Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Al Gore is all we have..at this point. Known Quantity, Experience,

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:05 PM
Original message
Al Gore is all we have..at this point. Known Quantity, Experience,
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 09:10 PM by KoKo01
Vietnam Veteran, (no combat record to dispute, fortunately) part of Clinton Administration (time, in most Americans eyes, of "Peace and Prosperity" (if one ignores the rot underneath and that the Dot Com/PC Computer Revolution saved America's butt for a time), great wife, grandchildren, family political pedigree that's second only to Chimps (British Royalty, Father well known Senator) and besides that...he's very pro-environment, knows how government works (Senate...lived in DC all his life..but Summered in rural Tennesee).

Besides all that he's been through Hell and hopefully learned ALOT.

Cons:

He has mood swings where he can be VERY ON or VERY OFF. He sweats alot, he has a little bit of a speech impediment when he talks...dental problem? And, he buys into the "emotional wing" of Dem Party that feels one must flood our Democratic National Conventions with horrible stories of family members and others who have died under tragic circumstances. Gore has never gotten over his sisters young death from Lung Cancer.

If Gore has grown like the rest of us have out here in Democratic Wasteland, then I think he's got it.

If he picks a popular VP from amongst those who are our Progressive Favorites (someone he REALLY LIKES AND GET ALONG WITH) then I think he's got it made.

No one else has emerged who has Gore's credentials. And, as I said, his credentials are Mighty! But, he will have to prove to many of us on the Left of Mainstream Dems that he's Got the STUFF. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Al Gore is a giant
the main thing from your list is his term as VP during those wonderful years between the sucky 80's and the nightmarish Bush years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. Al Gore is a God!
I voted for him in 2000 only because he was the Democratic candidate and I spotted * for the bubble-headed phony that he was.

But good, old, dependable "boring assed" Gore looks better and sounds better and acts smarter than what we currently have in the Oval office. I think he might outdo Hilary if she should decide to run.

By 2007, I'll be fully in love with Gore......with Wesley Clark as his running mate, of course!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
45. Al Gore/ Howard Dean is my dream ticket for 2008
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kahleefornia Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. what we need is a rock star
figuratively speaking. Al Gore - I love him to death - but he's booorrrinngg.

He would be a good leader. But not a good candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. There "IS" a boring quality to Gore...but what about the Chimp?
After eight years of a charming (to some Americans) Psychopath or Sociopath...whatever the term...he's crazy and the PNAC/NEOCONS and Cheney, Rummy and the rest....I wonder if "Boring" but "Competent" wouldn't be refreshing. :shrug:

Whomever gets elected is going to have a garbage dump to deal with. An America in Recession and the butt joke of the world.

I'd kind of like boring...but competent and experienced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
32. This was a powerful speech....
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 09:32 AM by marions ghost
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0912-32.htm

Monday, September 12, 2005
On Katrina, Global Warming
Speech given by Al Gore

The following is a transcript of a speech given by former Vice President Al Gore at the National Sierra Club Convention in San Francisco on September 9, 2005 addressing the challenges and moral imperatives posed by Hurricane Katrina and global warming.

"I know that you are deeply concerned, as I am, about the direction in which our country has been moving. About the erosion of social capital. About the lack of respect for a very basic principle, and that is that we, as Americans, have to put ourselves and our ability to seek out the truth because we know it will make us free. And then on the basis of truth, as we share it to the best of our abilities with one another, we act to try to form a more perfect union and provide for the general welfare and make this country worthy of the principles upon which it was founded. "

(snip)

"...of course as we all watch this tragedy unfold, we had a lot of different thoughts and feelings. But then all those feelings were mixed in with puzzlement at why there was no immediate response, why there was not an adequate plan in place. We are now told that this is not a time to point fingers, even as some of those saying "don't point fingers" are themselves pointing fingers at the victims of the tragedy, who did not - many of whom could not - evacuate the city of New Orleans, because they didn't have automobiles, and they did not have adequate public transportation.

We're told this is not a time to hold our national government accountable because there are more important matters that confront us. This is not an either/or choice. They are linked together. As our nation belatedly finds effective ways to help those who have been so hard hit by Hurricane Katrina, it is important that we learn the right lessons of what has happened, lest we are spoon-fed the wrong lessons from what happened. If we do not absorb the right lessons, we are, in the historian's phrase, doomed to repeat the mistakes that have already been made. All of us know that our nation - all of us, the United States of America - failed the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast when this hurricane was approaching them, and when it struck. When the corpses of American citizens are floating in toxic floodwaters five days after a hurricane strikes, it is time not only to respond directly to the victims of the catastrophe but to hold the processes of our nation accountable, and the leaders of our nation accountable, for the failures that have taken place." (more)

---------------------

I agree KoKo01, the next presidency will be a salvage operation. It will take someone with a lot of experience. Someone who's going to work like a dog to reverse the unprecedented damage of 8 years of the Neo-Con/Diebold Regime and their pet Chimp. We do not necessarily need a fresh face or a new star to emerge. (I'd rather not have presidents with too much 'star quality'--not trusting that whatsoever). I say Al Gore has what it takes to be the captain of this crippled vessel while the Democrats scurry to reinvent themselves as true representatives of the people. It will be a very challenging period for us all...all hands on deck, no matter who is nominated. We need to continue to put pressure on the Dems, to insist that they reflect the sea change that has taken place. NO MORE Bidness As Usual !! And we must BEWARE of sitting back and thinking that ANYONE is going to be our rescuer. That is the message of Katrina. It matters more what WE do with the opportunity of a Dem presidency than which of the Dem candidates it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
50. While you have a basis for the boring thing...
especially at least from two of the debates, nevertheless the rap on Gore's charisma, I think, is generally overblown. In fact right now, I would say he is the most charismatic Dem on the scene, straight up. Everybody has problems at various points in his career. Remember the relieved applause when Bill Clinton finally stopped his convention speech in 1988? Remember some of his ponderous State of the Union speeches, with long laundry lists of goodies?

I'm not saying Clinton isn't dynamic, of course he is, rather he gets too much credit and Gore too little. Notice this follows the MSM meta-narrative. Clinton got this benefit from the old "on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand" game they usually try to play: Bush is a man of high integrity but not the brightest bulb in the box, Clinton the opposite. What a joke!

Gore on the other hand got an almost completely fabricated persona: a boring dissembler who has no core, always re-inventing himself. Ironically that's much more accurate in describing Bush. I watched several campaign speeches in 2000, with Gore speaking in front of general crowds, as well as to union crowds and black southern churches, etc. He usually stirred the crowd very well.

Since then, he has also inspired MoveOn, Sierra Cub, climate change crowds, etc., although they haven't been as high energy because of their noncampaign mode. I don't care as much for those speeches in delivery, because he tends to write them in a way to step on applause lines (perhaps intentionally?). Those crowds tend to be moved more by substance than campaign crowds. But if and when he cranks into campaign mode you will see him rock the hall again, IMO.

Gore admitted in 2002 that he made mistakes, saying he wouldn't rely on advisers so much (I think he was referencing the debates), but I think the common wisdom on Gore in the public, fashioned by the MSM has been largely false. The echo effect from the MSM has resulted in the same stuff appearing in cyberspace. But that is changing. More and more people are seeing him speak, either really or virtually, and seeing the impassioned Gore who was actually there in 2000, but not coming through well because of the MSM filter. His self-rehabilitation has been bold, inspiring, brilliant.

If he runs his campaign tone will certainly include nuances for the center, absolutely central to his success in the general election. But he, like Nixon after 1960, like Clinton after losing for Arkansas governor, has become even more adept. He also has the benefit that the public is being moved to the left by Iraq, climate change and Bushie corruption. He will have bloggers echoing his statements on global warming. Although Assclown-in-chief Bill Maher claims he didn't stress it in 2000, he did. But he was speaking in a vacuum: no bloggers, no Franken show, no Media Matters, etc. People actually were buying the bullshit in NYT, The Post, etc.

Every campaign is different and this one looks to be a momentum builder after good 2006 results for us. Gore has never been beaten and I don't think he'll start in 2008.

Anyway, that's my two cents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. If you think Gore is boring...
you haven't seen *any* of his speeches in the past couple of years. He is a firebrand. He talks for an hour or more without a teleprompter and without notes. His delivery is very good. He gets angry. He relays his passion.

You may call Gore many things these days, but the one thing I will not let you get away with, is calling him boring.

If Al had done this in 2000 we'd be into the second term of a Gore administration right now.

Boring... Pshaw!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rndmprsn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
31. agreed...im getting the impression that many ppl in this thread...
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 09:12 AM by rndmprsn
haven't seen the series of speeches al gore made for moveon.org, very firebrand, populist, passionate and compassionate.

if gore came back and won (he won 2000, but you know what i mean), it would be the most powerful political comeback seen since nixon (gasp) lost in 60, then won in 68.

i for one would give al gore my unflinching support...now imagine an al gore/wes clark ticket?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CAcyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
42. Maybe this country is tired of exciting
Maybe the general population has had too much stimulation and just wants someone nice and boring and safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
67. He's not boring. He's intelligent. Calling him "boring" is buying into
the right wing smear campaign against him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbird42 Donating Member (240 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Boy, do I agree with you
Gore could put some integrity back in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cassandra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. Gore is good but don't forget Clark.
Although my heart belongs to Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Good VP Candidate? Great Cabinet Candidate....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
25. Why do you want the military expert to be in charge of
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 06:11 AM by Clark2008
the senate and all these senators in charge of the military?

Makes no sense.

Look, I love Al Gore, but I don't think he's going to run, one, and, if he does, I'll be happy to vote for him in the general, but I'm gonna work for my General in the primaries. And I'm a Tennessean - but that's one of the reasons. He ignored the South, including his home state, in 2000. Kerry did it in 2004. The Dems need to stop doing that shit. You may not win but a couple of these states, IF ANY, but have to begin to build a network in the red states - you have to - if you ever want to win a national election again. Ask Reagan, ask Clinton.

I think Clark's stronger in that respect. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #25
34. Gore was a Senator, but he was Vice President after that.
Which gives him the excecutive branch experience that 30 years of history proves the voters prefer in their Presidential candidates.

Wes Clark does not have that experience. Worse yet, he doesn't have any elected experience at all. In a country that is still somewhat paranoid about Bush's mythical terraists and at the same time trying to recover from the damage the BCE has done domestically, the voters aren't likely to put their trust in an inexperienced candidate at the top of the ticket.

VP on a Gore ticket would ideal for Clark, as it would provide him with the executive branch experience on his resume, and involve him in the political process by sending him to the Senate in the traditional VP role. This gives the General a better shot at being elected in the future.

Surely you guys wouldn't object to 8 years of Gore with Clark as VP if it was followed by 8 more years with the General in the White House.

As far as I'm concerned, it's going to take at least 16 years to undo the damage the Chimp has done, and this seems to be the best way of getting there

(Unless Dr. Dean jumps into the race, of course)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Hm:
"the voters aren't likely to put their trust in an inexperienced candidate at the top of the ticket."

I dunno, "Washington outsider" is a good concept to rely on. I think the more sick people are of the corruption in Washington, the more likely they are to vote for someone like Wes, nowhere NEAR the "system" as it were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
59. Gore can definitely compete in Tennessee and Florida.
I attended a Nashville fundraiser honoring Gore a couple of months ago. The energy was high and hundreds of people there were loving it. There was plenty of Gore 2008 talk in the air, although not of his causing. He resolutely reserves his right to run, yet he also doesn't encourage speculation (at least publicly). If he does run, that is an excellent way to play it. He is taking the high road, which is why I consider him (along with Dean) the standard bearer of the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #25
69. You know what? A Gore/Clark knock down, drag out for the nomination..
would be win-win for the Democrats either way. How lucky we would be to have these two men to chose from. It doesn't get any better than this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
68. I love Gore and Clark. But if I had to chose just one to be president..
I've gotta go with Gore. Clark would make a kick ass vice though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberaltrucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. I respectfully disagree
Right now(granted 3+ years before election 08), my choice is Wes Clark. But we have plenty of time to worry about 08. 06 midterms should be our passion priority right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Some of us have a problem in that he's never been elected to anything
and we are going to need someone who has good experience with Congress to get the Bush Crimes investigated. "Outsiders" are never welcome in DC Beltway Land. Wes would be over his head. He only knows how to deal with the Military. I would hope that America wouldn't be a Military State by 2008 but the way things are going...maybe we WILL BE.

Wes Clark as President would not go well with many of us who are worried already that our country is going to a Military State.

He's charming and would probably make an interesting VP, or Cabinet Member. :shrug: You have to understand that many of us out there remember Eisenhower's caution about the military/industrial complex.

Wes already works for companies that give some of us DU's worries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
26. Why does that matter?
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 06:14 AM by Clark2008
In fact, during this climate of corruption, the fact that Wes is not viewed as a politician is a plus.

People want a leader, which Wes has proven to be, not a politician, like all the other "corrupt" (in the view of the populace) politicians out there.

And Wes works for James Lee Witt - Wes understands the military industrial complex and was the ONLY primary candidate in 2004 to discuss its implications. He wants to avoid it.

Besides, I make some of my money selling to ORNL. Am I promoting the military industrical complex? In a sense, yes. But, it's already built into our system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
70. Ha ha. You wouldn't have to worry about Clark having the bushco crimes..
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:04 AM by Kahuna
investigated. It is my belief that Clark was the ONLY candidate in 2004 that would have pursued the bush gang. Wes was pissed. That's why he ran. I think the other candidates would have been just so happy that they won, they would have forgiven bushco their crimes against America. Not Clark. He had an agenda. And making bushco pay was job one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
27. Agreed...
I like Gore, but my vote for 2008 will hopefully be for General Wesley Clark.

I just hope I'm back in the United States to cast it, so my absentee ballot doesn't go "missing"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. Agrees with unions on 90% of issues, but not on free trade
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 09:16 PM by 1932
Asked about reverberations among unions {for his stance on agreesively pushing for China/WTO legislation}, Gore replied: Some of them have not yet endorsed me because of the fact that Im in favor of this legislation. Others have endorsed me in spite of our disagreement on this legislation because I agree with them on 90% of the issues. Still, on the campaign trail, Mr. Gore hardly mentions the trade agreement.

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Free_Trade.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Maybe he's for "Fair Trade" not "Free Trade." But, much about the New
Gore needs to be asked. I agree..that we don't know where he stands on many issues at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. My impression of Al is that he's very supportive of Wall Street.
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 09:52 PM by 1932
He does say that he's for coupling free trade with environmental and labor protections, which is the right thing to say. But, I feel like his walk -- especially with the Telecom Bill and picking Joe Lieberman as his running mate -- has been "whatever Wall Street wants is OK by me."

Incidentally, I find Clark and Gore to be very similiar candidates in terms of what they say(anti-war, but largely based on tactical objections rather than outcomes or antipathy for militarism, enthusiasm for free markets, enthusiasm for wall street, and their tax plans which basically helped people with families but not poor single people or people without children).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. Gore had his chance. I think Clark is the best thing we've got.
I'd love to see the right wing try to assasinate Clark's character...what a non-starter that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. The Right Wing can assassinate anyone's character. Just because Wes
is Military doesn't mean they can't find other skeletons in his closet.

Gore already won...so it's really that "his chance" was STOLEN FROM HIM.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #15
35. Gore won the election, but he ain't in the White House.
Neither is Kerry. More people pulled the lever for Gore, and probably would have for Kerry had they been allowed to vote, and either has a more legitimate claim to the White House than the current occupant, but they ain't there.

Clark is not the kind of guy the Right can take down easily. He is respected on both sides of the aisle, and attempts to assasinate his character are likely to backfire. That's why they held their fire when he was a primary candidate...they don't have a very tenable attack plan for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
57. MSM played gotcha effectively on Clark in 2004. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
43. I do worry about him being swift-boated. They are experts at smearing
vets - Cleland, McCain, Kerry.

It doesn't have to be true and truth doesn't seem to matter anymore.

This is a big worry I have with a Clark candidacy - and I like Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. Al Gore is a man of extreme talent and integrity; his presidency
would be a chance to really bring integrity back to government He is a dedicated and committed advocate for the environment and the people. If you think that he is boring then you have probably not seen his anti-Bush tirades for Move-on. Wes Clark is also a man of extreme integrity. Can we forget the good old boy Bushitis and put a leader for the PEOPLE in the WH, please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
populistdriven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. #1 Clark, #2 Dean, #3 Gore, #4 Hillary
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 09:26 PM by bushmeat
Many moderate repubs would go for Clark plus he is a great liberal thinker (he flies under the radar very well)

Dean could definitely pull it off with his enthusiasm and energy and would kick ass in Washington

Gore would be an outstanding president but would lose with a high-turnout election (would have similar problems as Kerry)

Hillary could win easily but would have horrible Republican resistance in Washington which would make her less effective than any of the above.

Also; Clark & Dean appeal well to the street (down to earth).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I know how well Wes Clark is loved by many here.
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 09:32 PM by KoKo01
I hope he has a chance to run... The Primaries will sort it out.

Some of us gave up on Gore and are now taking another look at him. They will all have their chance in the next three years, though. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
populistdriven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Well Al is someone all of us here can get behind if he is selected, but
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 09:40 PM by bushmeat
HE BETTER RUN A BETTER CAMPAIGN THAN KERRY'S WAS!

THE FEEL-GOOD CONVENTIONS DONT WIN ELECTIONS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #16
33. I would choose Gore over Clark any day.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElectroPrincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #33
60. I would choose Gore over either Clark or Kerry ...
But I'm hoping Gore runs and asks "the good General" to be his running mate.

Now that's, IMO, a potential SLAM DUNK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
20. U- Rah - Rah!
Le Sigh.

Gee, that's what the Clinton folks said...

And I think the Clark folks said it too.

Hmm, who else thinks their guy is all we have...

I don't think Kerry is all we have...

It will be an interesting primary. But not for a while now.

2006!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. I like Al Gore a lot, but to say "he is all we have" is delusional. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
22. Oh great, more propaganda....
I see the "Albertistas" are out in full force, vying with the "Hillaristas" for who can spread the most "inevitability" propoganda.

It isn't even the new year yet, and already we have people trying to determine the standard-bearer by making the decision for the entire Left/Center.

:eyes:

In the words of Rosie O'Donnell (as she said to Sean Hannity) - -

"De-LOO-sional!!!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DELUSIONAL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
23. His last choice for VP -- was the WORST
and I had to vote for GORE and hold my nose to vote for LieBERman.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
24. He has written a book on looming environmental policies
...and would be the choice if America were reality based.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ufour20 Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
28. We Clark
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 08:45 AM by Ufour20
Will get my vote and if Al wants to tag along as VP or some other cabinet level position (EPA chief?) I'd be all for it. If he wins the primaries, I'd vote for Gore. I'd never vote for Hillary though, she is a "Citibank" shill and panderer interested in her career first, Americans second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
29. Gore is the only one I'd enthusiastically support for Prez in '08
He has gone through the political fire and come out a better man. He was always a good man, but maybe it was our nation, not Gore, that really needed to change.

I'm looking forward to the documentary on his climate change presentation coming out this December. I hope it can propel him to be a front-runner for the Dem Prez ticket and to the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
30. And he WAS already elected President once !
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarcoated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. I think Wes Clark can win
And I think he would do a great job as president. He's a master at deflecting the RW smear and nonsense. When he was on Real Time last year right after the election, my husband (who doesn't follow politics as closely as I do) turned to me and said, 'Where was THIS guy during the primaries? I would've voted for him in a heartbeat!'. To be honest, I hadn't had much exposure to Wes up till that point either. I've seen him go up against many different kinds of RW weasels and liars and Wes's skates are razor sharp. I will support almost any Democrat who ends up in the race, but my hopes are for Wes to rise above the pack, especially since the other candidates wouldn't have a big head start on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
37. Disagree. He could have run and probably should have
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 01:08 PM by saracat
in 2004. I am very sorry but he is worse than Kerry, who at least has cases pending in Ohio. At least Kerry had Boxer stand up for him. Gore "instructed" the Senators NOT to oppose Bush.I will NEVER understand or forgive that. And then he took YEARS to speak out on ANYTHING. He got fat , hid and grew a beard.And now he wants some attention? Forget it. His moment has passed. Kerry has continued to speak out. I would much prefer Kerry to Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #37
46. My take
Gore took the contest for the 2000 election as far as he could take it. As you'll remember, the pResidency was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, not the voting public. How much farther could he have taken it? And to where? Do you honestly think the GOP would have allowed the UN to intervene?

I also believe that part of the problem back in 2000 was the lack of funding to and by the DNC to contest the election. It was an unprecedented election and no one was prepared for it. The GOP had the upper hand all the way - from Ellis in the Fox booth calling it for his cousin George to brother Jeb being governor to having the Secretary of State in their pocket. The media was rooting for the GOP. What chance would any Democratic candidate have with all that against them? I mean, look what happened to Kerry with the SBVT. The media mantra did a lot of damage and it shouldn't be overlooked.

As for Gore asking the Senators not to oppose the electoral college results. First, the context, the media had being doing a hatchet job on Gore for some time. The rightwing talking points were the same ones they pulled out in 2004 against Kerry, that is, the Gore was wooden, uninspiring, too smart (out of touch with the common American), a little whacky, a liar, they questioned his military record and concluded he was wishy-washy. Hell, they did almost the same thing to Dukakis in 1988. It is the GOP's standard operating procedure/MO when they can't find the "sex angle" like they did with Clinton, Hart and Kennedy.

Anyway, back to Gore asking the senators not to oppose the electoral college results:

the media repeated the GOP lies to the point where they were accepted by almost as many Americans that believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Among them:
1) Gore was a sore loser and Gore was trying to subvert the election by going to court (when it was actually the GOP that filed the first suit);
2) the country was divided and Gore's continuing to contest the election only furthered that divide;
3) the Democratic party was un-American because they didn't want to count the military vote;
4) the ballots had been recounted several times (they hadn't) and
5) Floridians (later to be determined to be GOP congressional aides) were protesting the recounts.

So, with all of that said, an almost evenly divided American public was told over and over again by a Democratic-hating media that it was in the country's best interest that Gore not contest the election any further. After all, SCOTUS had spoken. If Gore had continued to fight after the Supremes had ruled the Democratic party would have suffered immensely and Gore would have forever been branded a whackjob.

After the election was over Gore, like Kerry, had to get on with his life. Gore was pretty damaged by the press all during the election cycle. So was Kerry and so is every other Democratic leader that the GOP and the MSM target. The difference is that Kerry is a sitting senator and has to remain in the public eye. Personally, if I had had the GOP chanting "Get out of Cheney's house" outside my home 24/7 for weeks on end, had the media up my ass for weeks, had members of my own political party not be as supportive as they could have been and had lost a Supreme Court decision, I might decide to take some time off too. Otherwise, every thing I said or did would be scrutinized and construed as being an attempt to act like a president. In otherwords, Gore was in a position that no one had been in our lifetime. Anything he did would have sent Barbara Olsen or Ann Coulter into a tizzy on Hannity and Colmes. I dunno, talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

Anyway, that's how I see it. You can disagree if you want but I've pretty much said all I can the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Great Post! As disappointed as I and others were that Gore had to
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 02:23 PM by KoKo01
slam down the gavel and not allow the Election to be Contested in the Senate (portrayed in Moore's "9/11") I came to the same conclusion as you did. I think the Repugs planned how to steal that election with Jeb and taking it to the Supremes and Gore got bad advice. But, I think, given the frenzy that the Repug attack machine would have ground him under their boots if he'd allowed the Black Caucus to protest. One party of me thinks that if he had stood up then then maybe we wouldn't have had to go through this HELL we've gone through. But, the other part understands that he gave it all he could and he would have not been able to govern given what they would have thrown against him. If they could steal three elections and allow "9/11" the power is so huge that it's only now that a few little cracks here and there are beginning to show with DeLay and Frist investigations, Plame leak, etc. Maybe America had to go through this to expose ALL the ROT underneath.

Good points you make, quote:

Anyway, back to Gore asking the senators not to oppose the electoral college results:

the media repeated the GOP lies to the point where they were accepted by almost as many Americans that believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Among them:
1) Gore was a sore loser and Gore was trying to subvert the election by going to court (when it was actually the GOP that filed the first suit);
2) the country was divided and Gore's continuing to contest the election only furthered that divide;
3) the Democratic party was un-American because they didn't want to count the military vote;
4) the ballots had been recounted several times (they hadn't) and
5) Floridians (later to be determined to be GOP congressional aides) were protesting the recounts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Speaking of Michael Moore,
did anybody else notice how he edited F/9-11 to maximize the embarassment for Gore? More bullshit from the pseudo-intellectual left jerks like Maher, Donohue & Moore that is so devoid of intellectual honesty. The guys aren't fit to tie Gore's shoes.

Along with Bill Maher, Moore got on his knees in front of Nader on Real Time (I am not making this up) and begged Nader not to run in 2004. On the first week Al Franken's show was on the air, Moore and Gore were on at the same time. Franken encouraged Moore to apologize in a school marmish voice. It was one of the funniest things I've ever heard on radio. Moore basically just stammered, because he knew he was busted.

That crowd will blame Gore with all kinds of stupid complaints, but will never blame themselves for being duped by a lying demagogue (they thought they were being really hip!), nor the MSM which was the determinative factor in 2000. Caveat emptor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
38. I do not believe that Al Gore is all we have,
but I do believe he is head and shoulders above anyone else. Al Gore in 08!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
40. i disagree. we have a lot of candidates
not just gore

though i like gore just fine

and i like kerry

and wes clark


i like a lot of dems
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #40
62. 2008 will be the best Dem field of my lifetime,
at least in terms of electoral credentials:

Gore, three times elected (1 prez, 2 VP)

Kerry, former nominee

Edwards, former VP nominee

HRC, short resume, but MSM "horserace" appeal and strong polling (although I think the majority of that is weak "sheep" support)

Of course there are others as well. (I would have included Lieberman but he simply isn't viable). But I can't recall a cycle where all of those credentials were available on the roster. A political harmonic convergence. We should win.

I think we should beat anybody except McCain and maybe Hegel. The ethically impaired McCain is such a huge media darling that he would be indeed a formidable candidate. I'll be rooting for the RRR in the GOP primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
41. My only negative against Al is Tipper.
I might have to show ID to buy a CD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Like you do with movies? Or to buy alcohol?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #41
71. So?..
Minors shouldn't be able to buy explicit material. If you become a parent you might appreciate that your kid would need to show ID before purchasing Playboy, explicit CDs/DVDs or alcohol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #41
74. I think Tipper's a positive
What a refreshing change she'd be to the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drummo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #41
76. You don't have to. Don't exaggerate. Those labels hurt noone.
But if that's your biggest problem after 9/11, after Iraq, after Katrina etc. then you are really a lost case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
44. I hope Gore runs. But it's a bit early for such speculation.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
preciousdove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
49. That is what we said about Mondale after we lost Wellstone...
another failed presidential candidate former VP. He would have entered the Senate with 16 years seniority. Instead more people got Normie who's face is implanted on Bush's butt voting against their interests daily.

It would depend on how much pain the country is in by then if people would actually think about someone rather than use conditioned responses to situations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nightjock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
51. I know MANY Republican voters
who said they cannot stand to hear Al Gore speak.
They voted for bush.

Now all of them -every single one-
say they can't stand listening to bush speak!

Al Gore would have my support. He won the first time. He would win again. But I would literally pull my hair out if he even thinks about Lieberman as a VP.

"Joe-mentum" is a slimy, piece of shit, bush ass kisser with blood on his hands who should not be called a Democrat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. Joe-mentum is No-mentum.
Not to worry, Lieberman won't even be on the long list this time. They had a falling out over Gore's endorsement of Dean. Not to mention their huge split over Iraq.

Finally, VPs are selected, in part, for their contribution to "convention bounce," i.e. rise in the polls right after convention. Lieberman did actually contribute to a very good bounce (around 10 points if memory serves) in 2000, but in 2008 would be an anti-bouncer.

Too early to tell, but I think some likely short-list VP candidates would be Richardson, Edwards and Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. If Lieberman runs in 2008,
I predict his anti-terrorism slogan will be:

No to madrassahs, Yes to Hadassah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drummo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #51
79. Gee, Republican voters voted for Bush?
Now that is really surprising.

Newsflash: I know MANY Democratic voters who said they cannot stand to hear Bush speak.
They voted for Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
53. , a track record of defeat and surrender... (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. If you think Gore was defeated in 2000,
ask Jimmy Carter, or somebody from the Ukraine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Funny
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 04:31 PM by Nederland
I don't recall Al Gore occuppying the White House from 2000-2004...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. There are plenty of banana republics,
such as the USA, where the winner isn't inaugurated. We "lost" 2000 in the MSM, not the ballot box.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. Oh yes
Its clear that with comments like that you know exactly how to win elections. Not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Interesting comment
Do you realize you sound sort of like a freeper?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #66
73. Interesting response
Do you realize you sound sort of like someone who spends too much time on DU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drummo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #61
77. For example Zimbabwe.
But Mugabe is a big election winner in Nederland's eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vox_Reason Donating Member (589 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
63. I love me some Al Gore
I want to buy a book of Al Gore's speeches of the last few years.

Any love here for John Edwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Edwards, too!
They're both great!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drummo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #63
78. You can read them here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
72. well ya, I'm kinda convinced
I don't have any particular enthusiasm over Al Gore. But, when I add up the plus and the minuses -- both on elect-ability and his overall progressiveness--he's not Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders--but he's no rot-gut DINO either.

In 2000 he fought a campaign with a hostile media and a largely unenthusiastic party and he still managed to win.

He has certainly been sounding more like the kind of progressive I really want to believe in. I think he would bridge the Party divides better than just about anyone else.

His come-back kid status would have it's own appeal.

More importantly it would force the public to ask themselves the question, "would we not be a lot better off if Al Gore had become President on January 20th, 2001?"

Ya, I think Al Gore is probably the best realistic bet for 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drummo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
75. "He has mood swings where he can be VERY ON or VERY OFF."
That's a very good point.

Clinton is all the same all the time and that makes him so boring in my eyes I cannot watch him for more than 2 minutes. (Has anyone seen him angry or something?)

Gore is the total opposite, one staffer said that everyday as if you meet with a different man. I think someone should stabilize him.
Maybe Tipper could do it if she wanted :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
80. The whole lock-box thing looks mighty fine from my rear-view mirror.
And he's an environmentalist, to boot. He would be light years better than most of the names bandied about here on DU, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
81. exploding some myths about Gore ...
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 11:16 AM by Apollo11
I strongly agree with KoKo01 and Mabus. Al Gore is THE MAN!!

I have 3 points to add to the above posts:

Myth 1: Gore quit the fight in 2000 ...

In 2000, Gore took the fight as far as he could. But when the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount then it unfortunately became inevitable that Bush would get inaugurated. Gore decided that it would be best for the Democratic Party, and best for America, to accept the Supreme Courts decision - even though he told us that he "strongly disagreed" with it. Gore was in a difficult position as sitting VP. Most Democratic Senators did not want to take the fight further, and Gore had to swallow his pride for what he believed to be the "least worst option" - even if it was not easy for him.

Myth 2: Gore is old news. We need someone new ...

Gore would make full use of all the talents available in the Democratic Party. He would pick a fine running mate (my guess is a woman or minority - definitely anti-Bush on Iraq - maybe Boxer?). He would appoint people like Kerry, Clark and Dean to senior positions in the adminstration. He would work closely with Democrats in the Senate (Hillary as majority leader?) and House. He would unite the Democratic Party and a majority of Americans around values of truth and honesty, fairness, protecting the environment, respecting seniors and minorities, a genuinely progressive agenda.

Myth 3: Tipper is a threat to free speech.

Tipper will be a fine first lady and so what if she is concerned about profanity and negative messages in rock music, rap, movies, computer games, etc. Do you guys have any idea what kind of acts are depicted in the video games that teens are playing? Drive-by shootings, raping and beating women, you name it - it's all "cool". Seriously - it's not a right-wing Christian agenda, it's about being a responsible parent and protecting our children from some of the most dangerous and corrosive material - whether it's hard drugs, hard porn, or violent video games. And if a CD is all about muthaf** this and muthaf** that then teens will have to unlawfully share that cr@p instead of buying it from Walmart!

www.algore-08.org
http://algore2008.net /
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC