Gore could put an end to all this infighting, you know.

[angka]

Executive experience, good liberal, untarnished by any collusion with the Bush junta on the wars in Iraq and on our freedom. Not to mention the fact that he is the incumbent, democratically-elected President (in exile).

Close your eyes and think for just a moment about how different things would be, but for one little coup de fiat...

[Must_B_Free]

1. *sigh*

The obligatory sigh, and the obilgatory talking points:

1. he's not running
2. he doesn't want to run
3. he is a loser
4. move on
5. you're being counterproductive mentioning Gore instead of Clark or Dean

Not that I agree with those things, but I like to get them out there first, so the others don't have to bother.

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. LOL

Yep, the "Gore's not running, get over it" crowd will jump all over this. :silly: :argh:

[clar]

2. People are

committed. You can't really believe that they'd simply toss months of hard work and committment aside. I wouldn't.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. People who still advocate for Gore

need to be committed.

[Must_B_Free]

5. you're just mad

because I already beat you to 1 through 5 above.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Nah

If Gore was actually running, then this would be a valid discussion. If there was a chance in hell, he were running, still a valid discussion.

In this case, not a valid discussion.

[WilliamPitt]

4. So could Jesus

Ain't gonna happen.

[Devlzown]

6. Jesus? You gotta be kidding!

He'd alienate all the swing voters with all his peace talk.

[WilliamPitt]

7. Yeah, but he's got that supernatural shit going on

Water into wine? He'd be more popular than Froot Loops.

[grasswire]

8. hahaha...

...thanks for the good laugh, WP.

[Devlzown]

10. LOL! I can just see him at the Super Bowl.

I'm sure he could turn water into beer as well. And if the economy keeps getting worse, that loaves and fishes trick could really come in handy!

[Hubert Flottz]

26. JC could walk across the water and fetch our jobs back!

So can Dennis!

[Solomon]

60. Sheee it. If Jesus came back

he be named an enemy combatant and executed in the electric chair. Then all us christians would be walking around with little electric chairs around our necks.

[einsteins stein]

53. Froot?

Is that how it's spelled on the box?

The shit I didn't know that I didn't know...lol

[WilliamPitt]

56. That's how it's spelled

Go figure.

[angka]

57. so

i make a post that gets lambasted with twenty inane replies. and a bunch of totally specious and irrelevant clarkie-posturing. okay.

but when i offer a substantive reply (here), all you can find to discuss is froot loops?

as ridiculous as that is, i suppose i should chalk it up as a moral victory...

[WilliamPitt]

58. Take 'em where you can find 'em

[angka]

59. yeah cool

perhaps someday i will be able to blow you off with the same misplaced arrogance.

[WilliamPitt]

76. Perhaps

but only if I'm very very lucky.

[Brian Sweat]

32. Haven't you heard?

Jesus is a Republican.

[azrak]

38. I knew he was a Capricorn

but he doesn't strike me as a republican.

[Egnever]

51. eeep

Are capricorns overwhelmingly republican? Can you link that?

Scary!

[PAMod]

46. No he isn't, he goes to my church

He's the original progressive.

[Brian Sweat]

61. According to the Southern Babtists Convention (SBC)

the Jesus attending your church is an imposter. According to the SBC the real Jesus is a member of the SBC and a Republican.

[Cheswick2.0]

63. Kerry sucks

and he's dying in the polls. Just thought I'd let you know

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. I was disappointed in 2000

when Kerry decided not to challenge him.

[WillyBrandt]

11. We have stronger candidates

Clark has a far more politically effective bio and personality

Dean is running a far more creative and aggressive campaign than Gore ever did

Kerry has better experience, and a far more awe-inspiring Vietnam record.

If the three above weren't running, you'd be right. But I sincerely think the Big Three (Clark, Dean, Kerry) are simply superior candidates.

Gore isn't going to run. He's yesterday's news. I hope he stays involved in politics--going back into the Senate, or developing a liberal media infrastructure.

[Sick of Bullshit]

12. Yeah, Clark

The Democrat who didn't know he was a Democrat until last week. And how much political experience has he had? Zip.

Clark's just an opportunist.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Everyone

who is running is an opportunist. Clark is just more obvious about it.

[WilliamPitt]

15. And he just might win

Wouldn't that suck?

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

16. Clark will bring the Reagan Democrats back into the fold

and he will drive everyone else out of the party!

I don't know why the GOP always refers to the Democratic party as the Democrat party, but here is a Clark endorsement from Republicans for Clark, written by Josh Margulis, one of two men that started the Draft Clark movement:

"It's Safe to Vote Democrat Again"
By Josh Margulies
New York, NY

Jimmy Carter gave us a worldwide reputation for being the nerdiest country in the schoolyard. While he sat in the Oval Office, students in Tehran pulled our military credibility down around our ankles. “Nightline,” which began as a daily recounting of the events in the long standoff, was the only silver lining in that black cloud, and only Ted Koppel would vote for Jimmy Carter again.

Johnson, bless his heart, had dragged us deeper into the jungles.

And some say that Kennedy, his command of a PT notwithstanding, had such ineffectiveness as an international and military leader that, years later, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis has been reviewed as an exercise in “giving away the farm.”

Enter Wesley Clark – Rhodes Scholar, West Point valedictorian, and former NATO Supreme Commander. Yes, THAT Wesley Clark.

http://www.georgiaforwesleyclark.com/gfwc_republicans2.html

[WilliamPitt]

17. So what?

He will drive the Bushies out of the Oval Office.

Those of us with enough committment to stay in the party even with the HORRIBLE REALITY of a President Clark will work hard, as the base, to make sure the Oval Office does what it is supposed to do.

Anyone who quits the party because of Wesley Clark probably was in the wrong party to begin with. (just my humble o). Short term v. long term.

[imhotep]

18. in reality

there is no control of anyone after they are elected.
Did you not learn anything from 8 years of Clinton?

[WilliamPitt]

19. I've learned something after a few years of Bush

I've learned that a hyperactive base can push the whole agenda. See: The last 2 1/2 years.

The problem with those eight years of Clinton is that too much of the progressive base (and I am guilty of this, too) put their activism into neutral after 12 years of Reagan/Bush came to an end. "Ahhhh, a Democrat is in, I can chill now."

That won't happen again.

[Old and In the Way]

21. You got that right, WP.

Maybe 4 years of this incompetent criminal was neeeded to energize democrats to lose their complacency (I, too, take credit for not being engaged enough in the 90s). I think this internet thing has also helped us to find our voice and we aren't going away. I really think the pendulum is about as far right as it's going to go and will now start the move back to the progressive ideals that made this country great.

[indigo32]

35. Good Point Will

I know I'm guilty of that. NO MORE.

[Brian Sweat]

33. Unless the far left is going to vote Republican

then every "Reagan Democrat" we bring back into the party is worth two far left voters who leave the party.

[Terwilliger]

36. REALLY!

Why is that? They have more money? They think like you ideologically?

I think the Democratic party should just get real and extinguish anybody Wellstone or to the left. Obviously you don't honor them and don't like them in the tent.

Start a new thread where you say you think all the leftists in the Democratic party should leave so you can get your centrist voters back.

[angka]

37. you gotta love this accomodationist horseshit though.

obviously they have never heard of a 'pyrrhic victory.'

[Brian Sweat]

40. This is a false dilemma

It assumes that there are only two positions. Far left and far right.

[Brian Sweat]

39. It's simple mathmatics

If we take a vote away from the GOP then that is one less vote for the GOP and one more vote for the DNC. Lets say there are 100 voters. Currently 51 of them vote for GOP candidates and 49 of them vote for DNC candidates. If we take three votes away from the GOP but lose 3 votes to IND. candidates, the the votes break down like this.

49 DNC
48 GOP
3 IND

[NNN0LHI]

42. Uh, uh

33% - Republicans

33% - Democrats

33% - In the middle somewhere

1% - Nuts

So if someone can appeal to the majority of that 33% of those in the middle somewhere you can see that all one then needs is about half of their own parties vote to win. Those numbers are not exact. But they are pretty damn close.

Don

[Terwilliger]

44. wrong!

18% Democrats

17% Republicans

13% every other voter

52% of available adults NOT VOTING in this country

maybe we could tap some of them if they had something to believe in

[JVS]

65. Beliefs? That is sooooooo 19th century

[Bertrand]

43. IndianaGreen

What is the point of your post (i mean, youre quoting a republican for clark. Thats the whole idea of the article)? Are you against the idea of Democrats bringing in other people into the party, including conservatives, to help build their base? if the party is too impure for you, do yo want to purge alot of the southern democrats that are pretty conservative? I mean, Clark has come out with some pretty liberal postions (i mean the guy just proposed cutting the pentagons budget to fund health care while all of the other major candidates have been frozen by the bush traitor lable that they would continue to see it bloated) yet alot of people here piss on him because of their vested interests in a candidate or ridged ideologies despite the fact that he would help the party and the ideology if he were to win, and not just at the executive branch.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. Say WHAT?

"And some say that Kennedy, his command of a PT notwithstanding, had such ineffectiveness as an international and military leader that, years later, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis has been reviewed as an exercise in “giving away the farm."

That would be the religious nuts who sing hosanas to the End of the World. Must've been mightily disappointed JFK prevented it. Sheesh. :crazy:

[einsteins stein]

54. I disagree with...

the "experience" portion of your Kerry line. Gore has 8 years of experience working in the Whitehouse, on National Security, and with foreign diplomacy.

I haven't seen enough of Clark to judge his personality, but I am of the opinion that Gore gets a raw deal on the personality plate. When the man is relaxed, he seems very genuine, and funny! Unfortunately, he rarely shows that side of his persona.

But, all this aside, the idea that Gore should jump in now, is past it's prime, unless (that is one BIG unless) something out of the realms of logic throws the race up in the air. I can't even begin to imagine what the "something" could be, only that it may exist.

Gore, if he wants another shot, should wait it out, and do what he is doing now -helping to build a new progressive infratructure in America.

Maybe run for Governor. Maybe California? I hear California is having this little gubernatorial issue...

[angka]

20. hah!

so let me preface my remarks with the acknowledgement that gore is, of course, not running. all the outrage at the mere suggestion! what a difference a few weeks makes. this has got to have something to do with all of howard dean's new money—feeling a little invested, are we?

everywhere the left is falling back, while the news cycle buries uncomfortable truths. we abandon moral victories like the NAACP Florida 2000 vote fraud lawsuit. in congress we make it official policy to capitulate to the administration's audacious lies at every step. half the democratic presidential contenders thought the patriot act was 'necessary' and helped bush go to war in iraq. and you wonder why some people cynically wish gore would ride in like jesus fucking christ and make the last three years disappear?

you're not gonna get to pick the nominee anyway. oh, maybe you will, if you live in one of about 10 smallish states voting in the early primaries. maybe you're like me, here in colorado, where due to budget cuts the 2004 state presidential primaries have been cancelled. better start showing up at your local party meetings or shut the fuck up and line your favorite contender's pockets. which is what any republican will tell you is protected political speech of the highest order.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
-George Orwell, Animal Farm

[angka]

22. yeah that's what i fucking thought.

<crickets> a little close to home?

the best part is how you people used this thread to start another isclarkhotornot exchange. i hope you enjoy such masturbatory exercises, soon to be the closest thing you will know to actual democracy.

[disgruntella]

23. maybe we're all too busy living in the present

and talking about current issues. I held my nose to vote for Gore.

[angka]

27. sure you are.

and of course you don't want to talk about how kerry, edwards, lieberman and gephardt spent the last two years selling us out to tyranny in every meaningful way, because that would be living in the past.

and why would we want to challenge bush on the post-9/11 war on freedom? that would be living in the past (besides which, many democratic candidates agree with him).

and why would we attack the administration's iraq war lies? that's no longer in issue, we just want to talk about the latest $87 billion. of course gephardt hopes that he can say the words 'miserable failure' enough times to make you forget that he voted for the fucking war. and of course kerry didn't vote to go to war—he just voted to threaten war (i can't even type that with a straight face), while edwards and lieberman just thought it was all a great idea, kind of like the patriot act.

and the very idea that anyone should revisit the 2000 elections, in light of mountains of new evidence of massive GOP vote fraud, and question as a result all the last three years of history? that's so september 10th.

and what's every candidate really doing right now? furiously, desperately squeezing the rank and file for every last dollar they can get. because that's the only thing that's really going to make a difference in this corrupt, uneven struggle against the bush financial guggernaut.

so you have fun living in the present. i hope you own a comfortable pair of blinders.

[disgruntella]

28. quit putting thoughts in my head and words in my mouth

You're the one who brought up GORE.

Have fun living in my IGNORE file... I don't listen to people who are this consistently negative.

[angka]

29. pay no attention to that man behind the prozac curtain

big smile

[bread_and_roses]

24. It was probably my naive ever-hopefullness

but I thought Gore had better progressive possibilities than Clinton, whom I considered to be an old style moderate Republican. I have found myself wishing he was running.

"we abandon moral victories like the NAACP Florida 2000 vote fraud lawsuit. in congress we make it official policy to capitulate to the administration's audacious lies at every step. half the democratic presidential contenders thought the patriot act was 'necessary' and helped bush go to war in iraq."

Ain't that the truth. And we are so desperate that we hail candidates who don't even stand up for universal health care as somehow "different" from those already in power, and a General whose career has shown no particular interest in peace as a Peace candidate. Go figure, I can't. The only candidate out there actually putting forth proposals that challenge the status quo is DK, and he is utterly marginalized by the press. No surprise there.

[Tennessee Gal]

25. Why all the whining at the mere mention of Al Gore?

Seems to me some people might be a little frightened that he might get back in.

By the way, the recent Newsweek poll had Gore in a statistical dead heat with Bush, by far the strongest of any Democrat.

The question remains: Does the Democratic Party want the strongest candidate against Bush?

Draft Gore!

http://www.draftgore.com/

[tnlefty]

30. No whining here. A lot of anger followed by sadness and disgust!

When I watch the speeches that he's given post-selection, especially the Aug. 7th speech, I become mad as hell and then sad. To think that so many idiots in this state preferred the Global Village Idiot to Gore and voted for the Dimson!!!

I attended the DraftGore rally in Nashville. He has said that he doesn't want to run and I have to accept that. I don't have to like it I just have to accept it.

[angka]

31. there's an amazing number of people

wigging out at the suggestion of it. read above, funny stuff.

"we're past this." keep saying it over and over, and you can convince yourself that anything is irrelevant.

[SammyWinstonJack]

48. I don't get that either

Mention Gore and people here freak out. Still blaming the victim I see. I wish Gore would run and defeat Bush* AGAIN! Would love to see how the "Get over it" crowd would react to that. I don't blame Gore for not running, like he needs Dems to bad mouth him and stab him in the back again. Draft Gore!

[DrGonzoLives]

34. Right, then we'll all hold hands, sing Kumbayah,

and look at the pretty, pretty rainbows and bunny rabbits that will result...maybe we'll all get ponies!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. I Like Al Gore Alot

but if you think the other Democratic candidates and their supporters wouldn't rip him a new face if he got in you are kidding yourself....

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. Think about that daily

:-(

[uptohere]

50. I actually believe Al when he says hes not interested

the numbers do not show that he's a lead pipe cinch to win only that he has the best shot. Sounds too much like last time and he really didn't enjoy the last go round.

Who needs the aggrivation ?

[PurityOfEssence]

52. Must we be cringing children praying for a savior?

Didn't Clark slake that need?

The principal contention of your message, that it would end the infighting, is completely unfounded. Many have a bone to pick with Gore, and it'll just increase the cacophony.

[angka]

55. goodie for those people.

i have a bone, in turn, to pick with all these "democrats" who left gore to twist in the wind in 2000. it was like not reporting a murder that took place right in front of your face.

and now all you people can say is it's "time to move on..."

amnesia of convenience and total bullshit.

[Cheswick2.0]

62. yup

Geez these people get vicious when you make sense. The strongest Candidate against Bush is still Gore. But lets not even suggest people get behind that. :eyes:

No they will continue to trumpet the virtues of people like Kerry who is dying in the polls and Clark who is an unknown entity or Dean who does the worst against bush of any of the candidates. :eyes:

[angka]

64. yup

this thread has opened my eyes as to just how myopic some people can be.

[PurityOfEssence]

68. Fine. Reason with me then.

This is an ongoing issue, and there are many assumptions made by both sides of the issue. Here are mine: he's already said that he's not running, and for good reasons. It's not that that was the right idea back in December when he made it, but it was with some merit. He stated that he wanted the race to be about policy, instead of becoming some personality contest or a referendum on the last election. I think we can grant him that choice; it's a noble one, and he's given his word.

Gore's probably the most screwed person in Presidential election history, and I don't dispute that. Unfortunately, some of his weaker characteristics would be exacerbated dangerously by him entering now. He is not a quick decider, and unfortunately, that element of decisiveness is a lot of what people want and a big determinant in their vote. Not to rub too much salt in the wounds, but he did have a hand in his own defeat, so it's not like he was blameless. He put Quisling Joe on the ticket specifically to distance himself from Clinton, didn't avail himself of Clinton's help in the campaigning, and was more than timid in the recount. He deserves to be president; he won. He won Florida, no matter how one counts it. I'm not about to let sentiment risk the future of this fragile world, though, especially when he's gone on record as saying that he's out of it.

We needn't be desperate; there are a few candidates who can win, and they're (more or less) good people.

To have him enter now would play right into the hands of the right-wing hate machine by allowing them to show that he's a waffler, his word means nothing and we're bereft of imagination. Regardless of the fairness of these arguments, they are very potent, and would be used.

Just because one thinks it's a good idea for him to not run doesn't mean one just laid down and let Gore get reamed. (Yes, I'm aware that was Angka's comment, but you're tag-teaming here, and I don't want to muddy the waters with too many posts.)

I don't like drafts; they reek of the same attention-craving drama-queen crap that typifies so many of the "goodbye cruel board" messages on DU that people post when they haven't been treated with the dignity they usually don't accord in return. If you want to run, run. I think he made a selfless and sensible move, and this shows maturity; many people crave power and acclaim so much that they can't do what's best for others. I truly, deeply "buy" his contention that he didn't think it was the best thing for the party.

As for the polls, it's a question of name recognition and sympathy. Otherwise, why would Lieberman poll so high? The answer's obvious from that other pernicious question, where it's always shockingly discovered that hardly anybody in the general populace knows any of the other candidates.

Back to reality, too: Gore is not a "magic" candidate; he has many traits that are very dangerous in American politics: he's smart, he comes off a bit stuffy, he comes off as indecisive and he's allowed things to stick that he shouldn't have. Folks don't like these things. They should like "smart", but they don't' it's a liability in the U.S.

Dean can win. I don't like him, certain of the approaches of some of his supporters and some of HIS POLICIES, but he can beat Bush. Kerry can beat Bush. We'll see how Clark wears in the next few weeks, and I'm truly irritated with the thrust of many of his supporters. He's definitely too far right for me, but hey, I'll take any of the ten over Junior and whoever it is will get my vigorous support.

Given more idiocy and decline from Junior, Kucinich may be able to win in a supercharged '76ish anti-establishment backlash, but that's an outside bet. I truly admire him, but he's a bit too left for me on a few things, and definitely very left for the country.

I still say that Edwards has the very best chance of beating that little chickenshit hereditary nobody, and he's someone in whom I truly believe as a person. (Yes, I hate the war vote.) He could be a statesman for the ages and help bind the domestic and international wounds. I like his policies and his approach: it's within the existing structure, VERY socially progressive and it's fiscally responsible. He's much farther left than portrayed.

I don't think Gephardt has a chance, and in many ways it's a Gore-like personality issue: he's a legislator, not a decisive and dynamic leader. Swing voters often don't like/are jealous of unions, and that's a big issue.

I like Graham, and he might be a gentle avuncular compromise candidate. We'll see about that, but it follows along with the "healer" concept. He's got a long way to go, though, and I don't see it happening.

Mosely-Braun and Sharpton are too far out of the running to make it, bar some kind of force majeur. I personally don't like the idea of a man of the cloth as president, and you'd be surprised how many people have the same take on that. Lieberman hasn't got a chance for numerous chances.

Some of us have specific reasons for not wanting Gore to enter, and the dislike of the "oh please, saaave me, saaaave me" damsel-in-distress dreamlike dramatic fantasy is a fair issue. Much of the Clark support is the very same way; at least that's over with.

[angka]

69. happily.

in fact it's very nice to have someone willing to amicably engage on this issue instead of inanely poo-poohing it. even highly respected DUers seem to be willing to piss all over this issue with surprisingly bullshit and caustic remarks.

from the top, then:

He stated that he wanted the race to be about policy, instead of becoming some personality contest or a referendum on the last election. I think we can grant him that choice; it's a noble one, and he's given his word.

despite what you might think from this thread i am not a member of the 'draft gore' camp, per se. i have no objection to his being drafted, however, and as time goes by a draft seems to be the only reasonable way to get him back into the race. but i disagree with his stated reasons for not running, and here's why:

1) many of the lead democratic candidates are capitulating to bush in terms of policy. so gore's absence does not further the policy debate-it is actually serving to stymie it.

2) somebody high in DLC circles doesn't want a 'referendum on the 2000 election.' this is a completely manufactured argument that has as its true intent the burying of the unprecedented crimes of that election. the reasons for this baffle me, but it begins to make some sense if i start thinking about all the ways the DLC has colluded with the GOP instead of fighting it. then i start to get really pissed off.

Unfortunately, some of his weaker characteristics would be exacerbated dangerously by him entering now...not to rub too much salt in the wounds, but he did have a hand in his own defeat, so it's not like he was blameless...he deserves to be president; he won. He won Florida, no matter how one counts it. I'm not about to let sentiment risk the future of this fragile world, though, especially when he's gone on record as saying that he's out of it.

you're never going to hear me romanticize gore. he is far from perfect. i was bitter over his spurning of clinton during the campaign, a shortsighted act that cost him many, many votes. i vigorously object to his position on felony disenfranchisement (which ironically opened up the door to the florida 2000 election fraud). but he did win, and we've only learned in the past year just how egregious the vote fraud in florida really was.

here's where i'll get romantic-electing gore, with all of his attendant flaws, would roll back this tyranny in the eyes of history. the american people could do something truly profound by correcting this massive breakdown. a good start to this would be every american finally understanding that more went wrong in 2000 than 'butterfly ballots.'

Just because one thinks it's a good idea for him to not run doesn't mean one just laid down and let Gore get reamed.

of course i agree with you, but have you read some of the undiluted shit-talk about gore on this thread? the DLC left gore to twist in 2000, and let him know again in 2003 that he would get the same treatment. that's why he's not running. and many posters here at DU are so far in bed with their candidate-of-choice that they're willing to bash gore like he was a republican-and abandon critical issues in the process-rather than see money they've already donated 'go to waste.' which, imo, is despicable.

As for the polls, it's a question of name recognition and sympathy. Otherwise, why would Lieberman poll so high? The answer's obvious from that other pernicious question, where it's always shockingly discovered that hardly anybody in the general populace knows any of the other candidates.

i'm trying to figure out how this is an argument against gore running. last time i checked name recognition was a good thing. and as for sympathy-well, i call it more than sympathy, as you can probably imagine. and i think the reason lieberman polls so high is his strong base in the jewish-american community. if the other candidates are failing to resonate with the public, well...?

and finally, your candidate lineup:

Dean can win.

you're goddamn right he can.

Kerry can beat Bush.

no he can't, and even if he could, i have questions about how materially different things would be. i lump him in the same category as edwards, lieberman, and gephardt-compromised. i won't trust men who line up to support bush until it becomes inconvenient for them. that's not an alternative.

Given more idiocy and decline from Junior, Kucinich may be able to win in a supercharged '76ish anti-establishment backlash, but that's an outside bet.

i will take that bet for the good of the nation. an uncompromisingly leftist president would save the ignorants of america whether they like it or not. kucinich is a great man and i am watching his candidacy with great interest. too bad the DLC will shut him down if he gets too uppity.

(Edwards is) much farther left than portrayed.

i would have to see something pretty compelling to buy into this. right now i think that's bullshit.

I don't see it (Graham) happening.

neither do i. something about his cheering on of the patriot act makes him ideologically unpalatable to me.

Some of us have specific reasons for not wanting Gore to enter, and the dislike of the "oh please, saaave me, saaaave me" damsel-in-distress dreamlike dramatic fantasy is a fair issue.

after being nice this whole post, i want to say that this argument pisses me off. it's more than bullshit; it implies that those of us who long for a little historical vindication are helplessly bleating for salvation. which marginalizes us in addition to serving as an insult. also, when you call gore's proper election a 'dreamlike fantasy' you are contributing to the GOP tactic of manufacturing inevitability. it's not a fantasy. it's what should have happened, and it took a massive, organized crime to deprive him of it in 2000. i will never forget that, and i will never concede any ground to the GOP criminals over it. they hold power illegitimately.

anyway, i hope i have elucidated my position well enough between this and my other posts. i think my moral compass is spot-on on this one.

[TennesseeWalker]

66. Phooey. Infighting is part of a real Democracy.

Everyone will come together to defeat the Death Star. I feel it.

[angka]

67. while you're probably right

it's a shame just how little principle exists these days. we're as desperate as the republicans, and too many seem willing to sacrifice every moral position of strength we have in order to 'win.'

[Samantha]

70. Gore is the best qualified person on either side of the fence

to step in and clean up the Bush* quagmires. It seems too much focus is put on superficial phrases such as "fresh face" and the mysterious implications of a "dark horse" riding into save the day. Considering the seriousness of the depth of our debacles on so many fronts, it seems too risky to me to take a chance on a novice or an unknown and too repulsive to give a second chance to those running who supported the Bush* policies, especially the war.

In 1992, Clinton offered Gore the opportunity to serve as a co-president during his terms in office, thus said David Mariness in his biography of Gore, "Prince of Tennessee." He offered Gore this opportunity to convince him to run, after Gore had decided to sit the 1992 race out, following his son's accident. Clinton was convinced Gore on the ticket would ensure a win, and Clinton was right about that. Many Dems thought the ticket order should have been reversed. Clinton also chose Gore because he thought he was most qualified to become president should Clinton die in office. Again, Clinton was right. Many people here in Washington said Gore ran the government when Clinton was too depressed to do so, during the impeachment era.

The last poll I saw about a month ago said 74 percent of Dems would support Gore.

While we have had a lot of negative things said about Gore in this thread, the fact remains his pluses far outweigh his minuses. His political resume is unmatched among the rest of the field.

As far as the naysayers asserting it would hurt his credibility to jump in at this late date, I disagree. The art of politics is the ability to ride the unpredicable wave. Anything can happen at any time. I continue to hope the best candidate we could run in the race against Bush* jumps in.

[angka]

71. bump

<ahem> bring it.

[angka]

73. where are yesterday's blowhards?

uh-huh.

[janekat]

72. I love ya Al - I'll never give up on you.....

However, until you enter the race I'm rooting for Clark, Kerry, Gephardt and the rest of them....

[iambe]

74. Gore is so...

20th Century.

[burr]

75. why do you say this???

I backed Bradley over Gore in 2004!!! Do you really think I would back him this time?