It doesn't matter much when Gore is behind by 7 points and Clinton, the best performing Democrat, is behind Giuliani by 11. And this doesn't take into account any campaigning done by Gore, while Clinton has been running a campaign for image for the last four years--I would naturally expect her to have an image advantage. If anything, this poll shows that Kerry has terrible numbers.
"Ok, fine. I wasn't aware that framing meant that you were allowed to just be a jackass to whoever you liked, but since it does, here goes: --I find your entire argument baseless and utterly pitiful, supported only by your repeated contraictions of yourself, and the absurd notion that the netroots are somehow going to draft or recruit Gore into the race, and the teenage tendency to capitlize words as a substitute for actual articulation."
Oh boo hoo. Speaking of articulation, what contradicitions are you talking about? I'm honestly interested since I'd love to improve my argument for the next time around. I'm also interested because most of the feedback I've gotten has been very positive.
And I don't back away from calling your argument pitiful, because it is. I don't understand how you can read Gore's mind and speak so matter-of-factly about his decisions when he's done nothing more than what any politician would do when faced with the same question. But what's more pitiful is that you argue that a netroots campaign can't have some effect on promoting candidacies, which is one of the most fallacious and self-contradicting things I've ever seen you say. Do you truly believe that all these people have no collective impact on the way a politician thinks? You surely can't be serious. There wouldn't BE a "netroots" if that were true.
I think this discussion is very important, but this is the wrong time for it to happen. I won't delete this diary because I stand by what I said. I believe we should move on to issues that need to be addressed and come back to this when it's appropriate--at no point did I suggest forgetting the issue of 2008.
