Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

More proof that it Al Gore is our only hope ... Run, Al, Run

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
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 10:52 PM
Original message
More proof that it Al Gore is our only hope ... Run, Al, Run
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 10:57 PM by sjdnb
The GOP lineup is pathetic and the Dem lineup is disappointing, to say the least.

Hillary appears to be an opportunist, willing to vote/say anything that is politically expedient - never actually standing up for anything or anyone (except herself);
Obama is immature and inexperienced, and, like a child who has been told 'no', is lashing out at everyone;
Edwards is/or appears to be insincere and hypocritical (check out the mansion and voting record while in the Senate);
Kucinich has gone over the edge with the whole 'Ron Paul thing';
Biden, Richardson - both sincere, experiences, knowledgeable - would make fine Presidents. But, for some unexplainable reason, Americans don't vote for the 'best' candidates unless they are also either good looking, charismatic, and/or popular among whatever constituency they follow;
and Gravel? well - he kind of epitomizes the whole mess we find ourselves in.

There may be another candidate that would be as competent and capable as Al Gore out there somewhere, but, to date, they have not chosen to run. So, I am left to vote for someone I have little or no confidence/belief in. 2008 is gonna suck even more than 2000 and 2004. So much momentum wasted.

And, I'm not just trying to 'stir up' something -- this is how I really feel, after months of following the campaigns, and it is so depressing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Are you sure you didn't get lost on way to a RW site?
"Edwards is/or appears to be insincere and hypocritical (check out the mansion and voting record while in the Senate)"

Rush Limbaugh's talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I worked for Edward during the 2004 primaries and
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 11:10 PM by sjdnb
only moved to Kerry after the nomination process. I preferred Edwards when he seemed to act in a way consistent with the principles he espoused, even if I didn't always agree. But, since 2004, he rants on about the inequities, poverty, etc. yet is unwilling to sacrifice his own grossly luxurious lifestyle, while admonishing others for living similar lifestyles.

He reminds me of one of those TV preachers making everyone else feel guilty so they'll send in their last dime -- or, maybe, a Republican politician who preaches 'family values' while tapping his toes under the next stall and denying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Just a couple problems with your criticisms (besides where I've heard them before)
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 11:37 PM by Der Blaue Engel
TV preachers are asking the poor people to send money to THEM to make THEM richer. Edwards is trying to end poverty and stand up for the poor.

Republican hypocrites pretend they're one thing while being another, living in shame. Edwards isn't pretending about anything. He came from a humble beginning and has worked hard to get where he is, and he isn't ashamed of it. And what is he doing with his life? Trying to help the poor. Gee, what a bastard.

edit for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. He has manipulated the system just like all the rest
only, before his 'epiphany' he was relatively honest about it.

2006 - "Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show. The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus' Mondavi Center confirmed Monday." He also appeared, in California alone, at Stanford and the American Jewish University in the same six month period, receiving $40,000 for each appearance.

"In 2006, records show Edwards made more than $285,000 speaking to nine colleges and universities, charging between $16,000 and Davis' $55,000 for his talks. They ranged from the $12,000 he got on Jan. 10, 2006 from Gonzaga University Law School in Spokane, Wash., to the $40,000 he banked from the University of Texas Pan American Foundation on May 22, 2006. Other schools that have paid Edwards to speak before he was a declared presidential candidate: Hunter College in New York ($35,000), Mount Union College in Ohio ($16,00) and Vanderbilt University in Nashville ($40,000)."

Geez, what saps all the volunteer mentors must be as they speak at the same universities and colleges pro bono.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yes, I've seen that before somewhere...let me see...
...ah, here it is, from Newshounds ("We watch Fox News so you don't have to"):
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/05/23/john_edwards_smeare...

The faux Big Story from Marinucci's blog post goes that Edwards received a "whopping" $55,000 fee for speaking at Mondavis Center last January (2006, before he declared for president). Her opinion seems to be that because he is already wealthy, he should have done the speech gratis. She itemized all his college and university engagements in 2006 and noted that this one netted him the highest fee.

This little hit job and all it insinuated was sufficient to get her invited onto FOX's biggest tabloid news show, where she coyly feigned concern for Edwards getting a reputation as a hypocrite. because he is a wealthy American and continues to generate income yet speaks out on the issue of poverty in America.

Comment: The whole premise is ridiculous, stupid, even. They are pushing the idea that because Edwards is wealthy, he should not charge for his services. He doesn't have to, but it is his right to and to question him alone for continuing to accumulate wealth while ignoring the Bushes and the Cheneys and the Giulianis and the Romneys etc. etc. etc.) is pure partisanship. They are trying to push the meme that because the subject of his concern is poverty in America, it is hypocritical of him to take money for his work at educating and motivating audiences.

If Edwards was going around advocating in favor of poverty, saying we should all strive for it and live simple, non-material lives as he lived the good life, THEN he would be a hypocrite. But what he does is advocate success and tries to show people how to achieve it, as he did. The real hypocrites are at FOX.


Media Matters had a few words to say about this piece as well:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705230010?f=h_topic

Several media figures have attacked Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for receiving a $55,000 fee for a January 2006 speech at the University of California-Davis -- as first reported in a May 21 entry to the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog. In several cases, they have not also mentioned reports that Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani charged Oklahoma State University $100,000 for a speech he delivered in 2006 and an additional $47,000 for the use of a private jet, as Media Matters for America has noted. Moreover, several left out the response by the Edwards campaign, which asserted that UC-Davis offset the cost through sponsorship and ticket sales to the event.

As Media Matters noted, on the May 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley reported that the Edwards campaign claimed "it was a paid speech, but there were tickets for it -- somewhere between $17.50 for students; about $40 for adults. So it paid for itself." According to UC-Davis' Robert & Margrit Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts, tickets for the speech ranged from $17.50 to $45. The entry on the Chronicle's Politics Blog noted that he spoke to "a crowd of 1,787," meaning that if everyone paid admission, ticket sales would have brought in somewhere between $31,272 and $80,415.


Media Matters goes on to track where the story was repeated next:

- Rush Limbaugh
- Brit Hume
- Scarborough Country
- Fox News's The Big Story with John Gibson

Then back to Limbaugh, then Foxnews.com...ad infinauseum. Oh, and I found a rant from Malkin on it, too, but at that point I began vomiting so violently that I couldn't read it. :eyes:

Oh, and about Gore? Here's a tidbit I found in the comments on the original Marinucci blog from a student at Davis who attended Edwards's Mondavi speech:

Additionally, to put this all in context, recently UCD tried to get Al Gore to come to the Mondavi Center. They were given a ballpark number of around $115,000 and used that as a fundraising goal. When they did in fact get that amount in potential funding, from the UCD Administration, outside donors, the mondavi center, and estimated tickets, the price was raised to upwards of $170,000, because the Academy Awards were around the corner and a potential Nobel Peace Prize.


Why, that rat bastard Al Gore! No wonder you're so against him...oh, wait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Mine came from Salon.com and SFGate ... I don't FAUX
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. But Carla Marinucci sure does
and she Drudges as well.

I'm still waiting for your condemnation of Gore. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
26. Yeah, a RWinger surely would advocate for Al Gore..
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. After reading that post, I find you to be depressing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. Did you watch the :Focus Group following the GOP Debate
A Republican focus group member plainly stated she is now
leaning more and more toward Edwards.

Now you know why the GOP attacks Edwards and Media ignore him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Edwards ignored? Give me a break
600+ articles in the last few days, NBC/MSNBC one-on-one today, MTP Oct 7, 2007, NewsHour Oct 10, 2007, 11/5/2007 - This Week George Stephanopoulos, etc. etc.

In the world of 24/7 news and campaign hype, no one is ignored. Sh*t, I'm surprised they haven't come up with some cat and dog pair 'running for president' to give far too much coverage to, yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. You have to move on. He's just not that into you ...
but thanks for crapping on a bunch of good Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. So expain to me who you are supporting and why
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 11:30 PM by sjdnb
... not after the nomination, but now. Who, of the Dems running, are you passionate about? And, why? And, just what have you done to help get them nominated?

And, what will you do, if the candidate you are so passionate about doesn't get nominated? Follow the pack, because you're a 'good Democrat' or ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. Give it up, dude.
GORE IS NOT RUNNING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. So I just have to 'fall in line'?
It ain't over til it's over ... I'd rather work til the bitter end to support the person I believe is best suited to the position, rather than 'fall in line' and support someone I don't believe in because everyone else wants me to/thinks I should or because it's good for the 'party'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rufus dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. If he wanted to run he would
You have plenty of choices in the group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Quantity does not equal quality
and, that is why I am frustrated. I could get behind Gore, Biden, Feingold, Slaughter, and, even, Kerry. But, to 'settle' for this lot, I might be willing to compromise a little, but I can't compromise my principles that much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. Ermmm.... One of those guys is IN "this lot"
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 09:18 AM by dmallind
So just support Biden's nomination campaign and everyone's happy right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
15. Al's a cool guy and all, but he's not the only Democrat out there.
No one thought Lincoln would amount to a hill of beans either, remember.

Turns out, Lincoln did just fine.

We don't know who the next Lincoln will be. Neither does the person who is destined to be the next Lincoln.

There are strengths and virtues and sustaining gifts of all out 8 announced candidates. Choose one you feel most aligned with, cast a vote in the primary.

It's all going to work out ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Hey, if there was some no-name, good guy, like Abe
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 02:14 AM by sjdnb
in the race, I'd be all over it. After all, I was one of Jimmy's girls before anyone thought he'd win the nomination, let alone be elected President. I just don't find anyone in this mix that generates that kind of 'belief' in me.

Yeah, in the end, I will probably have to vote for whoever the Dem nominee is -- but, if it's anyone of those considered the 'top contenders' today, I'll not be working the 'frontlines' and I'll have to take some Pepto Bismol after casting my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. You couldn't know that you'd vote for "someone like Abe" because
he or she himself/herself doesn't know how an administration will turn out.

Greatness is not always visible. It can take years to unfold in human personalities. And it can be sought after or arrive unbidden.

The case for our 8 candidates is strong. If there turns out to be a Lincoln among them, so much the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #15
27. Lincoln....
wasnt' he a Northern Republican with a Southern Democrat as a running mate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Well, I was thinking he was kind of a "western" candidate -- Kentucky being
his state of birth, then Indiana for a while, then finally Illinois.

But that area isn't "west" anymore.

South of the Ohio River is still the South, but I didn't put in a consideration for how voters then might have seen it.

Your hint at "north" is right-on because so muh of the Abolitionist vote came from the north.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
19. "the Dem lineup is disappointing"
Or maybe they are just really, really SCARY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Think82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
20. I'm not sure why you don't vote for Biden or Richardson, from your post.
Kerry was a 4% until the last two weeks of Iowa. Just vote for who you want. Don't listen to media hype. Use your judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 03:27 AM
Response to Original message
21. "Help me Obi-wan. You're my only hope!"
:rofl:

Sorry...first thing I thought of when I saw your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. that's funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. that's funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
28. When I read that Gore was going to the Nobel shindig at the White House,
it occurred to me that the boy king would likely needle Gore with obnoxious, snide comments, moving Gore to change his mind about running.

But, alas, after all I've witnessed & learned the past 7 years, I'm no longer naive. The nomination is not ours to make; I suspect it's already been decided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
29. You forgot Dodd - would you describe him as "looks too old, and, well, doddering"?
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 09:47 AM by Seabiscuit
I kind of feel the same way, except I have far more respect for Edwards than you apparently do.

After listening to Dennis in his own words talk about the Ron Paul thing, I've finally and with deep regret given up on him as just too simple-minded and naive to be anywhere close to fit to lead us in the White House. He is a voice we still need, however, IMHO, in Congress.

So the only ones I can have any enthusiasm at all for now are Edwards and Biden, in that order, neither of which, unfortunately, are close to leading the pack at this point in the polling, for whatever that's worth.

Yes, color me disappointed as well.

Al Gore outshines the entire field of candidates even as a non-candidate. We will sorely miss his leadership over the coming 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
30. I was/am for Gore... but will vote for Biden in the primary.
Biden just may be a big surprise in Iowa.

Dude- i lived and still live the Gore For President dream. He's the best.
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 Tue Sep 16th 2014, 10:58 PM
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