Let's try another- If Gore was our 2008 nominee, which ticket would you

[Guaranteed]

Poll question: Let's try another- If Gore was our 2008 nominee, which ticket would you

rather see?

I'm posting this with the idea in mind that a VP should compliment a Presidential nominee in as many advantageous ways as possible....

[Kerry fan]

1. Gore/Kerry

[serryjw]

10. Kerry would NEVER take 2nd slot

n/t

#1 Dream Ticket is Clark/Boxer!

[Mass]

23. Agree.

[primative1]

2. Gore/Nader

The dream team

[serryjw]

7. 95% of dems would stay home

Sorry!

[NNadir]

9. Whose dream/nightmare?

Nader never got more than 2% in a single election.

Nader is certifiably insane. I think he's best remaining in the Repuke party.

[primative1]

11. So Blind ...

Kind of sad

[NNadir]

16. So pathetic...

...Nothing sad about it.

Anyone who thinks Nader is successful is probably as certifiable as he is.

What part of less than 2% exactly escapes you?

Never mind. I really don't want to know. That pathetic freak is going nowhere although I'm sure that in 2008, the CNN Repukes will drag him out to talk shit about Gore.

[primative1]

17. In Your Dreams ...

As we slip down the slope to 3rd world-dom the next generation will surly hope another Ralph Nader will step up and put corprocraps a** to the flame. Nader drew the line for decades, with the backing of our then progressive democratic party.
Its the Dems that turned their backs on labor. The rest is legend.

[NNadir]

20. Look, I'm a democrat. OK? You pick candidates for your party.

In my mind Nader is a Repuke.

I think he's a fraud. He's a corporate lawyer, and he used that capacity to smash strikes illegally in his own fraudulent unaudited organization.

If you can't say Multinational Monitor take it up in your party, whatever the fuck your party is.

You people have your own party, the "Dem Bashing Party." I'm sure you'll do your best again to put Repukes in office by badmouthing us, and offering ridiculous self serving crap about what we should do. But we still don't give a fuck what you think.

The difference is, that this time you won't even command 2%, and the elections will depend on other frauds, not the frauds of Ralph Nader.

[primative1]

27. You'd better start caring ...

Theres a great big fissure there that says they aren't going to follow you on your march to global pacification. The democratic party was founded on a principle that the little guy mattered. When you walk away from that why do you suppose the little guy will follow. Is it because you have nicer uniforms?

[NNadir]

44. That's pretty dubious. Ralph Nader is for the little guy?

What little guy do you mean? The guys he fired from Multinational Monitor because they were tired of working 80 hours a week for 40 hours of minimum wage pay?

When I was a starving student, Ralph's unaudited PIRGS were skimming money off the top of my tuition (yes there was a PIRG fee attached to my tuition.)

Ralph was being chauffered in limos, and I had nothing to eat.

[ProudDad]

39. At least get your facts straight

Nader's been the OPPOSITE of a "corporate lawyer" for his entire life.

I also get a kick out of clowns who blame Nader for costing Gore the election in 2000 (an election he WON -- you conveniently forget the Supremes) and with the other side of their mouths fault him for getting so few votes...

What a bore...

[NNadir]

42. Um, you know the facts about Ralph Nader? Read the Nation article?

I guess not.

You conveninetly forget that Nader worked Repuke propaganda efforts continuously for his entire career. Here is a list of Democratic politicians who Nader trashed: Edmund Muskie. Bill Clinton. Tom Foley. Pat Schroeder...

http://www.burntorangereport.com/mt/archives/2004/08/ralph_nader_suc.html

Nader was very happy about the election of Ronald Reagan. That's right.

Hmmmmmmm. Let me see...hates Democrats, is happy when Repukes take office...hmmmmmm....force for good?

Apologists for this paranoid freak Nader, corporate CNN whore, think that Nader suddeenly morphed into an anti-Democrat in 2000. Bullshit. He has always been a freak and he has always been working for one thing: Ralph Nader and his paranoid agenda.

Any contention that Nader was ever a cause for good is pure corporate marketing. Most people who buy into this crap are people are simply extremely gullible.

[primative1]

46. Interesting ...

I remember the time well; August of 04. Thats when we "answered the call" to start writing letters to the editor, doing whatever we could to downsize Ralph's support. I had three letters published myself, and to this day it is the number one most sickening thing I have ever been asked to do. Which explains the careful jumps and leaps in the stories bi-line, forget this part and embellish on these others. The strategy worked to. Few voted for Ralph and unknown more didn't bother voting at all. And in the end we got King George and we are left to deal with the reality of who we personally crossed in order to get that done. But all that is behind us now and we can look ahead, right?
Here it is. If they cant say Iraq is wrong and if they cant say Nafta/Cafta/Lafta is wrong and needs to be reversed then they aren't speaking for me .. period.

[NNadir]

47. Well, one issue voters are hopeless in any case.

It really doesn't matter about the mindless fucks who didn't vote because they wanted to take their balls and go home.

For this reason, by the way, I am not among those who think that in 2000, that Nader voters would have voted for Gore had Nader not run. Most Nader voters were/are essentially mindless sheep with no sense of responsibility. For the most part they are people who knew they would never have a single one of their silly ideas tested. In other words they are critics, not actors. They do nothing but carp and complain because they are incapable of taking the risk of trying anything.

Theodore Roosevelt, in a speech to Sorbonne in 1915 summed up Nader voters better than anyone in modern times could:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

So we see that Naderites are not only intellectual frauds and hypocrites, but they are actually moral frauds as well. They stand for inaction through cowardice. The dare nothing, and redefine their defeats (the 2000 2% as victories, even when these pyrrhic "victories" lead to wholesale destruction on a global scale.)

Being a Naderite, I'm sure you hate Gore and Kerry. But if they failed, they failed greatly.

Personally I'm not sure that Gore has failed. He's not walking around diddling himself like Ralphie the water fluoridation opponent. He is still in the area, still getting his face marred by dust and sweat and blood. There are famous pictures of Mr. Gore on the ground in New Orleans, yes, sweating. Nobody at that time gave a flying fuck what Nafta-on-the-brain-boy was doing. Probably he was wiping his hands obsessively in case the count of germs was going up in his Washington town house because of the winds carrying mold up from the South.

If you think, in the time of global climate change, energy depletion, the rise of fundementalism and theocracy (worldwide), the destruction of biological diversity, the destruction of the practice of science, the rapid change of the pH of the ocean, the collapse of school systems, the collapse of the existing energy infrastructure, African famine and genocide, the war in Iraq, Dafur, and bad NBA officiating that the only issue is NAFTA, you are useless to the future in any case and no one can help you.

So far as this discussion goes: You've reaffirmed exactly my impression of what I think the residual Naderite fringe consists . QED.

Don't drink the water. It's fluoridated.

[primative1]

48. You state my case very well ..

Take four fifths of your lengthy list of issues and trace them back to a source. Where does it bring you? You sound like a fine windbag. Which way is the breeze blowing today?

[ProudDad]

54. You should learn the difference between

The Nation which is a valuable resource for thinking people and the "New Republic" which is a right-wing propaganda rag.

The link you've provided is to an article in the "New Republic", not "The Nation".

You can't get facts from the "New Republic", just right-wing spin.

You are deluded...

[Ravenseye]

3. It's not time for Obama yet.

Then again you never know. There've been people who did it with less experience.

I love Clark and would happily vote for a Gore/Clark ticket, but there are plenty of tickets that look attractive to me at this point, and only a couple that don't.

[Guaranteed]

5. I think- as *VP*, mind you- there is a much better case for Obama

than most recognize.

[Ravenseye]

8. Oh and I think it'd be a good argument

Don't get me wrong. He's got more experience all ready than certain Vice President's had after 4 years in the office, and after 8 years of a golden Gore administration he'd be set to be the first black president.

I just...dunno. I think he could use a touch more seasoning before we let him loose. Then again maybe he's our JFK. Maybe he should run NOW for president.

[Guaranteed]

12. President, absolutely not. I don't like his leadership

style.

But....

There are a number of reasons- one in particular (and I wince even saying it)- that he might make a very good VP candidate.

[Webster Green]

4. Obama who?

The new rising star of the Democratic Party?

He turned out to be a wussy.

[Guaranteed]

6. Yeah, but most people don't know that.

Have you seen his approval numbers?

Nationwide, they're probably huge.

[primative1]

13. No they arent ..

He has gained international renoun as some guy who gave a much ballyhooed speach at the 04 dem convention that was in reality quite dull. He's no mario cuomo.

[Guaranteed]

15. Well, I believe that in IL, his approval

numbers are up in the high-60's/low-70's.

And I know that he appeals to my moderate Republican relatives quite a bit- probably for the same reasons that I don't like him very much.

He hasn't picked any fights at this point. I think that's actually what he's been going for. It might be useful.

[Kahuna]

38. I hate to be the one to say it, but it's apparent that you don't like

Democrats. So why are you here? Let me guess.....

[IndyOp]

14. Doesn't it matter that we know and those of us who wanted him to do good

are disappointed, thus far?

He could tack to the left fast - but geez...

It took FOREVER to drag him over to the side where he would vote against Alito - and him a constitutional scholar. Further, given his expertise re: the constitution he should be in front of Feingold pushing for censure, investigation, and impeachment.

:kick:

[Guaranteed]

18. That would be Obama's weakness.

As a possible VP candidate, I'm trying to draw out his strengths, though. And he does have them.

[bullimiami]

19. crap choices for me. i dont care for clark and obama is too inexperienced.

[Guaranteed]

21. Who would you prefer? nt

[bullimiami]

28. gore and ...

feingold or edwards would work well for me.

[Guaranteed]

29. I already put Clark up against Feingold...

Why would you want to see Edwards again?

[bullimiami]

56. because I like and respect edwards. i think he is a well meaning and

intelligent person, and he is experienced and qualified.

i dont get the fascination with clark that some seem to have.

[pansypoo53219]

32. yeah feingold

get the RIGHT jew.

[Buck Laser]

22. Gore/Richardson

[Guaranteed]

24. What do you think Richardson would bring to the ticket? nt

[Buck Laser]

30. What Richardson would bring:

Richardson has solid experience in both the congressional and executive branches of government. He was a congressman, a cabinet member, and also enjoyed some success as a diplomatic negotiator. He's been elected to a second term as Governor of NM. The fact that he's hispanic couldn't hurt, either. Originally, I favored him as a standalone presidential candidate, but with Gore's almost magic re-emergence, he becomes my favorite. I'd just like to see a pair of candidates with proven competence. And Gore and Richardson have it. Besides, those who are anti-hispanic can take comfort in his English name. ;)

[styersc]

49. My thoughts exactly- Richardson is a damned competent leader.

The VP slot trains him for 2016.

[LiberalEsto]

25. What has Obama actually DONE?

I'm not aware of his taking any sort of gutsy position about anything. He is a DLC hype-ee

[Guaranteed]

26. I agree. But, what qualities would you be looking for

in a VP candidate if Gore were our nominee?

[LiberalEsto]

41. Courage, intelligence, social concern

fiscal prudence, supporter of economic justice, advocate for the environment, outspoken...

[Jai4WKC08]

53. That sounds EXACTLY like Wes Clark!

But he needs to be at the top of the ticket. And Gore, much as I love him, would never settle for #2 again. Nor would I blame him.

[cassiepriam]

31. BILL CLINTON his VP?????? Can this happen??

[tandem5]

33. Well I guess the real question is can Clinton become president...

via the line of succession?... in which case what does the term "elected" mean in the 22nd amendment (since he was only elected to the office of VP and not president)?

[cassiepriam]

34. Oh, good point, I was thinking there was no prohibition on VP

but yes he would be in line for Pres. But I think it means not elected to Pres. That is my interpretation, but what do I know?

[El Fuego]

35. Gore/Clark = Double hunk dream ticket!

:loveya:

[imlost]

36. Gore and Clark are my top choices! n/t

[AusGail]

37. Gore / Clark

or Gore / Edwards. Obama lost me when he supported Lieberman. Don't you think Bill Clinton would make a perfect Secretary of State?

[Rosco T.]

40. Gore/Edwards - two southerners worked last time we got the WH. n/m

[nickshepDEM]

43. Clark. Obama needs to develo in the Senate for a few more years.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Will you start doing Edwards-Gore vs Edwards -Warner polls?

Or Warner - Gore, vs Warner - Edwards polls? Or Kerry - Gore, vs Kerry - Warner? My guess is no. And I further guess that most people on this board who support Gore in 2008 would say that Gore is too qualified to be Vice President, that Gore is in a league of his own and would be wasted in the Number Two spot, and/or that Gore would never accept being number two, which means he has to be considered for Number One Only. But it isn't only Gore supporters who think that about certain Democrats.

It's fine to believe all of those things about Al Gore, but continuing a run of speculative poll threads that rotate other Democrats into the number two slot behind Gore is just another way of promoting Al Gore for President, except that it uses other good National Democrats as props in that effort. Al Gore has to compete AGAINST other Democrats to win the Presidential nomination, and unless and until he does, the rest of the Party is not a supporting cast to him. No Democrat has officially announced that they will definitely run for President in 2008 and only a few have said that they want to, but NONE of the men you mention in these polls so far have any interest in "running for Vice President". I know that Clark doesn't and I honestly doubt Obama does either. I suspect even Obama knows he's not ready to take on that type of National leadership.

When people on DU insist on running 2008 Presidential preference polls on DU here in the Spring of 2006, they always risk stirring up divisive feelings prior to the 2006 Congressional Elections, because people start posting things they don't like about one Democrat or another, but at least everyone listed in those polls starts out on equal footing, unlike these Dem ticket polls that you are posting which are auditions for Gore side kicks. If you just are curious what potential Democratic tickets would be strongest in 2008, if you are interested in anything other than furthering a belief that only Gore deserves to be our Presidential nominee, than please do a round robin series of ticket polls with an open range of combination possibilities. The men you are listing (with the exception of Obama) are each considering running for President.

These are your threads, I do understand that, so I am just giving you my opinion on them. Obviously you are free to ignore it. But I do not start out with a presumption that Gore is the only Democrat suitable to head a national Democratic Ticket, and neither do most voters. I support Clark for President in 2008, you know that, but I would be happy if Gore or Feingold won the nomination also. I find all of the 2008 polls a little annoying and distracting (and I did when Clark was coming in first also - I never start 2008 polls), but if I am going to be put in the position of possibly responding to unkind things said on a thread about a Democrat I respect, I kind of resent having to do so because you keep inserting him as VP material in a supporting role to the man you want to be President. Clark has shown no interest in being VP, for Gore or anyone else, and neither has Feinglod. I wouldn't have bothered writing this if you hadn't done this twice now already. I just hope you aren't planning on an ongoing series of polls injecting Wes Clark, Russ Feingold, or any other popular Democrat into competitive contests in support of Al Gore.

[IndianaGreen]

50. Obama has turned out to be a DUD

and he has drunk the DLC Kool-Aid, even going to a fund raiser for Joe Lieberman.

By the process of elimination, I have to choose Clark as Gore's running mate, but this is a MISTAKE!

Clark has shown qualities similar to those of George Marshall. Like Marshall, Clark can serve the country best by serving as Secretary of State.

Cheney has shown the need to reign-in the Office of Vice-President by restricting the sitting VP to his Constitutional duties, and nothing else!

[Adelante]

52. That's what Wellstone always said

Clark was a George Marshall.

[terrya]

51. Gore/Feingold

I could enthusiatically get behind that ticket.

Obama is too inexperienced for 2008, IMO.

And I think it's pretty obvious what advantages Russ Feingold would bring to the ticket.

[ProudDad]

55. Gore and

anyone to the left of Gore.

He'll need the protection from the right-wing-nuts.

[LWolf]

57. That's a narrow poll in a wide field of choices.

I abstain.