MyDD :: Gore "Getting the Band Back Together"

by DavidNYC on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 08:29:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore has changed a lot since 2000. Or, I think, he's actually finally gotten comfortable being the real Al Gore, as opposed to the stiff faux Al Gore he once felt he had to be.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

Really? You mean he finally grew up and decided to be his own man? Boy that's an endorsement for a person to be President and control the lives of millions of military.

by BigDog on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore got more votes (2.50 / 2)

Sorry David..this guy lost us the election on three levels.

And I guess I haven't forgiven him. And that's obvious from my kneejerk reaction.

You have a good head and I'll take your word for it for the moment. Wish I could erase that second comment.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's a cancer growing on the Republican Party.

And I'm sorry for my hateful comment too. It was uncalled for. I just got up in a foul mood this morning. Here's what I really meant to say....

I am deeply troubled that so many people seem to want to hold Gore to a higher standard than anyone else. Too many blame Gore for losing the election. Lackluster campaign, wooden style, didn't connect with the voters, and on and on. Talking points of the RWNM every one.

In retrospect the campaign could have been run better -- what campaign could not have been? But the fact is, Gore won. He won the popular vote. Absent the multiple trickeries of the Republican machine in Ohio he would have won there. Absent the multiple trickeries of the Republican machine in Florida he would have won there. In an honest statewide recount he might have won anyway. Gore didn't lose the election. And Bush didn't win. He was installed by a 5-4 vote of the USSC.

Yet too many blame Al Gore for losing the election. It's like blaming someone who's been burglarized because they didn't have a deadbolt, or blaming a rape victim because she didn't resist hard enough. What part of the stolen election of 2000 is Al Gore's fault?

by ignorant bystander on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 12:24:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by DavidNYC on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 09:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't sweat it. I guess in 2000 there are so many other people I blame: The five conservatives on the Supreme Court; Kathy Harris; the Butterfly Ballot; Ralph Nader; and Joe Lieberman for his spinelessness during the recount. Any failings of Gore's are pretty remote to me at this point.

I mean, the guy did win the popular vote. I don't know how much more you can ask of a candidate. Because of that, I can't exactly be too angry with him.

And hey, I actually always rather liked Gore. I was a Bradley supporter in the primaries (though I was nowhere near as politically involved then as I am now), but Al Gore struck me as a kindred nerd. Alright, so nerds don't necessarily make the best campaigners - but at least I felt a connection. :)

There's a cancer growing on the Republican Party.

As opposed to the dry drunk frat boy who took us to war so he could play the final scene in Top Gun? Please.

by ignorant bystander on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 09:43:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Run, Al, run (3.00 / 1)

Sometimes fate works in mysterious ways. Al Gore will be just the man to restore America's prestige
that Bush has so recklessly squandered. After Bush's
pathetic stewardship of our country, Gore's brains, integrity, competence and honesty will be a welcome relief.

by phillydem on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:33:16 PM EST

by mlr701 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:35:41 PM EST

Run, Al, Run!

Gore/Clark '08
Gore/Feingold '08

Ah, hell, Gore/Anybody '08.

by lightyearsfromhome on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll take either of these:

Gore/Clark '08
Gore/Feingold '08

Clark or Feingold would keep Gore honest this time. Lieberman, by contrast, drove many people to Nader in 2000.

by Winston Smith on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:41:37 PM EST

Howard Dean had the 2004 nomination in the bag, and when it came time to vote, Democrats decided to chose a more electable candidate. Whatever Hillary's merits are, she is unelectable, and when it comes to the primaries, Democrats will again choose an electable nominee.

It is funny to see how desperate the Republicans are to make Hillary the titular head of the Democratic party. They want Hillary to take the nomination more than Democrats. Look how they are deliberately throwing the NY Senate race, to give Hillary a "huge" win. I knew many Bush voters who prayed that Howard Dean would win the 2004 nomination.

John McCain loves war.

by DavidNYC on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 08:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you mean 38% of Iowans and New Hampshirites thought Kerry was more "electable," whatever that means.

All I know is that Kerry wasn't elected. I'd like to think that has some bearing on "electability".

ELECTABILITY (none / 0)

I will explain electability a little more slowly .. as .. characteristics that make a presidential candidate competitive. Generally thought of in two terms: The ability to energize your base, and the ability to appeal to moderate crossover voters.

Dean energized the Democratic base in 2004. Conventional Dem leadership feared that he would not be able to appeal to moderate crossovers, so Kerry was promoted to candidate. He was selected because it was believed that he could energize the base, as a liberal Mass. Senator and anti-war activist, and that he could appeal to crossovers, as a decorated naval officer. Hence the phrase, "Dated Dean, Married Kerry."

In 2008, Hillary will not be able to energize the liberal-progressive voter base. Trust me, I am part of it. By capitulating to neo-con policies and even running to the right of Bush on troop numbers, she alienated her base at a time when the country most needed a voice of progressive opposition.

Its sad, really. I am pretty sure deep inside she is a liberal woman, and she is chomping at the bit to use her Yale Law School education to eviscerate all the neo-con and Republican causes she has spent her Senate career supporting. I am so sure she wants a constitutional amendment to criminalize flag buring, right? Its so obvious that she doesnt really believe all this shit. She is just pandering.

She has no chance at crossovers, either. She has had her negatives driven up over 15 years in the national spotlight, and less engaged swing-voters wont pay enough attention to know it that it was just part of a "right-wing conspiracy."

To contrast for 2008, Al Gore can energize the base. His courageous denuciations of Bush, at a time when it risky to do, has energized the base. Me.. energized. Even his endorsement of Howard Dean in 2003 was a bold political move that showed true integrity. And he has continued to passionately argue for issues he believes in, including preventing climate change, and defending the constitution from right-wing attacks.

He can also appeal to the base, as the winner of the 2000 presidential election popular vote, as a vietnam veteran and a prudent fiscal manager.

Do I care about straw polls right around now? Of course not. Two years before primaries, straw polls are not data, they are entertainment. I do wish that Chris would do the right thing and include Gore, though, just so I dont have to list "other" as my first choice.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 12:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If I only wanted electability I'd've nominated Dubya.

For Gore to play the savior on a white horse ... (3.00 / 1)

He will have to apologize for NAFTA.

by mildewmaximilian on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:42:03 PM EST

Re: For Gore to play the savior on a white horse . (none / 0)

Oh yeah, ride that single issue horse!

by KTinTX on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:14:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For Gore to play the savior on a white horse . (none / 0)

Well, it's not my single issue. It just happens to be the big, glaring mistake of Gore's political career, a mistake to which he chose to attach his name in bold letters.

by mildewmaximilian on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton/Gore economy created 22.3 million new jobs (none / 0)

You should thank him first, before asking Gore to apologize for anything.

Clinton/Gore accomplishments.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Gore economy created 22.3 million new (none / 0)

We should be clear on what was a failure and what was an accomplishment before we start congratulating millionaires:

The Democrats' Opportunity

NAFTA's Casualties

by mildewmaximilian on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:53:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Gore economy created 22.3 million new (none / 0)

Those EPI articles were commissioned by NAFTA opponents. The analysis at one of their papers that i read focused on a tiny portion of the economy, and does not take the big picture into account.

Yes, there are opposing view points from NAFTA supporters such as this one from US Trade Representative:

NAFTA at 10: Myth - NAFTA Was a Failure for the United States
11/01/2003

...

Some claimed NAFTA would contribute to U.S. industrial decline and a "giant sucking sound." But after NAFTA was passed in 1993:

o U.S. manufacturing output soared in the 1990s, up 44% in real terms.

o U.S. employment grew over 20 million between 1993 and 2000.

o U.S. manufacturing wages increased dramatically, with real hourly compensation up by 14.4% in the 10 years since NAFTA, more than double the 6.5% increase in the 10 years preceding NAFTA.

o Income gains and tax cuts from NAFTA were worth up to $930 each year for the average U.S. household of four.

...

I am neither a supporter nor an opponent of NAFTA. I look at figures and reach a judgement of my own.

What I do know from neutral official sources (BLS) is that 22.3 million NET news jobs were created, which means that the number of jobs created was the number of jobs lost plus 22.3 million.

At the end of the day, that is precisely the reason why most people were better off during that administration than they were 16 years preceding and certainly 6 years following.

I welcome the interested reader to visit the compilation of Clinton/Gore accomplishments at length at that link I posted above, and which i am reposting for your convenience here.

mildew, stick to positive promotion of Feingold instead of beating Gore with this little stick fo yours. the facts aren't on your side on it, sorry.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 01:01:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Gore economy created 22.3 million new (none / 0)

Little stick? Um, don't get personal, dip.

Fact is, Gore is and was a champion of NAFTA, which is a great resume booster for a presidential candidate -- from the Republican Party.

EPI wasn't "commissioned" by "NAFTA opponents" as if there are a bunch of rich, powerful plutocrats opposed to free trade. Get it straight: all the powerful corporations and yacht club members are in favor of NAFTA and all other initiatives that depress wages.

But you really make me laugh by citing the U.S. Trade Representative's puff page on NAFTA. Ha! Who do you think owns their agenda?

by mildewmaximilian on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 01:25:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Gore economy created 22.3 million new (none / 0)

Who exactly is behind the EPI?

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 02:45:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Gore economy created 22.3 million new (none / 0)

Working people. Heard of 'em?

by mildewmaximilian on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:02:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Gore economy created 22.3 million new (none / 0)

And Gore championed an economy (together with Clinton) that created a net 22.3 million new jobs, lowest unemployment in 30 years, turned record deficits into surpluses.

"Working people. Heard of 'em?"

You're just demagoguing your ass off. cut it out.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:01:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Gore economy created 22.3 million new (none / 0)

No, for it to be demagoguery, there has to be a mass audience that allows themselves to be whipped up by a smooth-talking leader to support something that is not in their best interest. Demagoguery is when Hillary Clinton talks about "the children" and the poor saps believe it.

As for your figures on jobs and unemployment, you might not want to regurgitate the talking points from the Clinton Library welcome brochures. Clinton's Department of Labor infamously re-calculated the statistics for unemployment so as to define down the actual level of unemployment by not including those who had dropped out of the job market, become discouraged or been partially employed. You don't fix a problem by redefining it.

The data for NAFTA's negative impact on jobs and wages is overwhelming whenever the study is not funded by a libertarian think tank or a government agency. When we look at the Clinton legacy closely, we see that household debt skyrocketed while wages stagnated and unemployment was masked by redefinition. His economy was great for Silicon Valley Democrats, but not working people.

Finally, your tone sucks. All I want is for the possible "compromise" candidate (as defined by the corporations) to throw a bone to the vast majority of Americans who opposed his bad trade deal.

What he should do, as I've said before, is admit that NAFTA has not lived up to its promise and propose a correction or a solution, like a hemispheric living wage or a repeal of the fucking thing.

by mildewmaximilian on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore (3.00 / 2)

Al Gore is the perfect storm candidate for 2008. He has consistently denounced and exposed the truth about Bush, even when it was politically risky to do so. That was a risk that has now paid off, since Bush has become like plutonium.

Al can make the 'electability' argument better than anyone, having actually won the popular vote for the presidency.

He has an established record of environmental activism, including documenting the need for alternative energy before it became so necessary, in a time when the environment and climate change loom large in the minds of voters. "Earth in the Balance"

He is fiscally responsible "the lockbox", who was part of an administration that produced budget surpluses. A perfect foil to the current crop of GOP deficit spenders who have left the country with record debt.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:56:01 PM EST

by ab initio on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 06:23:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's no doubt Gore throwing his hat in the ring will completely change the calculus. Many candidates will not stand. In fact I doubt that Feingold will.

Gore in the race will remind the electorate of 8 years of Clinton/Gore economic success, competence and sane leadership. Monica will be a footnote this time. The empathy vote will also be very high as many will recognize he was the actual winner in 2000 and was thwarted by the Repub dominated SCOTUS.

No amount of swiftboating will work as Gore will be on fire and hit right back if his current speeches are any indication.

Gore will electrify the Dem base and the powerful coatails will lead to a Dem landslide.

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore will remind people of Bill's success in ways that Hillary won't huh? alrighty.

by Bob Schacht on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 07:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Winston Smith wrote on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:56:01 PM EST:

"Al Gore is the perfect storm candidate for 2008. He has consistently denounced and exposed the truth about Bush, even when it was politically risky to do so. That was a risk that has now paid off, since Bush has become like plutonium."

I don't know about "perfect storm candidate," but I think he would be a strong candidate. I think you can tell a lot about a politician by what they say when they're NOT running for anything. Gore has been saying the right things about the right subjects for the past 5 years, including his major speech several months ago in which he called for Bush's impeachment (transcript of the January 2006 speech at
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011606 Y.shtml)

As Winston observed,

". . .He has an established record of environmental activism, including documenting the need for alternative energy before it became so necessary, in a time when the environment and climate change loom large in the minds of voters. . . . "

He did a major speech for MoveOn about Global Warming a few years ago (see http://www.electgore2008.com/NewNews2.ht ml for this and other recent speeches).

Like Dean, he has the passion of his convictions, and one can tell that the passion is genuine, and not politically contrived. However, he does have to be on guard against letting that passion turn into a snarl that will allow the Republicans to diss him as "angry Al." I have heard him give voice to that snarl several times, and it is not the kind of voice the mainstream wants to hear (too reminiscent of the infamous "Dean scream").

But I'm for Al. I'd vote for him over ANY of the current "hopefuls."

So YES, include him in the straw polls! He deserves to be there! He's still young, and still has all the right stuff.

Bob in HI

Dean scream (none / 0)

The "Dean Scream" was a canard fabricated by the media. Dean lost because Kerry trumped his ground game in Iowa.

Frankly, I'd like to see some angry Al -- if it's genuine emotion and not the over-the-top hysterical whining for which the wingnuts are notorious -- and I suspect I'm not alone. Fucks sake, our government is openly torturing other humans, frequently just because they're brown -- he should be angry. You should be angry. Every honest citizen should be angry.

Mistreatment of progressive candidates in the media is a separate issue that needs to be treated separately. We've cowered before the conservative media gods for too long.

by lightyearsfromhome on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean scream (3.00 / 1)

I saw angry Al in Oct of 04. It was real. The passion was there, you could feel it. I think he'd win it all in 08 if he ran.

"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown

by auboy2006 on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 12:09:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

To Chris: (none / 0)

I wasn't going to raise it today actually, but since you've asked for it :)

- "He would still need a PAC": Gore already has one, and it filed an FEC report recently.

- "and more staff for that to happen": haha, the myDD poll god has spoken.

Given that almost every scientific pollster these days includes Al Gore, I think that it doesn't look good on you not to include him.

"how not including Gore in said polls is the biggest crime in the history of humanity."

It isn't a crime, but it isn't as light a matter you make it sound. These dkos/mydd polls do get quoted in various media outlets, and that buzz in turn stands to affect the potential candidates themselves and thus shape the entire race itself.

And, we're talking about the race for the most powerful position on the planet, and so, yeah, there is a good causal connection and adequate justification to accord these polls sufficient seriousness.

And guess who talked about these polls to the media recently?

Feingold clicks with blog fans
Senator tops online polls, but can that win him the presidency?
By CRAIG GILBERT
cgilbert@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Feb. 26, 2006
...

"He definitely is the most popular Democrat among the 'netroots,' " said liberal blogger Chris Bowers, referring to activists in the party who engage in online politics.

Bowers' blog (MyDD.com) did its own online poll in early February, and Feingold led that as well.

...

Bowers, one of two principal bloggers on MyDD, disputes that view, and argues that Feingold's appeal isn't necessarily about ideology as much as it is about perceptions of him as a "an independent thinker" and a "straight shooter."

Bowers says the popularity of Feingold, Clark, Warner and Edwards in Democratic blog polls - and Hillary Clinton's strikingly low numbers - reflects a preference for perceived outsiders or mavericks against insiders and establishment figures. Warner, for instance, is regarded as centrist but also as new party blood.

Bowers predicted that if Feingold runs, "he'd have all the money he needs," because of his online fund-raising potential.

...

By taking polls where the most popular guy around (Gore) is excluded, you can't go around making the claims you make here, speaking in essence for all of the netroots.

In that sense, this whole exercise becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

---------

Here is what I think you should do, IMO.

Post two separate IRV polls every month, at the same time.

1. The usual
2. The second will be a poll with a very large number of candidates, where you include a much larger pool of viable candidates, as long as they have not categorically declined a run. Use the same IRV setup for this poll, and promote it seriously along with the first poll.

For example, here is a long list of candidates: Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, John Conyers, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Al Gore, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Reed (Sen. RI), Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, Kathleen Sebelius, Mark Warner

(may be add a few more governors)

Think of the second list as a combined fantasy/farm system kind of poll. This list should be expanded upon popular demand. Demochoice allows for 32 names, but you should be able to have them create even a larger one for you. This way, everyone gets to be discussed and explored. If someone rises in popularity from this poll, and they show signs of running, then you should put him/her in the first poll.

It's fair to the politicians, and fair to the community/voters.

You see, by the virtue of your role here, you become sort of a gate keeper, and keeping the process as fair, open, responsive, and accessible as possible is the right thing to do.

I think that this is a fair and reasonable proposal, and I am expecting a direct response from you.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To Chris: (none / 0)

On what basis did you decide that Gore is the "most popular guy around"?

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:43:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore is the most popular for 2008 among netroots (none / 0)

I posted a link under his name above, but here it is again.

These were the results in a poll taken around 3/15/06 at daily Kos:

Who Do You Currently Prefer for 2008?

Bayh     8 votes - 0 %
Biden     14 votes - 0 %
Clark     407 votes - 10 %
H. Clinton     35 votes - 0 %
Daschle     7 votes - 0 %
Edwards     111 votes - 2 %
Feingold     1010 votes - 25 %
Gore     1946 votes - 49 %
Kerry     41 votes - 1 %
Richardson     29 votes - 0 %
Vilsack     2 votes - 0 %
Warner     182 votes - 4 %
McCain     10 votes - 0 %
Other     31 votes - 0 %
No Frickin' Clue     96 votes - 2 %

3929 Total Votes

Here is another poll that was taken the next day:

Who is Most Electable?

Evan Bayh     4 votes - 1 %
Joe Biden     1 vote - 0 %
Wes Clark     60 votes - 16 %
Hillary Clinton     5 votes - 1 %
Tom Daschle     1 vote - 0 %
Howard Dean     5 votes - 1 %
John Edwards     25 votes - 6 %
Russ Feingold     60 votes - 16 %
Al Gore     133 votes - 35 %
John Kerry     11 votes - 2 %
Barack Obama     14 votes - 3 %
Bill Richardson     4 votes - 1 %
Tom Vilsack     1 vote - 0 %
Mark Warner     46 votes - 12 %
Somebody Else     1 vote - 0 %

371 Total Votes

In both cases, Gore beat his nearest rival by around 20% points. Do you agree now that Gore is the most popular among the netroots for 2008?

BTW, I just posted a cleaner version of my proposal for two polls to Chris as a diary here.

Thanks for the question.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore is the most popular for 2008 among netroo (none / 0)

It's a damn good case, though the nature of online polls period insist a grain of salt with any of them. I'm not for or against Gore at this point, but i'm dubious. Specifically because I worry about any candidate that's more successful running opposed to failure than running on their own (legitimate!) success. I realize it isn't literally that simple, but I think that it's an important core point regarding Gore. That said, I'm all about redemption, so I keep an open mind.

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please don't "get back together" (3.00 / 1)

Betting the band back together? The one that played so many hits in 2000, the race any sitting VP should have won by 5 points?

He is a bad retail politician. He still strikes me as stuffy. I don't think he's any more passionate in person than he was in 2000. On the page, his words are more fiery, no doubt. Very smart guy, though, but that doesn't necessarily translate to political strategy, as we've seen.

I think if he ran he wouldn't win the nomination, unless Hillary ran, the rest of the field tanked (not gonna happen) and the non Hillarys coalesced around him. I think this is a fantasy.

by Andmoreagain on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 06:08:51 PM EST

Re: Please don't "get back together" (none / 0)

I saw him speak last year. In person he is great. He had that crowd in the palm of his hand throughout the entire thing.

by lpackard on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 07:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please don't "get back together" (none / 0)

Saw him speak in Oct of 04. Yes, he's much more animate in person now then ever before. It's real, and you can tell that when you see him.

Don't judge unless you've sat in the audience at one of his speeches.

"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown

by auboy2006 on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 12:07:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Pericles on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 06:38:38 PM EST

Quite a spread of opinion here. As to including him in straw polls...be as ignorant as you want. I don't consider leaving him out a "the biggest crime in history..." and considering what has and may happen with the BushJackal in charge I really think you ought to use your words a little more judiciously.

So we don't agree.

Hey, that's democracy.

I prefer the news that Gore is running to stay "under the radar" a lot longer anyway. The bigger the surprise his candidacy is for the ReThugs the better. Although I do not, in fact, think they will be as surprised as some folks here will be.

As to Dean, have you ever seen him speak in person? I have and I can assure you he would have ripped Bush's throat out in the debates.

Maybe he would have even torn Bush's jacket off...

Wouldn't that have been interesting?

So back off Dean and back off Gore. I'm down with those guys.

They know how to fight.

And they want to fight for us not Schumer, Biden, Hillary and the rest of Corporate Slave State.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

Both proved, at crucial moments, they couldn't win the day. Not role models for winning.

by BigDog on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 08:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ocdemocrat on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I HATE this comparison: Nixon
Lost the big one in '60, couldn't win the small one in '64 in California, took it all in '68.

Politically, they aint dead till they're dead.

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How did those extra nominations turn out for William Jennings Bryant? Adlai Stevenson? Thomas Dewey?

Re: Gore "Getting the Band Back (none / 0)

I can't wait to see the Clinton vs. Gore storyline blow up in everyone's face.

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 07:10:42 PM EST

Re: Gore "Getting the Band Back (none / 0)

For the first time, Lucas, I agree.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 08:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by NeoLotus on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 08:29:15 PM EST

Gore is a bore.

The real issue is peak oil. He can't even keep up with the right environmental issues.

And we definitely need someone who can handle the Pentagon to get rid of the Team B cold warrior nutjobs proposing to nuke Iran not to mention someone who can put the military back together now that the Bushmen have broken it. See Larry Wilkerson.

Re: Gore (none / 0)

The real issue is AIDS in Africa.

by KTinTX on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:16:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore (none / 0)

The real issue is Nationwide Healthcare.

by KTinTX on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore (none / 0)

The real issue is a Woman's Right to Choose.

by KTinTX on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore (none / 0)

The real issue is Gay Marriage.

by KTinTX on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:26:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore (none / 0)

My point is, there are many issues. We need not single issue ourselves into an entrentched minority status for decades.

by KTinTX on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:27:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore (3.00 / 2)

The real issue is COMPETENCE. Gore is a smart guy - everybody knows that. After the bumbling INCOMPETENCE of Bush and his cronies - from 9/11 to Iraq to Katrina to 1000 other issues, maybe America understands that it is important to have one of the smartest people in the country as President. Gore fits that role perfectly.

by Bear83 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore (none / 0)

No kidding, I've always been a Gore fan. Was the guy who got me engaged 4 years ago. And then I got to meet him and have him sign my shirt when I was in Iowa for Dean!

by KTinTX on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:05:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

HRC (3.00 / 2)

The blood of the Iraq war is on Hillary's hands as much as those of any GOP senator. I don't see what the hell she has to offer, frankly, irrespective of her personality quality. Purely on the issues, she fails.

That said, 2008 won't be a year for a conservative, even a conservative woman. Make no mistake: Hillary will run as conservatively as she can get away with, in a futile attempt to nab the Republican base.

And that won't play in 2008. We may or may not be able to impeach Bush by then, but the devastating fallout from the damage they've done to the country over the past five years is rapidly accelerating, to the point where even the wingnuts know their media looks silly parroting the ridiculous GOP spin.

The progressive blogs are rapidly coordinating a revolution in the Democratic party; we may not be in full flower by 2008, but we will be a force to be reckoned with, and 'conservative' will gradually become a codeword for 'hate-wracked vitriolic warmonger'.

Hillary will be running as a conservative. Game over.

by lightyearsfromhome on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:39:14 PM EST

by Tortoise on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:08:41 PM EST

Would Gore/Clinton (Mrs.) be too crazy?