Anyone

[rosesaylavee]

have any nails left? This waiting is very difficult.

[marlakay]

1. I pinched a nerve in my neck yesterday

and shoulders, I wonder if its the tension...but I am in too much pain to care...at least my doc is giving me some valium to sleep at night...it will also help to blank the rest out...

I just want him to talk to us...tell us what he is thinking...

[rosesaylavee]

2. Arnica gel will help too.

And yes, I would like him to address the draft movement and make a statement. He of course doesn't 'have' to do anything. Would like him to do or say something soon. Never thought I would see November without a statement or announcement.

[NastyDiaper]

3. We are seeing a continuation of "no action" on the issue of candidacy.

If this policy continues, it gives me hope that he will not ask his name be removed if petitioners are successful in opt-out states.

(to answer the OP, I think my nail fragments are somewhere in the keyboard. Most likely under one of these letters: )

[rosesaylavee]

6. Ha!

I like that. Mine aren't worn but chewed... need to meditate more.

[Mabus]

4. Maybe I'm the eternal optimist of this forum, but. . .

I know a lot of people are feeling discouraged but I'm not. I still think he can (and will) declare and win.

The Overblown Importance of New Hampshire and Iowa

I may be one of the few that feel this way, but New Hampshire and Iowa historically aren't that important. In fact, until recently the NH and Iowa contests were more indicative of who would be the Republican nominee than the Democratic one. If you don't believe me, check this list of the winners for the past cycles.

Democrats

2004. Iowa: John Kerry / New Hampshire: John Kerry
2000. Iowa: Al Gore / New Hampshire: Al Gore
1992. Iowa: Tom Harkin / New Hampshire: Paul Tsongas
1988. Iowa: Dick Gephardt / New Hampshire: Michael Dukakis
1984. Iowa: Walter Mondale / New Hampshire: Gary Hart
1976. Iowa: Uncommitted / New Hampshire: Jimmy Carter

Republicans

2000. Iowa: George W. Bush / New Hampshire: John McCain
1996. Iowa: Bob Dole / New Hampshire: Pat Buchanan
1988. Iowa: Bob Dole / New Hampshire: George H.W. Bush
1980. Iowa: George H.W. Bush / New Hampshire: Ronald Reagan


First off you'll notice a bit of a regional bias in most of the past Democratic contests. This is something that isn't talked about a lot but it does occur. Mondale is from Minnesota, a state bordering Iowa while Gary Hart had attended Yale and was McGovern's campaign manager in 1972. Gephardt is from Missouri, again, a state bordering Iowa while Dukakis was from Massachusetts, a stone's throw from New Hampshire. Harkin, being from Iowa won the state's caucus while Tsongas was from Massachusetts.

In 2000 Gore won both the Iowa and NH contests as did Kerry in 2004. In 2000, the Tennessean Gore won Iowa handily. The NH race was much closer with Gore winning around 50% of the Dem vote to Bradley's 46%. Bradley was a New Jersey Senator.

In 2004, Kerry wasn't seen as a front runner and he was left alone by the whore-mongering press who were focused primarily on a contest between Dean and Gephardt. In conjunction with the RW pundits, the media happily reported Dean's defeat and then, as if to add salt to the injury, they invented the Dean Scream by failing to report that Dean was using a directional microphone. In NH, Kerry won but his closest rival was Dean. Both of them were from the northeast with Kerry receiving about 39% of the vote to Dean's 26%.

So, all in all, how accurate have Iowa and NH been for Dems?

This should make clear that Iowa and New Hampshire have not historically been as critical as many might think. From this list, we might infer three facts about these contests:

1. A win in Iowa is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for success. You can lose Iowa and still win the nomination (Clinton, Dukakis, Carter, Bush, Reagan). You can win Iowa and still lose the nomination (Harkin, Gephardt, Dole, Bush).

2. A win in New Hampshire is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for success. You can lose New Hampshire and still win the nomination (Clinton, Mondale, Bush, Dole). You can win New Hampshire and still lose the nomination (Tsongas, Hart, McCain, Buchanan).

3. A win in Iowa and New Hampshire is not a necessary condition for success. You can lose both states and still win the nomination (Clinton). However, a win in Iowa and New Hampshire is a sufficient condition for success. If you win both states, you win the nomination (Gore, Kerry). (Though note that in 1972 Edmund Muskie won both states, but still lost the nomination to George McGovern. 1972 was the first election subsequent to the Democrats' enactment of the McGovern-Fraser Commission reforms, and so it did feature "open" selection systems and therefore a large number of causes and primaries. So, the fact that this condition holds depends upon the cut-off date.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2007/06/is_the_primary_calendar_dimini_1.html

So, why the change of importance in 2000 and 2004 for Dems? Perhaps it was the media. I'm not saying that the media picked the candidates for the Dems but rather they decided that the Dems were fair game and they went to work to destroy them.

So, what if Gore misses the Iowa and NH contests? They don't get to determine the nominee nor do they have enough delegates to really make a difference at the convention. On the other hand, the states who participate on Super Tuesday will be the determinative factor with their 1943 delegates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008).

Iowa and NH only have as much influence as the media gives them.

[rosesaylavee]

5. That's what I needed.

I have been feeling less than optimistic. Your post helps. A lot. Thank you.

I know where to come in the future when I need a bit of 'slapping out of it'.

:hug:

[Mabus]

7. Glad I could slap you around some

fwiw, I also take it as a good sign that "Greenzo" (the 30 Rock episode that Gore is on) was changed from Nov. 1 to Nov. 8th, the same night that Gore will be on Leno.

[rosesaylavee]

10. Do you think the staff of 30

would know what he was going to do? Or that NBC could keep a secret that intense? I don't know. I think someone would have leaked it by now. Someone would have wanted to share the news.

Maybe a dose of more slapping is in order. :)

[Mabus]

11. As far as I know Gore did a cameo

he isn't the focus of the show, David Schwimmer is. If Gore had a large role there would have been some prior to filming that would have taken several days (blocking, lighting, costume fittings, etc.). As I recall, the blurb I heard about earlier indicated that Gore went in and filmed his part in a single afternoon. Why is that important? Well, for one thing, a cameo is easier to excise from a show than a main character that the show is built around. In other words, if it is only a two or three minute segment than it can be easily cut out during re-runs. Compare this to Fred Thompson's character on Law & Order. His role is usually much more important in an episode and not as easy to cut out least a plot point or two is lost.


I also notice that Meredith Viera guests on the episode, this would lead me to almost conclude that Gore's segment will be something to do with her. What I imagine is that Viera is interviewing Gore in a faux Today show interview when Schwimmer's character (the Green mascot) shows up. In another scenario, Viera could be walking with Gore to the Today show set and then they run into Schwimmer's character. Why am I telling you all of this? Very simple. If Gore's scene is basically a walk through it means that far fewer people would be on hand during the filming. Fewer people mean that secrets are more easily kept.

Another possibility is one that I pointed out to a naysayer last week. What do we know about Gore's role on the show right now? I've heard nothing. If you don't think that secrets can be kept, look at the last episode of "The Sopranos". Remember the stir that caused? No one knew what was going to happen until it happened. There was some speculation that Tony would be killed or arrested but that's not what happened. America was surprised. And that was a show where a lot of people wanted to know what was going to happen. There were probably more people on the set of Tony and Carmela's final scene then there were on-hand when Gore filmed his segment but the writers, actors and crew can be asked to sign confidentiality agreements. So, secrets can be kept. I mean, what have you heard about the scene(s) that Gore is in? Nada. Nothing. Zilch.

Finally, going back to the type of scene that Gore filmed, post-production edits are possible. Dialog can be filmed but voice-overs can be done later with far fewer people in attendance. Not to mention that if, as I've speculated, that Gore's scene is done on the Today show set then it could very well have been a closed set with a minimum number of people. Scenes can be re-shot long after the extra crew goes home. Some shows and movies have even shot more than ending just to confuse the crew and cast members. Also, what appear to be off-hand comments or ad-libbing that the cast, crew, etc. don't think will make the final cut sometimes do make the final cut.

I guess what I'm saying is that, we haven't heard what Gore's scene(s) is(are) so far, so I'd say the secret has been pretty well kept thus far.

Signed,
The Eternal Optimist

[rosesaylavee]

13. You are great.

That is plausible. I will go along with that.

Thanks for the buoying up. Needed that. Only regret I didn't ask for it sooner.

:hug:

[SharonRB]

17. Sounds like Leno may not happen now that the writers

will most likely be on strike. The late-night talk shows will be the first to go into reruns, since they're live and have nothing "in the can." I have a feeling we won't see Al Thursday night.

[Pastiche423]

8. Surprisingly, I'm not tied up in knots

There seems to be a calmness around me. My freak out date, October 15 has come and gone and I din't freak out.

This is very out of character for me. I'm more pessimistic usually. In 2004 when it was clear that Howard Dean din't stand a chance, I was hit w/such a depression I was in blues city for months and months.

I believe that Mr. Gore is teaching us how campaigns should be run, similar to his teachings in his book, Assault on Reason.

Has anyone seen this http://current.com/items/86213521_wherefore_al_gore#">video yet? In it, it is said that there are between 20-30 individual Al Gore groups just in California. More groups are popping up everywhere.

No one can tell me that he isn't aware of them or the multiple Al Gore websites. There are just too many of them for him to miss. It is against his character to allow them to continue if he isn't going to run.

Then today, during some research, I found out that Robert Kennedy did not enter the presidential race until March 1968 and missed a few (2?) primaries. Yet, I believe if he hadn't been assassinated, he would have won the nom. (Why else would he have been murdered?)

So...

I am going to try to be patient. (Try is the operative word in that last sentence.)

[rosesaylavee]

9. Thanks P -

I am un-knotting myself as I write this.

I had thought before that I was a very patient person. More patient than most. Guess I could learn to be more so. Today I am thinking it ties into my ego more than I was admitting and my overly strong dislike for making a mistake. This has been a very difficult last several weeks for me thinking he wasn't going to run. How that would effect the country, the world and more intimately - my family and my son. Not a good place for me to brood.

I will wait and see what happens. I am feeling more optimistic today.

[mopinko]

16. nail- meet hammer

believe that Mr. Gore is teaching us how campaigns should be run, similar to his teachings in his book, Assault on Reason.

i think this is exactly it. overturning the rotten processes we use to pick a candidate, where the real sell outs and corruption occurs.
this whole campaign is going to be a civics lesson.

[Pastiche423]

18. A civics lesson

that should have been taught decades ago.

Late last night, I watched video after video of Al Gore's speeches, dating back to 2000. He was covering the same timeless issues that we are dealing w/today.

I must admit that, although I was listening back then, I did not fully understand what this great stateman was trying to convey.

He was saying that We, the People must be a part of the democratic process and understand the principles laid out in our Constitution.

Our democracy is dying due to avarice and selfishness. IMHO we (or more precisely, TPTB) have surpassed the robber barons of the turn of the century.

I wonder if he is smiling at those of us that are catching on to the power we hold - the grassroots, the netroots and those that are participating in the exchange of ideas at Current.com.

Or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

[tavalon]

26. Wow, you had the same date I had and I'm having the same reaction

I'm just focusing on other things right now but still squirreling my money.

[mopinko]

12. i keep mine short.

i know how i am.
from the other thread, tho, dec 4 sounds like a good drop dead to me. ever since that dfa thing, i have been thinking about a write in campaign as a really, really great idea. i think al is all about shaking this shit up, and reminding people how it all works.

[rosesaylavee]

14. Well, my shit is very well shook up now ...

So far, he has succeeded in that regard. :)

How you be? Did I miss your show?

[mopinko]

15. not too bad

decided to try the opposite of what the "professionals" said about some rotator cuff inflammation that has had me in it's grip for several weeks now. having my second nearly decent day in a row.
hardly got to do any last minute scramble for this show, which you did not miss. nov 16-18. trying to get something up on the web. hopefully in the next few days. i will post in illinois forum when i do. if you want to pm me an address i will send you a post card. in the real world. or i can email one soon.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. The waiting is the hardest part

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GLCJEYLIBQY

[DesertRat]

20. Hanging in there

until I hear the "Sherman statement" directly from Al Gore. I hope it's before our primary on Feb. 5.

I have no second choice.

[thetaoofterri]

21. Unless someone knows something the rest of us don't

I think this is pretty much the unequivocal statement we've been looking for

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3063473

[rosesaylavee]

22. He has many business ventures...

I don't see anything different here than what he has said before.

Still waiting.

[Pastiche423]

23. I am still waiting too

There is a reason he won't give a LBJ statement.

[rosesaylavee]

24. I think I am getting into a groove with this waiting thing...

much better than I was.

[Pastiche423]

25. I just hope we don't have to wait until August

at the Democratic Convention.

[Mabus]

27. so am I.

Besides, waiting means I have something to look forward to. It makes life more exciting that way.

[Uncle Joe]

28. I'm waiting until Al Gore slams the door or

time literally runs out, I can wait as long as he can.