you twerp. Even someone with your capacities should have been able to figure that one out.
My point -- spell it out so even you can understand -- is that it's pretty juvenile to attack the credibility of the Nobel Prize merely because you don't like the recipient. Being such an astute father, you understand that people in general, and kids in particular, often set up a psychological defense mechanism by trying to minimize the importance of something they fail to achieve by attributing diminished importance to that thing. For example, when you realized you couldn't perform long division, you declared that math was "stupid."
Posted by: a blinkin | October 12, 2007 2:24 PM
Ah, a wannabe Village Elder explains it all to the great unwashed.
Mr. Silva - I'm sure there was some purpose to this vague collection of talking points, but I cannot, for the life of me, imagine what it is. Try harder.
Silva's note: Seems it is you, not I, who should try harder.
Posted by: GWPDA | October 12, 2007 3:25 PM
And concerning the newly-invented Nobel Prize for Globaloney, keep in mind that the UK legal system has rejected "An Inconvenient Truth" as inaccurate propaganda:
Posted by: Smokey | October 12, 2007 1:36 PM
No, they pointed out 9 scientific discrepancies. You can hardly call it propaganda. Did you see the movie? See pictures lately of the melting ice caps? Have a nice deep swim in ignorance.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2007 3:29 PM
Now AlGore has something in common with President Peanut and Yasssar Arafat. There's some great company.
He wins a NPP for a powerpoint presebtation?
Mr. Silva,
Are you off your meds today?
Posted by: Terry | October 12, 2007 3:50 PM
It seems that unless a person buys into everything the Gore camp puts out there, they are reduced to being called stupid. All these discussion groups end the same way with the pro-Gore team insulting those that find a lot of fault with what Gore is putting out there for human consumption. The fact that Gore got 3 awards really means nothing to me. The academy award is nothing but fluff these days. A grammy, please....and now the nobel prize which I thought was for work done to improve the human condition not blame the human for the condition. The fact that GB and now many republicans are embracing that humans are responsible for global warming should tell all of us it is in fact more political than science.
Posted by: Kricki Kachmar | October 12, 2007 4:09 PM
The fact that GB and now many republicans are embracing that humans are responsible for global warming should tell all of us it is in fact more political than science.
Posted by: Kricki Kachmar | October 12, 2007 4:09 PM
That conclusion does not exactly follow automatically, K2. Perhaps they're coming around to acknowledging the science because few, if any, qualified scientists are there to counter the basic premise that humans are responsible.
To another of your points: perhaps changing human behavior in the short run will improve the "human condition" in the long run. You're not "stupid" for questioning the science, but you are disingenuous if you refuse to make that fairly obvious connection simply because you don't like Al Gore, which is kind of evident.
Posted by: a blinkin | October 12, 2007 4:42 PM
Another myth about Al Gore;
He is not POTUS
Posted by: TheReamer | October 12, 2007 7:02 PM
Rob, may I offer my deepest condolences on the loss of your beloved mother. I, too, suffered the same loss not too long ago, and I well remember the forlorn feelings that accompanied this event.
However, and I say this with the gentlest feelings in my heart, the loss of this wonderful woman in your life has NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand.
Posted by: Seattle Lady | October 12, 2007 7:26 PM
A general question to those who admire Al Gore (in the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those people):
Would a write-in campaign be an effective tool to persuade Al to run? I once heard him say that he'd "fallen out of love with politics," but he has never said, "I absolutely will not be a candidate under any circumstances." It seems odd to me that he would allow a Draft Gore campaign to continue, knowing that people are commiting time and money, if there were not a glimmer of possibility that he would change his mind.
Comments, please? Thanks!
Posted by: Seattle Lady | October 12, 2007 7:31 PM
Terry,
Let's not leave out Henry Kissinger/Le Duc Tho, Walensa, Mother Teresa, Sakharov, Mandella.
What's funny about the above list?
Posted by: C.Morris | October 12, 2007 7:55 PM
A few corrections here and there:
Al Gore was not involved with "Tibetan monks" who gave him $60,000, Mr. White. You're misremembering the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in Hacienda Heights, California; they gave him $100,000, as instructed by the head of their order (who is also not Tibetan; the order is based in Taiwan). The Buddhist NUNS were very embarassed, and all the money was returned to the temple; after all, the temple had illegally reimbursed all contributions. Likewise, here is his actual comment on the subject:
"I did not know that it was a fund-raiser. I knew it was a political event, and I knew there were finance people that were going to be present, and so that alone should have told me, 'This is inappropriate and this is a mistake; don't do this.' And I take responsibility for that. It was a mistake"—Gore on NBC's Today show, Jan. 24, 1997
As the vote issue is handled in the article (pity you didn't read it before assuming what he said), my only remaining comment is that Gore does not "condemn all fossil fuels" in "Earth in the Balance"; he calls for higher gas taxes and research into alternative fuel sources.
P.S.: Terry, the NPP went to Gore and the U.N. Panel on Climate Change for their report, not for a "PowerPoint presentation".
Posted by: Wanderer | October 13, 2007 1:28 AM
CM,
Your list are people that deserved the NPP. Gore, Peanut farmer and the terrorist on the hand...
Posted by: Terry | October 13, 2007 5:59 AM
T.
Well, Kissinger and Le Duc Tho may have deserved a prize, of sorts, but a peace prize? I just don't know about that.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 13, 2007 7:02 PM
"For example, I see no reference to the counting of invalid ballots coming from offshore military bases."
Posted by: weinerdog43 | October 12, 2007 9:37 AM
Now military members serving overseas shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Nice.
Posted by: military spouse | October 14, 2007 1:32 PM