The Democratic Party now officially has a "Gore Problem." The reception his speech got among the party workers, in the hall, on Saturday was anything but music to the ears of Democratic Party elites who want someone - anyone - else.
If you have seen footage of Mr. Gore in shirtsleeves you know that he was sweating when he began the speech and continued to sweat throughout the speech.
If he had gone much longer than the 22 minutes the speech actually lasted, the headlines the next day might well have been: "Gore Drowns!"
Someone said given the fact that he had nothing new in his speech, it should have been titled "Sweatin' to the Oldies" and he should immediately announce Richard Simmons as his Vice Presidential running mate.
In a poll which was taken about five days before his appearance in Florida, the Gallup organization asked Democrats, "Do you want Al Gore to run for President in 2004 or not?" 43 percent said "yes" while 48 percent said "no."
Gore's speech is music to the ears of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But there is a reason that President Bush remains atop a 76 percent approval rating: Three out of every Four people think he's doing a good job. And they seem to like the positive tone; another difference from the Florida experience.
By the way, the "This is STILL Gore Country" signs which his supporters were waving contained no disclaimer; nothing indicating who paid for the signs. These were not made-in-the-back-yard signs. They were printed and, as there WAS a union bug, they were printed in a union shop.
In this era of hyper-sensitivity to all things related to the financing of campaigns someone should ask who paid for those signs. Perhaps Gore got a waiver from former Attorney General Janet Reno (who is running for Governor of Florida against Jeb Bush) who was speaking at the same convention.
Maybe Reno keeps a stack of "No Controlling Legal Authority" cards in her pocket and hands one to Al whenever he needs it: In the White House, at a Buddhist fundraiser, at a political convention in Florida.
In what is apparently a big deal in academe, Harvard professor of Black Studies, Cornel West, has announced he is leaving Cambridge for Princeton, New Jersey.
According to the New York Times story (which was oddly bylined "Pam Belluck with Jacques Steinberg" as opposed to the more common "and") West said he was leaving because he didn't receive a get well card from former Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers after West underwent prostate surgery.
Two things: First, remember the howls of outrage and scorn when Newt Gingrich complained about having to get off the back of Air Force One? Does anyone but me see this as the teensiest bit petty?
Here's what Summers should send now: "The Trustees of Harvard University have voted 8-7 to send you this get-well card."
Second: The Times piece quotes West as saying "Larry Summers strikes me as the Ariel Sharon of American higher education� as a bully, in a very delicate and dangerous situation." Note, please, West chose to compare the President of Harvard University in a negative way to Ariel Sharon - NOT Yasser Arafat.
Suicide v. homicide bomber: I believe that Mullings was among the first to use the phrase "homicide bomber" ("The Dog Did Nothing", Mullings April 10, 2002) instead of the more common "suicide bomber."
Here's why I think the homicide construct is more descriptive: Suicide bombers should strap explosives around their waists, walk into the supermarket where they live, and blow up their friends and neighbors.
Their friends and neighbors might not have chosen to have participated in a suicide, but there you are.
A homicide bomber goes into someone else's neighborhood and murders people he or she doesn't know and will never know. Those people did not choose to join in the activity, either, but they certainly were not participants in a suicide; they were unwitting participants in a murder. Their own.
Anyone in this class care to guess where Professor West would come down on this issue?
On the Secret Decoder Ring today GREAT spoofs of Al Gore, a link to the NY Times story, and the usual stuff:
If you are working at a lobbying firm, a government affairs office, a coalition, or a PAC you should take a
look at this page to see how advertising in Mullings might serve your organization very well:
� 
