Suppose Al Gore Does Run in 2008, as a Green?

[radio4progressives]

I am a huge Feingold supporter, and would like to think he c/would head the party ticket in 2008 - but with the likes of the so called "Reagan Democrat" Chuck Schumer calling the shots and picking candidates all over the country for the Senate, i suspect he will have a huge role in who the DP will annoint as The Candidate for 2008.

Given his snarky remarks against Feingold the other day, and given that Schumer lead the Boycott of the Censure Hearing on Friday, we can count on Schumer doing everything in his power to cut the legs out from under Feingold's efforts at every given opportunity.

The other person that i have gained new respect for is Al Gore. Al Gore is on a mission that's about what the party should be about - and I have frequently voiced support for an Al Gore/Russ Feingold ticket

But then i see this Vanity Fair article, and suddenly it occurs to me that it's possible for Al Gore to decide to run for president in the Green Party, particularly since the Democratic Party has completey betrayed him on every level, since 2000 elections forcing him to stop fighting and pushing the likes of Lieberman on him and so on.

I wondered if Al Gore supporters would still support him if he ran for president as a Green?

[Sparkly]

1. He's too smart to do that.

I think he knows that'd help Republicans.

[marmar]

3. Exactly....

He was the victim of it in 2000. I think he cares more about his country than that.

[leftstreet]

7. Agree. He'd run as an Independent before he'd run as a Green n/t

[radio4progressives]

9. Republicans will have Third Party Candidates of their own..

I predict there will be a score of so called "Third Party" candidates in 2008 - and certainly on the Conservative side we'll see a strong Goldwater type of Conservative running as an Independent -

Just saying on this particular point, it won't be about Greens spoiling the race - both parties have betrayed their base constituents. These past several years have revealed a lot that is sickening to all Americans, party loyalty over Country will be seen as threatening..

[blm]

20. Then I would say you don't know Al Gore very well.

It wasn't too long ago that so many were predicting that Kucinich would leave the Dem party, too. He never would - he loves the Democratic party and what it means for working people, and understands what it's like to be condemned for voting centrist or conservative at times, because he faced those accusations for years, himself.

Gore is the same way. I am surprised that anyone would even entertain the idea that Gore would bolt the Dem party - he won't. He's never been a purist - he's been around too long to pretend that his or ANY Dem's record reflects a liberal purity.

Not even Ted Kennedy or Paul Wellstone were purists the way many here at DU expect.

[radio4progressives]

23. there's that "purist" canard again...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[blm]

26. I think "purist" is bullshit no matter what - and that's why I roll eyes

at those on DU who try to portray themselves as more liberal than thou while mounting their attack on the Democratic party.


And I think it's ABSURD to expect that an Al Gore or a Dennis Kucinich would even entertain the scenarios some put forth here at DU.

[radio4progressives]

28. I roll my eyes who Mount Attack at the Rank & File IN the Democratic Party

are far more PROGRESSIVE and INTELLECTUALLY HONEST about what the hell is going on.

If you want to continue pretending that the Party ELITE is representative of the PEOPLE, go right ahead, that's your perogative.

but don't expect a round of applause for this delusional thinking.

[blm]

33. I addressed your scenario - you built a strawman in reply - No one could

possibly be familiar with my body of posts and believe that I side with the party elite. Not a day goes by when I don't point out that the party ELITE worked against some of the most important corruption investigations in recent history and failed to maintain a strong Dem party infrastructure over the last ten years.

So - instead of dealing with my actual reply to your scenario of Gore leaving the Dem party, you decide to invent ANOTHER scenario where I am supposedly siding with the elite in the party over the rank and file just because I happen to KNOW that Gore and Dems like Kucinich would not leave the Dem party.

Interesting approach you have there. No basis in reality, but, hey, that never stopped the RNC from using that exact same approach.

[radio4progressives]

37. "Purist" is a Straw Man - and You Brought That Up.

My response in part is sarcasm, but with a pov.
I see no real point in lengthy discussion - when you iniate a dishonest red herring a la "purist" bullshit.

[blm]

38. Try reading it in context next time. It might make a difference.

What I really think is that you got dealt some REAL answers to your scenario and can't deal with them.

[radio4progressives]

42. If you think proffering up the canard of "Purists" is REAL, you are

delusional or dishonest.

[blm]

45. Taking one word out of context helps you avoid the reply to your scenario

about Gore going third party.

[radio4progressives]

49. i've taken the word "purists" out of context?

Here's your original post in it's entirety:

It wasn't too long ago that so many were predicting that Kucinich would leave the Dem party, too. He never would - he loves the Democratic party and what it means for working people, and understands what it's like to be condemned for voting centrist or conservative at times, because he faced those accusations for years, himself.


you start out by offering a comparison to a previous era where people posited the possibility of Kucinich leaving the party, suggesting by implication that Kucinich didn't leave the party because he loves it too much, and knows what it means for the working people. by "it" , i infer that to mean the Party.. You fail to acknowledge the dramatic changes which have negatively impacted the working people which Kucinich really does care for.. the Democratic party as Kucinich will be the first to make clear, blew it for the working people when Clinton implemented Negroponte's pet project, NAFTA.

i suppose what you're referring on the "centrist" theme is Kucinich's anti-choice postion in earlier years.. (?)

I knew about Kucinich's anti-choice position, but he was my first preference during the early primaries - I'm pro-choice and a feminist.

My fervent support for him despite this issue, could hardly be considered "purist". But he is certainly PROGRESSIVE on most matters of concern. Unfortunately, his party dismisses his concerns out of hand and is never ever given a platform in the party. One of these days, Kucinich will retire from politics because he will not continue this kind of abuse much longer, unless the groundswell of his local supporters pressure him to stay. It will be interesting to see how much longer people like Kucinich and Feingold will continue to be abused by these vichy bastards.

But Feingold is hardly a radical leftist or a "Purist". After all He voted for Roberts, and Ashcroft - he voted for Clinton's Censure, his "liberal" voting record isn't at the very top of the meter. it's at about 70% if memory serves.



Gore is the same way. I am surprised that anyone would even entertain the idea that Gore would bolt the Dem party - he won't. He's never been a purist - he's been around too long to pretend that his or ANY Dem's record reflects a liberal purity.

Not even Ted Kennedy or Paul Wellstone were purists the way many here at DU expect.

I believe you misjudge the state of affairs our party is in.

Rejecting what the DLC and Schumer is doing isn't about "Purist" ideology. It's about rejecting wholseale and outright Right Wing Reaganites, the party ELITE. (you know, the guys who call the shots, select the candidates and annoint the winners, and make like they represent the people when they fucking don't represent anyone but the party Elite.

"Purists" is a canard in this context, and in the context of referencing any critism of the Democratic Leisure Class Elites.

[blm]

58. I wasn't specific to you in referencing purist, just those in general who

often advocate for Democratic lawmakers to leave the Dem party.

I don't need schooling on Kucinich - he has been a part of my life in some way since he was a boy and was the first campaign I ever worked for as a schoolgirl. My point is that many tried to push him into the Green party without ever factoring in his own great love and respect for the Democratic party as a whole, not just the factions that are popular targets with so many here, and sometimes even me. And I see the same thing happening with Gore.

You attack anyone who points out the reality of these men and their positions as somehow supportive of the DLC and centrism and another new attack category, the Democratic Leisure Class Elites, - or as I see it, another strawman argument when you need to avoid the FACTS.

Being liberal, pragmatic and wise is nothing for me to be ashamed of, and I daresay there are more than a few of us out there who, like Kucinich and like Al Gore have no intention of attacking the whole of the Democratic party as our boogeyman.

[radio4progressives]

59. wtf????

Who is advocating for Dem Law Makers to leave the party?

Not I.

Who is schooling you on Kucinich? I was responding to your PURIST MEME - trying to point out that it was and still is a CANARD.

Responding to the PURIST strawman is not an attack on anything to do with the party, it is a direct response to the PURIST ATTACK Straw man that you made in the first place.

You just want everyone to fall in line or shut the fuck up. Critisims of the Ruling Elite is "attacking" the party?

No it isn't. In REALITY, it is the Party Elite who is doing the attacking of the rank and file who tries to represent the voters, the party base and constituents.

Are you unable to recognize the difference?

[blm]

60. I AM NOT THE RULING ELITE AND I DO NOT SUPPORT THE RULING ELITE.

And for you to charge me constantly as if I do is the result of a fevered imagination.

[radio4progressives]

61. Where do i say you are the ruling elite?

what i say is that you are repeating their "purist" meme, which is an attack on the rank and file and their constituents!

that is what i am responding to.

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. The rank and file don't want Gore to run as a Green.

What a load of bullshit. Are you capable of honesty?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Yes, I would. The only Democrat I would jump ship for -- gladly.

On edit: But he would never do it for a myriad of reasons.

[Southsideirish]

14. Hell, I'm a Dem with 40 yrs experience and I'm 9/10th's off right now!

Go Al - I'll vote for you if you became a Republican (!!) Of course, I'd have to wear a complete contamination suit to do so but you as president would be worth it!

[AtomicKitten]

16. Hazmat, baby.

Crossover voters:

[kid a]

4. that depends on the dem candidate

most likely - YES, I would support Al Gore (green or Dem)

[11cents]

5. I don't think he hates America that much.

I'm not a huge Gore fan, but I have no doubt that he values our shared future more than his ego.

[Southsideirish]

18. Al loves America!! What do you mean? He loves America more than anyone

-that's why he speaks out so loudly and passionately against the a-hole republicans and THEIR hate America policies.

[11cents]

21. I was being ironic.

Geez.

[Bucky]

34. Don't worry. You're meaning was clear to 95% of ppl reading.

Clearly you meant that running as a Green would hurt the country (by splitting liberal votes and insuring the Republicans stay in power) and thus Gore running as a Green is a hateful act. And you are right about that. He'd never do it.

[Pirate Smile]

6. He would never do that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. The Green party is fracturing again. I think he would be better off

to run as an Indy at this point.

[radio4progressives]

11. That's interesting.. have the two merged as one yet?

I think it was Green Party and the Green U.S.A. ? (something like that)

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. No, they fractured years ago. Now there is another fracture coming between

the group that want to fold themselves into the Dems and the ones who want to remain an independent party of our own.

[radio4progressives]

22. the progressives who have been duped into thinking we could change

the party by running progressive candidates in races, except they won't take on Schumer for pushing anti-choice candidate in PA, (when there's a pro-choice republican running against Santorim) as just one example, when there is a progressive Democrat that is also in the race.

so... you know.. progressives are working their tails off trying to offer real choices, but Schumer and Emmanuel run interference to destroy the progressive candidates chances.

It will be interesting to see how pda challenges the party elite's machinations by the time 2008 rolls around.

[acmavm]

10. Why would he jump parties? I don't understand that. Right

now if he decided to run I suspect he could run (and win) no matter what party he chose to associate himself with.

I understand that this is just speculation but I can't see him doing anything like that. Especially since he's made his thoughts on the major issued very well known lately. He could carry the nomination (I think) if we went dem, green, or indie.

(Let my clarify this post by saying I'm a Clarkie. But from what I've seen from Al Gore I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him. I'd jump parties.

[radio4progressives]

15. Reagan Democrats Pushed Lieberman on Gore in 2000, and they Won't

support the New Al Gore in 2008, I'm fairly certain of it based on observations these past several years..

with the likes of the so called "Reagan Democrat" Chuck Schumer calling the shots and picking candidates all over the country for the Senate, i suspect he will have a huge role in who the DP will annoint as The Candidate for 2008.

Given his snarky remarks against Feingold the other day, and given that Schumer lead the Boycott of the Censure Hearing on Friday, we can count on Schumer doing everything in his power to cut the legs out from under Feingold's efforts at every given opportunity.

[acmavm]

30. Schumer can drop dead. He's being snarky because he

knows WE ARE FED UP. And Feingold gains more supporters by the day.

[blm]

35. Actually, that's incorrect - Lieberman was a surprise to most Dem party

activists, and many were NOT happy that he would choose Lieberman for the antiClinton symbolism.

I was not pleased with Lieberman as the choice for other reasons and I thought that Gore, with his moderate pedigree at the time, needed a more liberal choice to draw more Greens to the Dem ticket.

[Radical Activist]

13. Why ruin his chances of getting elected?

THere are too many disadvantages for running as a Green for Gore to waste his time.

[radio4progressives]

24. the question i have is whether or not people here would still support him

if he did run as a Green or as an Independent..

I think the argument that he would run as an Independent before he would as a Green is a good one.. especially since it's been pointed out that the Greens are too fractured again.

[Pirate Smile]

36. He will run as a Democrat and win the Dem nomination, if he chooses

to run.

He wont run any other way - IMO.

[Minnesota Libra]

17. Al Gore would NEVER help the neocons like Nader did nt

[melissinha]

19. I think he should make the Democrats more Green

With his influence and growing popularity, moving the party to green would be a better bet and I can bet one of his main goals.

[radio4progressives]

25. I agree.. Make the party Blue/Green as opposed to Red/Blue

I like that idea, too bad the likes of Schumer and Emmanuel are calling the shots..

[ieoeja]

27. No n/t

[Totally Committed]

29. Seriously, I don't think he'd ever do that....

I think the "Green Issue" is about the environment, not the Green Party. Looking at the cover, I don't know Julia Roberts' politics very well, but I can't see ANY of those three men on the cover leaving the Democratic Party.

TC

[radio4progressives]

31. Really?

They've all been very critical of our party in public, to their credit. My curiousity may have been a bit over reaching, it was simply idle curiousty.

[Totally Committed]

47. Criticism is one thing, but leaving it is another....

Clooney's family has a long tradition in Democratic Politics, and I think you could safely say that Gore and Kennedy have even stronger ties to the Party. If any of them DO leave for a third Party, I don't think it will be the Green Party. I think, if any of them bolt to run Third Party, it will be a new Third Party. (Too many negative associations with the Green Party for too many Democrats... they could lose the crossover vote. Nader has run that Party into the ground, I'm afraid.)

I do believe this issue is about the environment, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, :hi: r4p... Nice to "see" you!

TC

[radio4progressives]

51. Yeah, I think I agree with you on just about every point..

It was a mistake to suggest Green party, when I should have said "Independent" ..(I always forget what has happened to that party since 2000) ...

It will be interesting to see if things will be status quo in 2008 or radically different.

[politicasista]

32. Sorry, Won't happen.

Gore is a smart man and will do what is best for himself and his family only.

[radio4progressives]

40. I regret only a two or three actually answered the question...

The question wasn't whether or not Al Gore WOULD CHOOSE to run as a Green or an Independent, the question is whether or not people would vote for him even IF he chose to run on another ticket. But apparently the question is too far fetched for most to even consider as possible.

So that being the case, it appears the case is closed.

We will have the party of the DLC running against GOP and a number of Third Party Independents in 2008.

I don't think it will be like 1992, 1994, or 2000. I think it's going to be much more volatile than we have ever witnessed or imagined.

The question will be whether or not we will have corrected our broken elections system by then or will the fascists still own and control the elections?

Will the people finally say, i'm mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore - will the rise up to the PTB and prepare to storm the castles? Or will have another decade or longer under a fascists regime before anything like a peoples revolt happens?

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. When are you going to stop breaking DU rules and wasting our bandwidth?

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PROMOTE THIRD PARTIES ON DU.

You break this rule every single fucking day.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. My loyalty isn't primarily to a Party, it is to a set of Goals

And right now, given the precarious nature of our Democracy and the state of the world, I can not see an electoral strategy that will further my goals by throwing support to someone running on the National level outside of the Democratic Party. Gore is not perceived to be as non partisan a figure as Colin Powell was at the time some thought he should run as an Independent. It would take someone with very strong cross over appeal to have any chance to win as a Third Party Candidate. That isn't Gore. Possibly someone like Gore running as an Independent or Green could win more votes than his Democratic opponent, but it would only increase the chance of a Republican victory.

If you push me to the mat I can maybe imagine a scenario under which had we had a strong third party Progressive running which allowed Robert Dole to defeat Bill Clinton in 1996, or George Bush Senior to defeat Bill Clinton in 1992, the end result might ultimately still be positive for our Republic. It is a real stretch for me to think along those lines, but the best case trade off would have been four years of additional not quite lethally toxic Republican rule in return for building a new Progressive Party that could compete and win four years later, not likely in my view, but I suppose impossible to hypothetically totally rule out.

That's not where we are now in America though. The Conservative Republican Party has mutated into a much more virulent strain, that not only is a parasite on Democracy, it is becoming lethal to Democracy. The world is also drifting toward epic violent conflicts between civilizations that can spin out into a generations long cycle of endless deaths if something isn't done very soon to change the ongoing dynamics. A major left of center third Party presidential challenge now would also complicate the Democrats ability to retake Congress. Asking me if I would vote for Gore on a third Party in 2008 is like asking me if I would stab a stranger if he was raping my Mother. It is not a scenario I would want to contemplate.

[radio4progressives]

53. You make a very strong and very pursuasvie argument,...

And thank you for your honesty, and responding in the spirit that was the question was posed. There is a very deep frustration, and it's easy to lose perspective. I'm not alone though in this frustration and I'm not alone in losing perspective. So what is needed are some very strong progressives such as yourself who is honest, intelligent and sees what the issues are - to organize a pow wow or two (or more) with the party Elite, (i'm dead serious)and convey to people like Schumer et al our concerns - and how we are being negatively impacted with their judgements and decisions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Thanks R4P

The only platforms I have are the net and participation in some local organizations. There is only one National Party leader who I can safely assume sometimes reads and seriously considers what I write, and you can guess who he is. It's a start though. And I know there are other progressive activists who have gained a small measure of influence with other Democratic Party leaders also, and it all helps. Blogging is becoming a stronger force every month though. We are helping to reshape public debates.

[radio4progressives]

57. I was very impressed with WC's Town Hall on C-Span the other day..

If I had the opportunity, I would ask him what does it mean when we say safeguarding "United States intersts" in Iraq or other regions in the world, and I'd like more clarity on his position/concerns with regard to Chavez... I don't remember the exact quote, but it was similar to the 'dangerous dictator' theme - and that sort of surprised me.

But I like every thing else he spoke about including issues of National Security in general.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. I think of him as someone who blends realism and idealism

For example, Clark strongly believes that the United States needs to move much closer to achieving energy independence through developing safe renewable energy technologies that can also strengthen our economic base. Doing so will make our economy less dependent on Middle East Oil, and the Middle East today is an unstable region, with or without American interference. Clark understands that we can't eliminate our dependency on Middle Eastern Oil overnight, and that we never will eliminate it unless we make that a high national priority, and that therefor we must make it a high national priority now. But even in the most optimistic scenario there will be a long period of transition to get through first, during which a prolonged severe reduction in Oil imports from the Middle East could throw our economy into a Depression, and it is always the poor and middle class who suffer most in Depressions.

Therefor it is in "United States interests" to try to ensure a steady flow of Oil imports from the Middle East while we are dependent on them for our fundamental economic health. That can mean very different things to different people. For Bush that might mean installing a puppet government to cut sweetheart deals with American and Multinational Oil companies. For Clark it means trying to avoid escalating regional instability, such as a war involving Israel which could trigger a massive Arab oil embargo of the United States, or a major flare up of centuries old simmering antagonism between Shiite Islam, centered in Iran, and Sunni Islam, centered in Saudi Arabia, which could result in a blockage of the shipping lanes through the narrow straights that separate Iran from Saudi Arabia which directly face each other on the Persian Gulf.

The tools that can be used to "protect" a legitimate U.S. interest are just as diverse as the full range of what is or is not "legitimate" in different people's minds. So, as is almost always the case, the devil, is in the details, but the concept has integrity. You and I would define World Peace as being a legitimate U.S. interest for example, and we could probably agree on a number of positive measures that the United States could take to advance that legitimate interest. One of the things I like about Clark is that he is up front. He doesn't deny that the United States has national interests, all nations do, but unlike some politicians he is willing to openly discuss what he thinks they are and how they should be managed, in realistic nuanced terms, not jingoist slogans.

On Chavez what I remember him saying is that a left wing military dictatorship ultimately carries many of the same implicit long term problems as a right wing military dictatorship, military dictatorships are not positive long term solutions for people's need for governments. And Clark didn't actually call Chavez a dictator, though he obviously was implying that he might be moving in that direction by possible overriding some of Venezuela's Democratic institutions. I actually found it interesting that Clark made a point of differentiating between Left and Right military dictatorships. Both do exist in the world, and they are different beasts. But that was decidedly a secondary point, and Clark did NOT say Chavez was "dangerous".

In fact Clark said the opposite, Chavez is not dangerous to us and the United States should not feel threatened by what is happening now inside Venezuela, regardless of how Anti-American Chavez may now appear to most Americans. Clark said that it is foolish for the United States to neglect the needs of poor people in the Southern Hemisphere, and that Chavez is being given a perfect opportunity to demonstrate more compassion for the poor than that shown by the richest nation in the western hemisphere, the U.S. Rather than attack Chavez, the United States should out do him in providing medical scholarships for the poor of the region, to cite one specific example.

Part of Clark's realism in my opinion is a clear read of the entire political spectrum of debate and the power dynamics that currently exist in the United States. Yes elements of the American Left are strongly Pro Chavez, but that is a relatively small minority position. The American threat to Chavez comes from our Right manipulating our center to see Chavez as a real threat to America, and Clark was consciously deflating that meme. Clark counseled calm and patience, and a more progressive American stance toward Latin America in general, rather than confrontation with Chavez.

[radio4progressives]

64. I stand corrected on Chavez & thank you very much for the clarifications..

You refreshed my memory now, and you remind me that what you report here is exactly what he said, and he did NOT say "dangerous dictator", as i thought i remembered it.. (in defense of bad memory, so many pundits referencing chavez as a "dangerous dictator" and "anti-american") and yes he did make the distinction that he was a Left Military leader.. but i think he used the word Dicator (?) ..

but your analysis i think is accurate on what Clark was trying to do in deflating the right wing extremist meme - at least that's how i wanted to interpret his remarks.

the bottom line is that I sense that Clark's intelligence is sharp, has keen instincts, very genuine, and i think pro-humanitarian (for the lack of a better term) rather than pro-imperialistic...

in other words, i get the sense that he is not about "Empire" - but has a keen sense of safeguarding what is actually in Defense of our National Interest, especially given the perilous conditions the neo cons have brought us to.

Also it appears since Bush has made it clear, it will be up to future presidents to decide on further military operations in Iraq, but what he didn't mention is that the reconstruction is going to be on the plate of the next president. Surely Clark is the best there is to handle the mess they will be leaving when they are finally gone.

I also like how Clark is very clear and direct and avoid rhetorical devices. Oh, refresh me on one more item: if memory isn't failing again, did I hear Clark say that he supports Single Payer Health Care???

Now that is Leftist! ;)

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Yes he did, and yes he does

And here too Clark approached the issue strategically. He said that ultimately single payer is the only way to go, pointing out that Medicare has Administrative expenses of about 2% while private insurance is between 20% and 30% I believe. But he also reminded us of what an absolute mess it was when the Federal government tried to overnight merge dozens of different agencies into a single Department of Homeland Defense. Massive bureaucracies are not nimble and there is a degree of chaos involved in trying to quickly go from many separate points of coordination to a single one. Clark said our health care system would crash big time if we tried to do that with a single stroke of a pen, and talked tactically about how to move us there from where we are.

I would say more but I have to run out the door to a meeting now. I'll check back later.

[radio4progressives]

66. Good Memory...

it's nice to have these points reiterated in order to get the long view and to remember it!

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. By the way your impressions of him are much like my own

And I've seen Clark in person on a number of occasions, from joking around with supporters to speaking at a small Democratic Party Dinner, taking questions from people in the audience. Clark has a site he kept running online from when he first ran for President (he never shut it down) where folks who are interested in his views blog, and I gotta tell you it's pretty much all progressives who are involved over there, and a number of them have gotten to spend a lot more personal time with Clark than I, and they come back saying the same things also.

When you said... "the bottom line is that I sense that Clark's intelligence is sharp, has keen instincts, very genuine, and i think pro-humanitarian (for the lack of a better term) rather than pro-imperialistic...

in other words, i get the sense that he is not about "Empire" - but has a keen sense of safeguarding what is actually in Defense of our National Interest, especially given the perilous conditions the neo cons have brought us to."

... you got it. The thing is, though it is always possible to disagree with Clark over some of the details, he is sincere in his convictions and usually when I think his positions through I see clear logic in where he is coming from. And Clark is always clear and direct, as you described him. If you listen to Clark or read what he writes you will always know what Clark really believes, he doesn't dumb things down or cover things up with meaningless platitudes and generalities. Mario Cuomo once said this about him:

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

Clark's sense of patriotism can seem old fashioned at times, but what always comes through to me is sincerity and idealism about, and pride in, America's fundamental positive values, our radical Liberal ideals. Clark came of age taking JFK's "ask not what your nation can do for you, ask what you can do for your nation" to heart, and that is central to who he is.

I can't begin to count the number of Clark supporters I know who honestly were shocked to find themselves agreeing with so much of what a Four Star General had to say, starting with myself. One of Clark's biggest supporters at his blog site goes by the name of "ican'tbelieveI'mvotingforageneral". Clark stays in pretty close touch with his base, and he does listen to our input.

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. Al Gore's not a raging narcissistic asshole

Therefore, he'd never run as a Green. If he did, then he would be a raging narcissistic asshole, and I would not support him or anyone who runs on the Backdoor GOP Party ticket - aka, Green party. Fortunately, Al Gore cares more about America than the egos of hand-wringing purists.

[Totally Committed]

48. "Al Gore's not a raging narcissistic asshole....

Therefore, he'd never run as a Green."

I totally agree with this statement.

:hi: WildEyed!

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

43. Advocating for third parties is against the rules here

Go pimp the Green party on some hand-wringing whiner lunatic board. It's against DU rules.

[Totally Committed]

50. This, however....

I think what r4p was doing was asking a question in the OP, not advocating. How the thread has progressed can be out of an OP-poster's control.

I do think this "Third Party" business is a discussion we Democrats need to have in order that we are able to settle our differences and come together in understanding of what is driving some to consider a Third Party. If there is discussion of a "Third Way" allowed on this board, then I believe there should also be discussion about what some Democrats see as their only viable option allowed as well.

:hi: WildEyed!

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. Hi TC

:hi:

I base my accusation against the OP because I've noticed a distinct pattern in her posts over the long-term. This is far from the first time she's suggested that DUers vote against a Democratic candidate in the general election and for a Green/Third party candidate. It's not just a matter of expressing frustration with some Democrats or expressing hope that the Democrats be more liberal; at least, not with this particular OP, whom I've seen around way too often to know the truth. I understand frustration; what I don't tolerate is someone who persistently advocates against the Democratic party winning elections. Why didn't the OP just stress what a good candidate Gore would be for '08 if she likes him, instead of hinting that DU should vote for the Green by making it more "acceptable" with her ridiculous hypothetical that will never happen? Gore will die a Dem, and I'm glad of it; he's a great guy.

Hope that clarifies - WEL

[radio4progressives]

54. I'm not advocating Third Parties, I'm revealing that it is a Reality

that we will need to reckon with, and I'm suggesting that old tactics will not work - because i believe (i could be wrong) based on a tremendous amount of observations - columns - articles, books, television interviews, that disaffection of both parties are much more sweeping than i think most of us even care to imagine.

Therefore, I suspect that "independent" parties or candidates will be mushrooming in the 2008 presidential campaign.

I can't yet determine, how strong those candidates will be because i have no idea who they are yet, or what kind of platform they will be running on, but i think it is safe to say, there will be strong populists styled independents who will appeal to the racists/xenophobes as well as other conservative platform issues, and there will be Socialists Libertarians candidates as well who will appeal to the Greens and Progressives.

There is also something called the "other movement" which is roughly based on the Chiapas/Zapatista movement but they won't be involved in the political process at all, so I wouldn't worry about that faction in 2008 but possibly later.. :shrug:

There's a difference between "advocating" and making an observation. My OP was a question out of curiousity based on the third party movement that is currently underway.

[guidod]

55. It would split the liberal vote

and the neocons would be on a fast track to victory. Won't happen.

[saltpoint]

68. One more thought on this one. I think this OP is useful and

insightful, because Gore is the very most loyal Democrat on the environment.

Many are good. Some very, very good. But I give Gore the pole position.

For me, I don't see him abandoning the Democratic Party, but I doubt that he is hostile to the Green Party.

It's possible that he admires its loyalty to the issues he himself cares about, meaning the care and stewardship of the world's environment.

But I still see him as a Democrat, and running -- if he does run, I mean -- as a Democrat.