Al Gore or John Kerry for 08! Why? I'll tell you why.

[montana500]

Because baggage that no one cares about anymore is better than new juicy baggage.

Why?

Well folks, we can all agree it's very ,very easy for the right wing media machine (all their tv pundits and thousands of right wing radio stations) to take a "fresh" candidate and smear him. ? They can create juicy tabloid like shock factor stories to smear. Look at Al Gore "the exxagerator" or John Kerry the "flip flopper".

But you know what? None of that will be interesting the second time around. The Swift Boat crap would not matter at all. The "Gore exxagerator" baloney would seem like old hat and would make the right wing media look like they had run out of ideas. In fact, it would work in our favor. It would turn people off. Not only would it turn people off, but it would INCITE the talk show hosts and pundits. I can see it now:

" how dare they try and run this loser again! The nerve of them! Did you know Al Gore was an exxagerator? Did you know that? ( collective yawn....)".


I say good. Lets take one of our Democratic leaders that the right wing machine has defined, and lets turn him back into the direction of the biased "main stream" media. Why? *nothing they right wingers could say about him would be found interesting, new or shocking*.

But field a new candidate for them to define?

We all know what happens then, dont we?

We are competing against a huge right wing media machine. Fresh meat would surely mean another election loss due to huge headline making smears and lies from the thousands of TV and radio stations owned and controlled by the GOP.

Until we can get a balanced media, running fresh meat is exactly what the GOP wants. They want the surprising smear campaigns and lies in the headlines that siphon votes away from the Dem candidate.

I say *fuck them*. It's time to turn one of the monsters they made right back at them, FRANKENSTEIN STYLE.

Al Gore or John Kerry in 08.

This time, there is nothing left to define but your own record.

[SheilaT]

1. I doubt either man will run again.

Notice Gore didn't in 04. Not to mention that both men are heartily disliked by many Democrats for not fighting very hard against the election-stealing that went on each time.

So, no thank you. I'll hope someone who cares enough to campaign hard until every single vote really is counted will be the next nominee.

[WhiteTara]

7. well spoken

the only thing either one of them know how to do is roll over

[ClarkUSA]

16. Doubly well-spoken.

No thanks. I don't care to have my heart and wallet broken three election cycles in a row.

[Eric J in MN]

48. I predict Al Gore will run in 2008.

Gore wanted someone else to shoulder that responsibility in 2004, but like Nixon, who lost in 1960 and ran again in 1968, Gore will probably run again in 2008.

[demwing]

70. Poorly Spoken

Gore campaigned and fought till there were no other options left him.

Your post is simply recycled, reworked, rightwing talking points.

[GetTheRightVote]

2. Perhaps they would do better, they do have experience now

They would probably do better a second time around.

:kick:

[WhiteTara]

8. at giving concession speeches? n/t

[ClarkUSA]

17. Did Al Gore speak up for election reform this time around?

I don't recall any comments. Did I miss something?

[Cheswick2.0]

86. Did Clark?

Where was Clark during the whole recount in Ohio thing?

[SheilaT]

36. They have experience?

Like they haven't both been in elected politics for their entire adult lives?

What we need is someone who is not afraid of being a liberal/progressive who cares about the ordinary people, who sees that the huge disparity of wealth in this country is wrong, who understands that tens of millions of Americans without health insurance does NOT make the finest health care system in the world. Someone who realizes that people want a real choice.

Oh. And someone who will not cave in to ludicrous propaganda about exit polls being wrong. Who will make sure that an honest, free, and fair election is held.

[leyton]

40. Is that not Gore?

Gore has shown that he is willing to speak up. Yeah, it would have been nice if he had been that way in 2000, but better than never. I think th e original poster is correct in saying that the right wing will not be able to define Al Gore (or John Kerry) as well a second time around. Besides, Gore will learn from the mistakes of his previous campaign. He knows what to do.

[Cheswick2.0]

87. You are talking about Al Gore

He knew the exit polls in florida were right and he fought for over a month against the republicans, the democrats and finally the surpreme court. Then his options were spent. He realizes that he made a mistake not calling for people to hit the streets. He was afraid of people being killed in riots and had no idea how bad Bush would really be.
He has been a consistant and brave spokesperson for the people of this country and against the bush administration. What he has never been is a cheerleader for republican policy like so many other democrats.
He is a out best candidate for 2008. He makes the rest look like light weights in both experience and vision.

[eleny]

3. I'm not so sure but...

...with either guy as candidate - we have the "I told you so" factor. For instance, the GOP dominated Congress fought Gore on his airline safety commission and were too busy skewering Clinton to pay attention to terrorism.

[saltpoint]

4. If the GOP sends up the Cat Butcher --

-- then I'll take anybody we've got except Lieberman.

But how about running Bill Moyers?

I'd pay good money to hear the debate between Bill Moyers and the Cat Butcher.

[coloradodem2005]

5. Sort of like when they started yawning at the constant mention of 9/11.

People eat this shit up and they have a high tolerance for repitition.

[osaMABUSh]

6. What happened in '68? How was Nixon characterized?

Did they say been there..done that? Apparently not. Nixon won. How? And what did he do between '60 and '68?

[SheilaT]

37. He ran for Governor of California

I think it was in 62. And when he lost, he famously said, "Well you won't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more."

He then moved to NYC, went to work for some law firm so he made lots of money, and at some point made it clear to the Republican party that he was available again.

Remember that in 1964 Barry Goldwater ran, was perceived as a far right-wing conservative and something of a nutcase, lost big time, and the Republican party was in total disarray for a couple of years. Lots of people predicted the Republican party would simply fold its tent and disappear. They're predicting that about Democrats now. Which is why we have to take the party over at the grass roots level.

[unblock]

62. he refered to himself as "dick nixon" in that quote.

[SheilaT]

63. Thank you.

I should have googled it to make sure I had it correct, and I got lazy.

[Chipper Chat]

9. I would vote for Gore in 08.

A second term would be nice since he won the first one but didnt get to serve (thanx to SCOTUS). Wow-two Tennesseeans going at it for the presidency: The Internet-inventor vs. the Cat-Killer!

[Ken Burch]

12. The last two Democrats who were renominated after losing their first time

(William Jennings Bryan and Adlai Stevenson) both LOST votes compared to their first campaigns. In fact, Bryan's vote dropped in his last TWO candidacies(1900 and 1908).

This historical record will work against both Gore and Kerry.

[leyton]

41. Historical precedents mean nothing.

Bryan was a perennial loser in an era that saw Republican after Republican elected; it didn't matter who the Democrats nominated. Stevenson campaigned against Eisenhower, one of the more popular presidents of our age.

Besides, let's think of the historical precedents that have been thrown out the window in the past few years. Whoever wins California and Delaware wins the White House? Not so, as Gore can tell you. The taller candidate always wins? Not so, as Kerry will tell you. The party holding the White House always loses seats in a midterm? Not so, the Republicans will tell you. A President with an approval rating under 50% will lose reelection? Not so, as George Bush will tell you.

Historical precedents get shattered every year.

[Clark2008]

13. Bahahahaha!

As a Tennesseean, believe me, that would not be fun.

It might be fun for about two minutes, but, after that, YAWN.

;)

[Must_B_Free]

10. Gore-Kerry

Revenge for both

[Hippo_Tron]

23. n/t

n/t

[ginnyinWI]

11. I like the idea, but first we have to expose election fraud

and that will show people that both Gore and Kerry probably won ( I know they won, but the general public might not be convinced.) Then get elections verifiable. If Kerry plays a big part in this, so much the better for a second run for him.

I think the main problem besides fraud this time was Kerry's campaign managers. With better ones he'll have a much easier time.

[imenja]

14. Why limit ourselves?

I believe we can and should expect more from our party. I am going to work for a party and future presidential candidates that represent the people over corporate interests and their own political careers.
Moreover, you've offered nothing positive in favor of either of these two men. Your arguments are 1) t the negative issues in previous campaigns won't matter in the next, and 2) we aren't going to win anyway because of the media. So what then is the bottom line? We can't win so we might as well chose proved losers? I don't think so. Kerry is definitely out for me. If he couldn't win a campaign against the worst president in American history with relatively low approval ratings, he doesn't deserve another shot.

The candidates themselves haven't even decided if they will run. Why should we decide that now? We have far more important tasks to work on in order to reform the party. Our problems are far more serious than who will be the next presidential candidate. We need to start tackling them and forget idle speculation.

[pamela]

15. Exactly.

Kerry in '08 is the smart way to go. He already has a lot of support and, more importantly, he has "brand recognition." With the possible exception of Guilani, McCain and Jeb, whoever the pubes run in '08 will be an unknown quantity to most Americans. A lot of Bush voters didn't buy the smears against Kerry, or particularly like Bush, but went with "the devil they knew." (We'll never get the hard-core Bush voting fundies, anyway, so we should just steer them towards the Constitution Party.)

If John Kerry continues to stay in the spotlight and act Presidential (ala the Mid-East trip) people will see him as the "known quantity" in a field of unknowns. He already has more supporters than Reagan or Clinton did, and when you add the millions of Bush voters that will come to regret their vote over the next four years, Kerry could win it easily. No need to keep re-inventing the wheel or letting the Karl Roves of the world define how it should be done.

[marcologico]

21. BINGO!

We have a winner.

[SheilaT]

39. I hate to rain on your parade

but I don't see Kerry's Mid-East trip as acting presidential, but rather as scurrying out of town so he didn't have to be in the Senate when the final nail was pounded in the coffin of his campaign.

How do you figure he has more supporters than Reagan or Clinton? If you're just counting raw votes, that seems correct. But Kerry never had the truly enthusiastic support that Clinton did, and still does. Yes, I know that Kerry had huge crowds everywhere he went during the campaign, especially compared to the pitiful numbers that turned out for Bush (and we're supposed to believe Bush won the popular vote?). Speaking for myself, the one Kerry airport rally I went to shortly after he had the nomination sewn up, was simply because we'd learned that Republicans would be there with the stupid flip-flops, and even though I was then (and still am) heartbroken that my man Dean wasn't going to be the nominee, I wasn't going to let some idiot Republicans outnumber the local Democrats.

But more to the point, who knows what will happen in the next four years? We can't begin to guess who might look like a reasonable presidential candidate in 07 or 08. Keep in mind that right after Bush the Elder was elected, no one could possibly have suspected that a governor from a small southern state would be the next president.

It's more than two years too early to be doing anything but getting involved as the grass roots level, doing our best to see to it that the next election is actually free, fair, and honest.

[sandnsea]

76. I have an idea for you

Go be a Green and let the Democrats run their own party. Naysayers like you were half the problem this year. Kerry had plenty of supporters who thought 100 times more of him than they did Clinton. I'm one of them and know hundreds more just like me.

[Cheswick2.0]

91. Was it the name Dean that set you off

Are you making the tired old and still as misinformed as ever assertion that "Dean" and "Grassroots" means non democrats?
Wake up.

[sandnsea]

94. I was very clear

"Kerry had plenty of supporters who thought 100 times more of him than they did Clinton."

[Blue_In_AK]

68. I would vote for Kerry again in a heartbeat

and work harder this time. Since he's still a senator, he retains visibility. After four more years of ** (if he lasts that long), everyone will be saying "Why, oh, why didn't I vote for the SMART guy? I won't make THAT mistake again." (I can always hope.)

[loyalsister]

77. Sorry to tell you, but

this is so not true, and probably has a lot to do with why he lost.
"Why, oh, why didn't I vote for the SMART guy?"
Everyone here should read "What's The Matter With Kansas?"
Dr. Frist puts them in a more difficult position, because their psuedopopulism probably won't be quite as effective.
However, I think that he would have an easier time getting the historical Democratic voters to keep voting against their self interest than Kerry would have getting them to vote for him.
Kerry does come off as elitist.
We need a governor from a midwestern state who has run a statewide campaign with some rural voters and really gotten to know them. It's not about catering to them or moving right. It's about speaking the language. Kerry can't IMO, I'm reserving judgement on Gore

[Cheswick2.0]

88. ABB in 2008 with a candidate most people never liked to begin with ?

Good lord no.

You have no idea how many activists who worked for him did it because he wasn't bush. Out of an office of thirty people I worked with at least 2/3rds of them said on a daily basis "anybody is better than bush". That's all Kerry's got, he's not bush.
Gore beat bush, Kerry didn't get close. He failed to understand the election fraud issue. He failed to understand how to communicate with people. He is out of touch.

[RawMaterials]

18. Gore - Kerry @))* 2008 n/m

[bunny planet]

58. Perfect 'revenge' ticket. I was just about to suggest it myself.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

19. I am disgusted with president kerry for not demanding our votes be counted

he's finished as far as I am concerned, he laid down and played dead in the 7th round, he threw the fight, as if by pre-arrangement.

[TLM]

20. Some of us saw that coming...

As far back as the primaries.

All Kerry cared about was better securing his own position in the political circles of DC... his career means more to him than our freedom and our democracy.

I'm reminded of Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park when the t-rex gets out... sometimes I hate being right.

[marcologico]

22. Easy on the Koolaid, guys.

Might spoil your appetite for baloney.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

56. i don't drink koolaid nor eat balony, and what does my diet have to do

with Kerry laying down and playing dead? You are trying to say maybe it was because of my diet? Why waste the time to post?

[marcologico]

57. Koolaid means toxic propaganda poured by hucksters. Google Jim Jones. nt

[Is It Fascism Yet]

60. hello!!! kerry's precipitous concession was not propaganda, it was fact,

I heard the speech, less than 24 hours after the polls closed, and with 666% voter turnout in some key counties. Just because you missed kerry's concession speech doesn't make it kool aid.

[Kitsune]

45. A-freaking-men.

As far as I'm concerned, I wasted my vote on Kerry and wish I'd voted Green. At least they know how to fight.

[ldf]

54. what s/he said...

#19

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Bayh-Lieberman '08

If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[RunningFromCongress]

59. no, kthnxbye

[Ken Burch]

66. Yeah, right, Bayh-Lieberman

let's have ANOTHER campaign where the Green candidate gets two and a half million votes. Or maybe FIVE MILLION.

[LittleClarkie]

25. John Kerry -- the "I told you so" candidate

What did you say, Rummy? Out in four years? Gee, that didn't sound familiar or anything...

Someone below made a comment about not limiting ourselves. Well, I'm not going to limit myself if I want Kerry. I don't expect Gore supporters to junk their candidate because someone says "He had his chance." And unlike some, I blame neither for having their respective elections stolen from them. Gore fought overtly, Kerry more covertly (no matter what anyone says, he had his nose in the proceedings). Both were unprepared in their own ways. Gore got blindsided totally because we'd not seen such tactics from the other side in years. Kerry was prepared for what happened to Gore (suppress and recount a close vote), not for what ended up happening to him (suppress and fraud together.)

Counting every vote would have made little difference, I think. The fraud was invisible. As someone said, how do you recount the vote that wasn't cast, or the flipped electronic vote.

We've heard rumblings from both these men that they'd like to run again. If they can make it though the process, more power to them. Let Warner, or Hillary, or Clark, or anyone else who wants to win have at it, juts like this time. Whoever wins, wins. I suspect the Dems with more name recognition will have an easier time, but perhaps a new name can impress. We shall see. I don't feel like ruling anyone out. Why limit ourselves, indeed.

Whoever it is, I will be there. Of those I think will run, Kerry is my first pick (as I truly think he'd make a wondrous prez), and Hillary the last. But I will still be there for ol' Hillary if she makes it.

[CWebster]

26. Not Kerry. He doesn't connect at all

His sole experience of interacting outside of his class was when he was in the military and it is the only thing he seems able to use.

[marcologico]

47. Talk to somebody who was at one his rallies. He connects. n/t

[iamjoy]

55. That Was Kerry's Problem

He connected at the "smaller" rallies, but no where else.

In this electronic media age, candidates must connect on television, and to a lesser extent, radio. Their words must resonate, even in in print. Generally, only supporters will go to a rally, and the candidate already has their vote.

[loyalsister]

78. Exactly

Only when he felt politically safe. He has to be able to talk to people who probably won't vote for him. He has to be able to use a dialect that connects to people who aren't trying to listen.

[lewiston]

27. You jest... right?

[lojasmo]

28. ABK N/T

[AmerDem]

29. neither

Geeze, neither one of these people had the balls to stand up the first time why would anyone think they would the second time around?

People instead should understand that one of the biggest reasons our country is in this mess is because Gore and Kerry rolled over and gave everything away.

[NYCGirl]

30. In Gore's favor, it took the Supreme Court to make him stand down.

Kerry.....eh, not so much. (As Jon Stewart would say.)

[AmerDem]

31. and in showing Gore's weakness

It was Gore who asked people like Barbara Boxer and other Senators to NOT stand with members of the Congress in contesting shrub's first stolen presidency. Nuff said!

[NYCGirl]

32. That's because if it was thrown into a Senate vote, the senate was 50/50,

and the guy who would have had to make the tie-breaking decision was the Vice President (who acts as President of the Senate). Gore felt it would have started a civil war to have done that. And none of us could have forseen what Bush was going to do as president.

[AmerDem]

35. That's the whole point?

Gore "thought" it would start a civil war. So instead we get a trade off to where the repukes get what they wanted in controlling the highest strings of our government. They then quickly step up the tactics they used in 2000 to steal elections in 2002 and 2004 there by reducing our Democratic leadership to an almost worthless amount. They now control all investigations or anything else shining a light on the wrong doing.

Great thinking on your part Gore (and to all your advisors). Let's not even get into Kerry. The sooner I can get that guy outa my mind the better. For me 2008 can't happen soon enough!

Clark in 2008! This country needs integrity for a change!

[Cheswick2.0]

89. there was no where to go after the supreme court had spoken

and the republican legislators in florida stated they would put up their own slate of electors anyway. Gore did what he thought would spare LIVES in 2000. He has said he would do it differently now. He has learned from recent history. The rest of the party, including Kerry, have not.

[Geek_Girl]

33. What about

Clark/Hillary in '08. I was thinking about this ticket and I think it would go a long way in uniting the party. The Deaniacs and democratic base seem to like Clark the moderates like Hillary. Imagine a ticket that every democrat could get behind maybe even the DLC.

[leyton]

43. I don't want Hillary.

I trust Wes Clark, I think he's a great guy and I would be perfectly happy to have him on the ticket (top or bottom). Hillary not so much, I'm afraid. Besides, she would not attract any new votes and would lose us many swing voters.

[Geek_Girl]

44. Yeah but she would bring the

Washington democratic establishment behind the ticket which could be good since that would allow the campaign to have the best resources behind the ticket. Plus the Clintons are great campaigners.

[leyton]

46. Won't the establishment already be behind the ticket?

Other than a few stray Congresscritters like Zell Miller, who didn't get behind Kerry/Edwards?

[Geek_Girl]

52. There were many in the Democratic party that were not

Thrilled about the Kerry Edwards ticket. I got the feeling that many felt it was more of an ABB ticket than about Kerry. I think a Clark/Hillary ticket would have a strong appeal for both the Washington insiders and the grass roots. Hillary may bring in moderates and conservatives that are nostalgic for Bill. Clark has a strong grass roots support and with his strong military background and being from Arkansas he could appeal to conservatives as well as liberals. I think it's a winning ticket that not many democrats would object to.

The biggest problem I have with Clark is that he ran a poor campaign in the primaries and I don't know that he could beat the GOP machine in the general election. But the Clintons know how to campaign and win a general election.

[Blue_In_AK]

69. Hillary's extremely divisive....

Even my husband, a staunch Democrat, says he would have to vote for somebody else if the Dems run her. She's way too strident. Barbara Boxer would be a better choice for a female candidate. Much more likable, IMHO.

[leesa]

34. Kerry was for the illegal war in Iraq. I will NEVER vote for him again.

[marcologico]

38. If I were that uninformed I don't think I'd broadcast it on DU. n/t

[leesa]

49. He stated that he would have run the war differently. He has NEVER come

out and stated that the war was wrong, illegal or that he did not agree with it. YOU are uninformed.

[marcologico]

50. "The President misled us into war" "Wrong war, wrong reason, wrong time"

"There were no WMD" "Sanctions were working" "Saddam was not a threat" "Saddam was not behind 9/11, Bin laden was" etc.

I'm guessing you missed all three debates, along with the rest of the campaign?

[Cheswick2.0]

92. gee guess he shouldn't have voted for it then

but he wanted to run for President and fell in a stupid trap. Thousands of people have died for Kerry's ambition. Instead of giving that "I stand on both sides of this issue" speech he gave before voting for the IWR, he could have done what Byrd did. Imagine how all of us whould have cheered him and imagine how we would all be ready to vote for him again in 2008.
You can't rewrite history, we were all watching that day too. Kerry's speech was an amazing dodge and weave. He's dead politically. The only question that remains is how long he's going to hang out in the senate collecting a paycheck and if he will ever get any meaningful legislation passed.

Yah yah I know, Iran Contra....how'd that turn out? No one was punished and we got the same crew back for another eight years.

[marcologico]

51. Kerry on Iraq (Reuters): "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time," 9/6/04

CANONSBURG, Pa. - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term.

--snip--

In Racine, West Virginia, Kerry assailed Bush's record, repeatedly telling a Labor Day rally the "W" in Bush's name stood for "wrong - wrong choices, wrong judgment, wrong priorities, wrong direction for our country" on everything from jobs to Iraq.

full article: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090804Z.shtml

[SheilaT]

64. And he still would have voted to

go to war in the first place.

Other than weakly saying he'd withdraw our troops, no details given, Kerry NEVER opposed the war.

[robbedvoter]

65. Pulling a Kerry: talking for us, voting for BFEE. See Jan 6 too

when he managed to not vote but set the tone for other senators to pull a Kerry.

[buzzard]

85. He voted to give the president the authority to go to war, which is far

different than voting to go to war. This is a power a normal president should be trusted with, not this one though.

[Cheswick2.0]

93. Not different at all and everyone knew it

WE knew bush was going to war. Kerry should have said "no, I would not have voted for the IWR again, not with this president".

[TankLV]

73. Exactly.

You have it exactly correct.

The replys to your statement are extremely selective and rediculuously edited at best.

I listened to comments he made - they were EMBARASSING to say the least.

He would prosecute, fight, wage war DIFFERENTLY, BETTER, FASTER - it sounded like a fucking car commercial.

"I will find them and kill them!" Does anyone remember that?

Same amorphous "they".

It.
Was.
Disgusting.

I held my nose and still voted for ABB.

NEVER AGAIN!

[TankLV]

72. Plus he was not against killing Iraqi's - just would do it BETTER!

I couldn't believe my eyes and ears.

There was nothing wrong with the IDEA of the war, per se, IT WAS JUST BEING FOUGHT WRONG! AND IF YOU VOTE FOR ME, I'LL KILL THEM BETTER!

That's the meaning of his words, if not the exact words themselves. Trying to prove what a great & better "fighter" & "wartime president" he would be.

When in numerous times he was confronted with the lies of WMD and the stated reasons for intitiating this ILLEGAL war, he repeatedly said HE WOULD DO IT ALL AGAIN - HE WOULD STILL GO TO WAR!

Made.
Me.
Sick.

I will NEVER vote for that WAR MONGER again!

NEVER!

[moggie12]

42. I disagree -- especially re: Kerry

I think the "smear" they made against Kerry (flip-flopping) was partly true: He did seem to adjust his position and tone based on what was needed to win the primary, and then the general election. I'd rather "start fresh" with a candidate who: Stands clearly for something, is articulate, has experience running something (this means one of the Dem governors or Clark), etc. I don't care if the Republicans find new stuff to hurl at them since I think some of the stuff they hurled at Kerry "stuck" for good reason.

[Orangepeel]

53. the juicy new baggage will be "loser"

or, they will invent OTHER "juicy new baggage."

Haven't we learned the important lesson of NOT picking candidates based on what the right wing may or may not say about the candidate. Let's just trust ourselves to pick who we think is the best qualified person, in terms of experience, ideas, charisma, etc.

[The Flaming Red Head]

61. Kerry is done

over. never again.

[Ken Burch]

67. How about Obama-Hightower in '08?

The new face of the party and the progressive populist voice of Red State America.

Or maybe Edwards, if he ran on more Kucinich-type issues (which he is capable of doing)

In any case, I just don't think a retread (even a good retread)is the answer.

[The Flaming Red Head]

82. I think we already have the first stages of a monarchy or dictatorship

The only thoughts I entertain these days are which countries will we be able to flee before 2008, if Bush and his minions continue on the road to total authoritarianism.

[TankLV]

71. Remember: Nixon ran again after losing miserably ONLY 8 YEARS LATER & WON

I will say it again:

NIXON - THE SORE LOOSER - THE "YOU WON'T HAVE DICK NIXON TO KICK AROUND ANYMORE - LOSER OF A GOVERNOR RUN, A SENATOR RUN, A PRESIDENTIAL RUN - WON IT ALL 8 YEARS LATER!

I think the original poster is on to something.

I hope we can get a fair and accurate counting of the votes.

That's the one big thing that is different this time around.

[Califooyah Operative]

74. I'm gonna wait and see, but....

if it came down to it, kerry could pull it off, but it's gonna take a lot of morale building, and strategic new voters/get out the vote efforts comparible to those which rove used to bring out millions more voters.

But as far as the theory, it makes sense, it worked for bush, the dui, cocaine, texas guard stuff, was all sort of old dirt that he brushed off. Once it's old, it's hard to bring it back.

if it came down to kerry v gore, kerry wins.

[quinnox]

75. There is merit to this

If Kerry runs again, he still has a large support base in the Dem party and I think you are right about the old news thing.

I'm sure the smear boat scum would rear their ugly heads again but I can see how it could be met by a huge shrug and yawn by the people.

[Demi_Babe]

84. I agree that there is merit to this

and it's about time two wrongs are "righted". Let Gore run as President with Kerry as Vice President then 8 years later...Kerry has his turn as President for 8. I like it!

[CWebster]

79. At least Gore won the popular vote

and that was BEFORE we knew how bad Bush would ultimately turn out to be.


Gore seems to emerged with a clear vision, Kerry doesn't even seem to know what decade we are in.

[mtnsnake]

80. I think that's the wrong reason for running Kerry again

Running him because voters already know about his baggage will only make voters make up their minds even sooner, and in a negative way.

As to the "Swift Boat crap", I don't see how you can say that it wouldn't matter at all next time. The Kerry people still haven't properly addressed those assholes.

Dont forget...this was George freaking worst-president-in-history Bush he ran against and Kerry STILL ran a pathetic campaign loaded with hesitations, unclear messages, and imagery mistakes. Next time around, it won't be the chimp he'll be running against. It'll be someone stronger, maybe even someone with a brain.

[sendero]

81. Not only no..

... but hell no.

People will not even listen to them a second time around.

A serious presidential contention is a one-shot deal. If we cannot do better than these two, why bother?

[itcfish1]

83. Exactly

After 8 years of distruction, people will realize that any one of these two men would have done a much better job the the Chimp. What dirt will Rove have against these two men or against Hilary Clinton. The laundry has been aired out, washed out rinsed and spinned so many times that KKKarl Rove will have nothing to lie with.

[WI_DEM]

90. I could support Gore, but can't get very enthusiastic about Kerry