Why Al Gore's favorables improved

I'm obviously sympathetic to Ezra Klein's critique of the "gaffe-hunting, sound-bite-obsessed media," but I have to take issue with this passage:

Filtered through the lens of a couple of awkward turns of phrase and an oratorical style that could seem tendentious, Gore was seen, in 2000, as a condescending, exaggeration-prone prig. But in the ensuing years, he stepped out of campaign journalism. He began sending his speeches out directly over MoveOn.org's e-mail list, made a movie that asked people to sit down and listen to him for the better part of two hours, and did his rounds on interview shows on which he could have fairly lengthy conversations with hosts.

The result? A massive rehabilitation of his reputation, including in the eyes of the very political pundits who once spurned him. According to a CBS News poll, Gore's favorable rating late last year was at 46%, up from 18% in late 1999. At 46%, incidentally, Gore's rating is higher than the most recent ratings of Bush (30%), Obama (44%), Clinton (42%) or McCain (32%).

I wish substantive media appearances were that important, but the improvement in Gore's favorable ratings seems more likely to be the result of (a) him not being criticized by Republicans and conservatives as much and (b) winning a Nobel Peace Prize. Also, if you look at the timelines of Gore's favorability ratings across multiple polls (rather than just CBS), it's not clear how much they have changed in recent months.

Comments

[Crust]

Gore's favorable ratings seems more likely to be the result of (a) him not being criticized by Republicans and conservatives as much and (b) winning a Nobel Peace Prize

Your (a) while probably not totally invalid, needs to be caveatted. Criticizing Gore, his weight and his speaking style seems to be Republicans' main argument that anthropogenic global warming isn't real or should be ignored.

And you're missing (c): the press (for the most part anyway) is no longer conducting what Bob Somerby rightly calls their War Against Gore as they did in 1999-2000.

[Crust]

Gore's favorable ratings seems more likely to be the result of (a) him not being criticized by Republicans and conservatives as much and (b) winning a Nobel Peace Prize

Your (a) while probably not totally invalid, needs to be caveatted. Criticizing Gore, his weight and his speaking style seems to be Republicans' main argument that anthropogenic global warming isn't real or should be ignored.

And you're missing (c): the press (for the most part anyway) is no longer conducting what Bob Somerby rightly calls their War Against Gore as they did in 1999-2000.

[Crust]

Gore's favorable ratings seems more likely to be the result of (a) him not being criticized by Republicans and conservatives as much and (b) winning a Nobel Peace Prize

Your (a) while probably not totally invalid, needs to be caveatted. Criticizing Gore, his weight and his speaking style seems to be Republicans' main argument that anthropogenic global warming isn't real or should be ignored.

And you're missing (c): the press (for the most part anyway) is no longer conducting what Bob Somerby rightly calls their War Against Gore as they did in 1999-2000.