http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/politics...ign/27gore.html

Thunderous Welcome for Warrior of 2000
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Published: July 27, 2004

BOSTON, July 26 - As Al Gore walked onstage Monday night to the strains of "This Land Is Your Land," the delegates started stomping their feet in what became a thundering crescendo. The former vice president looked overwhelmed, patting his hand to his heart in a silent gesture of thanks.

And that was all before he stated the obvious. "I'll be candid with you," Mr. Gore told his fellow Democrats at the opening of their nominating convention. "I had hoped to be back here this week under different circumstances, running for re-election."

Five times he drew a standing ovation for a speech laced with bittersweet stabs at his near-unique experience in American politics in 2000, when he won 539,000 more votes than the man who assumed the presidency.

The theme of his speech was that ill-conceived policies of President Bush proved that "what happens in a presidential election matters, a lot."

The spiritual antecedent of the speech was the concession that Mr. Gore delivered from his ceremonial office next to the White House on Dec. 13, 2000, after the United States Supreme Court had ruled against him and he ended his campaign.

"For the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession," he said then.

"Partisan rancor must now be put aside," he added.

In the same vein, Mr. Gore said Monday night that the challenges the country faced were not Democratic or Republican. "They are American challenges,'' he said, "that we all must overcome together."

But wrapped in those silken words of unity was a dagger. Addressing those who supported Mr. Bush four years ago, he asked, "Did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for?"

Mr. Gore's experience may have given him latitude denied to others: while Kerry advisers vetted all speeches for egregious Bush-bashing, they did not change a word of his. The red-meat-starved delegates loved it, though old feelings of anger and pain were stirred too.

"It made me feel disappointment all over again," said Representative William Lacy Clay of Missouri. "But the speech also helped to keep me motivated to make sure that all the votes are counted where I live."

Jonathan P. Hicks contributed reporting for this article.

Watching the speech, I thought he should have gone with more fire. I am so glad that he is smarter than me. He absolutely stole the show. I've been hearing more calls at CSPAN and stories on the news this AM about Gore than Clinton. Both Cintons, in fact! :rolleyes:

I think more fire would've been good, too, and I think it would've kept him from coming off as somewhat stilted again. I believe it was a great speech, don't get me wrong, but he was rushing through it (time constraints, I guess), and it wasn't delivered with the usual emotion we've become accustomed to in the past few years. I felt it was more like the old Al Gore. I wish America had been able to see him in all his true glory, because if Kerry doesn't win, I'm still hoping Gore will run in 2008. Still, I'm so glad he was well received by the delegates, and I'm also glad he and Bill Clinton seem to have mended their fences, at least publicly. Our party needs to heal the wounds and be united, regardless of what happens in November. We have some stupendously brilliant minds among us, and they need to work together to get this country back on track.

I don't think I know of too many examples of a speech under those conditions, but I am sure there have been plenty.
I think he expressed his desire both verbally and physically, very well.
I think I percieved the "rush" a bit differently, but he was giving a speech to what has become a deep divide in the Party. I think the ground he was landing on was going to be very trecherous, no matter how good the landing.
I also give the Clinton higher marks for emotion, timing, and excellent content. But I think Gore had a higher difficulty level. It was also going to set the mood for the entire convention.
Gosh, though. I don't think I realized how well those two CAN work together.

They were so energized in the campaign before the '92 election. I remember feeling such an uplifting high when I saw the two of them striking out on their bus tour across America--young, handsome, so intelligent and knowledge, so full of dreams and aspirations, with the brains and know-how to get the job done. And boy, did they ever get the job done. Their eight years in office were the best in my lifetime as far as peace and prosperity and a feeling that the country was in good hands. And it was in such stark contrast to Reagan and Bush I, who'd preceded them. And with hindsight, in such stark contrast to the idiots Bush and Cheney who've followed them. Kerry and Edwards come close to projecting that same image of hope and intelligence and competence that Clinton and Gore did. I just hope we can get those bums out of Washington and begin to repair some of the enormous damage that's been done.

BTW, I loved Gore's question last night (not sure I got the words exactly right, but it's close enough): Did you really get what you thought you were going to get out of the candidate you voted for?

How many who voted for Bush can truthfully answer "yes" to that question?

His speech was brilliant. He did exactly what he wanted to do which was fight for we the people and tell off the Bush election stalers and everyone in the dem party leadership who had betrayed both him and our country. I think it went right over the heads of those who it was aimed at but I think the grassroots got the message loud and clear. I know I did.