Holding 'grudges' over votes decades ago is the hallmark of a small mind.

So what's your point?

I've been extremely vocal about this in the Green blogshere but I have no idea what the eventual outcome will be at this time. I'm sure I'm looked at with suspicion by a great many Greens, especially the GDI brand, anyway. I advocate nonviolence but I'm not a pacifist. I think political decentralization is an unworkable fantasy and I'm not entirely convinced that a significant number of Greens are willing to the make the necessary decisions which would enable the party to break out of the fringe element.

These things having been stated, Russ Feingold is my type of progressive who captures my imagination; however, if he can't even win a straw poll at KOS or MyDD, I'm somewhat apprehensive about his chances in the primaries.

In fact, he has given a more detailed account of what should be done than any candidate, knowing that Bush will not do it but providing him the details anyway. He put it up on the Washington Post and then blogged, then he blogged on TPMCafe as well.

He is not pro-war, never has been. But he wants a way out of the quagemire that protects America, does not throw the Middle East into chaos, and cleans up the doodoo from Bush's debacle.

Just repeating over and over that he is pro-war does not make it so.

And for those who are not paying attention, Clark's high profile appearances, low profile visits to Maine, Iowa, Wisconsin and many other places, and his presentations at international and national forums of high repute have put him in the forefront of Democratic contenders. He is also the only former candidate to keep his base support virtually intact through his WesPAC efforts to help other dems. He was, by Hackett's own words, the only major Democratic figure to activily campaign for him (making robocalls).

Noel Schutz

I saw him speak last summer and I have to say, his speech was quite good. He's come a long way.

Kucinich was always a great orator. But there was something he couldn't overcome. I'm not sure what that is. Not that I wouldn't vote for him.

phat

1. Hillary is irrelevant, as she has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. I know Pelosi's record of rolling over and playing dead for everyone of Bush's initiatives. That's enough for me.

2. Even if we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what Bush has done, he still won't be convicted in the Senate because you'll never get enough Republicans to vote for conviction. Unless you have a plan for winning two-thirds of the Senate nesxt year, your plan is DOA.

3. New Orleans was especially susceptible to the hurricane because it's built below sea-level. Since most of the rest of the United States is both above sea-level and out of hurricane country, I'm not going to sweat it.

If Al Gore can take back even a fraction of the M$M and get a small progressive voice started he may accomplish more than he could as President.

The future of all of the Democratic candidates is so bright they should wear shades at night. Everyone will have a role to play and there will be all kinds of influential voices that need to be heard.

The barrier to re-entry for Gore to the Presidential race is higher than it is for Howard Dean. Al Gore could win a Senate seat in a walk, but why would he want to? That's a key question that they all better be ready to answer:

Why do you want to be President? What separates you from the rather large Democratic peanut gallery?

In the case of Dean, you're right BECAUSE he is likely not to break his PROMISE of not running (and that he'd have a hard time erasing the screem, unless ge gathers fresh credentials, like, as Gore's VP :)).

But in the case of Gore, this is pure, unbridled spin from you, Gary, IMO.

-->
Chris is right. There is no reason not to take them at their word that they are not candidates. Neither one is indispensible. Nobody is. The Democratic primary is going to be a slugfest and won't be won by hanging back in the shadows.

Unless events propel someone forward, I think the Democratic field may be pretty much defined by the current candidates. My guess is that there is only one more year before the game is locked. The Presidential race has already started and anyone who isn't ready to hit the ground running right after the 2006 election is going to get left in the dust.

I do however, agree with you that the interested parties do need to emerge from the shadows sooner than later.

Neo

Well, thanks to google, I have just read up on David Brower. Here is one of the things he said when throwing his support behind Nader in 2000:

And, did you notice JUST HOW WELL his prognosis played out?

His argument was, metaphorically speaking: "see my little finger is all mangled up, so let me go ahead and chop my whole arm off, and there'd be an incentive for me to go all out in supporting stem cell research, which I expect to help me grow a new arm soon ". Well, now, things turned into "no arms for you", haven't they?

My initial take on Brower (apparently he expired, in a rather stunning coincidence, on Novermber 7, 2000,  the same day that he and his Nader-voting cohorts made sure that Gore would be deprived of his victory) is that he and his nitpicking group that called itself "Environmentalists Against Gore" threw their support behind Nader apparently with this f*cked-up logic:

WOW, JUST WOW!

These buffoons' stand was probably then one of the most important reason why Nader siphoned off 2-3 million votes away from Gore in 2000 (of which let me estimate 1 million as those that fell for this f*ckedup logic, based on the facts that Nader's core support group in 2000 were hard-core environmentalists, and in 2004, they seemed to have learned from their FATAL error in  2000). Damn! Therefore, in effect, they were no different from the swift-boat vandals for lies of 2004.

Did they ever (i.e. during the election cycle) sit down with Gore, presented and discussed their misgivings with him, and then told him that they are going to throw their weight behind Nader, unless he proved that he'd perform better on the environment? I don't think so.

Now who do you think (among others) enabled the current rogue administration and the corrurt creepublicans to inflict utter devastation on:

1. THE ENVIRONMENT
   
2. plundering and grounding of what was a powerful and robust economy
   
3. launching of global infernos
   
4. causing or being accountable for the unnecessary and unwarranted deaths of thousands of our troops, N.O. Levee-Breach/Hurricane victims, and iraqis
   
5. on and on.

Neo