Brooklyn Bridge
Well-Known Member
He also voted for the Iraq war. On the flip side, the guy who ran against him for Senate, Ned Lamont, is now CT's governor.
Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I really got into Lamont's campaign and was shocked and dismayed at his loss. Glad he recovered.He also voted for the Iraq war. On the flip side, the guy who ran against him for Senate, Ned Lamont, is now CT's governor.
Gore chose Lieberman because Lieberman was a Clinton critic, and Gore was seeking to distance himself from Bubba.
Gore sorely underestimated Clinton's lingering popularity on leaving office. Thus the path from 9/11 to Iraq and Obama and the Tea Party and the 2016 capstone effort.
I read Gore believes that he lost the 2000 election because the Republicans tied him to Clinton's behavior. Clinton believes that if he had run he could have beat Bush by 10 points, despite said behavioral problems, because as a campaigner he could have talked his way out of the scandals. I believe both statements are correct.Gore chose Lieberman because Lieberman was a Clinton critic, and Gore was seeking to distance himself from Bubba.
Gore sorely underestimated Clinton's lingering popularity on leaving office. Thus the path from 9/11 to Iraq and Obama and the Tea Party and the 2016 capstone effort.
Flash forward 20 years, her son, my uncle, then 84, was out making his daily 20 mile ride on a recumbent bike -- selected on doctor's' advice to reduce the chances of falls -- he had undergone a double hip replacement in his early 70s and recovered to pretty much full strength.
I read Gore believes that he lost the 2000 election because the Republicans tied him to Clinton's behavior.
My grandmother fell and broke a hip at age 98. The doctors repaired it, she went through rehab and got back up to walking with a cane. Then she got hit with a couple kinds of cancer and died three months after her 99th. She had had a couple cancer bouts before but had been cancer free 15 years or so.
Flash forward 20 years, her son, my uncle, then 84, was out making his daily 20 mile ride on a recumbent bike -- selected on doctor's' advice to reduce the chances of falls -- he had undergone a double hip replacement in his early 70s and recovered to pretty much full strength.
Instead he gets hit by a car, necessitating another hip replacement. Within a year, he's back to walking with a cane, but shortly thereafter, he starts showing early signs of Alzheimer's, a battle which lasted five years.
Five years later, his sister, my aunt, fell and broke a hip at age 87. She also did rehab to the point of getting up on a walker but then congestive heart failure got her.
Doctors told us in all three cases they didn't think the falls and hip fractures were directly causative to the deaths, but recovering from that whole sequence is a huge strain on your body at any age and "couldn't have been helpful."