Who thinks GORE will accept a draft if none of the candidates have the votes for NOM

[Sensitivity]

Al Gore and John Kerry were both far better candidates for the President than any of the current slate.
It is testimony to the Democratic politics of personality that Clinton, Obama and Edwards are our options today.

There are still some that think that Gore is waiting for Hillary to be halted before accepting the Draft.

I DO NOT.

So, maybe we should accept what the process has spawned and unite behind winning the Presidency and not demean our candidates.

[MadBadger]

1. Kerry was not a better candidate

He couldnt beat Bush, thats just sad. Now, if John Kerry were running today, and had never run in 2004, I think he would be a great candidate.

[politicasista]

3. It is sad because in 2004,

1. The GOP controlled, and still does most of the broadcast media and print. (i.e. Bush is the one to have a beer with, strong leader, the Democrats don't have a plan, etc.)

2. A fear minded public. (i.e. Bin Laden tape, phony terror alerts, gay marriage amendments, the taking away of the Bible and guns, etc.)

3. Lack of party support. (i.e. Of course we can debate over and over again about the Swifties and whether or not Kerry's response was good or rapid enough, however we should note that some well known Democrats didn't support the nominee like they should have).

4. Dirty tricks in Ohio and possibly in other battleground states, weak infrastructure, inept DNC chairman. (i.e. election fraud, rigged machines, weak state Democratic parties). People don't want to understand that it was McAuliffe's job to protect and secure the vote and machines, and think that the nominee was supposed to do all this all by himself while letting others off the hook, but the this is another reason why Kerry "lost", yet he still got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history.


It's time to look forward, not look back.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. I must disagree, and I think PoliticaSista

pretty much covers it. John Kerry would have been a great president -- perhaps this sorry country didn't deserve him.

[MadBadger]

6. Oh, Im not disagreeing with you

I think he would have made a fantastic president. But he was an awful candidate. Too many people that election thought they were choosing between two piles of shit and which ever one stunk less, that is who they would vote for.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. Which is why I say that this no-good country didn't deserve him...

If those "too many people" thought he was a pile of shit indistinguishable from the chimp, then I suppose they deserve what they got. Terribly sad for the rest of us, though, who recognized John Kerry as a truly exceptional human being who could have led us out of this darkness.

I'm really depressed tonight. Neither Hillary nor Obama fill me with any kind of hope, but I'm afraid we're going to be stuck with one or the other of them. Or worse yet, maybe even one of those abominable Republicans. Is this really the best we can come up with as a country?

Maybe it's time to move to Norway. I think it looks a lot like Alaska.

[Kucinich4America]

10. I wouldn't say Kerry was a pile of shit

But his DLC-crippled campaign certainly was.

[AndyTiedye]

14. No Other Candidate Could Have Survived that Kind of Attack in the Media

The way the Mighty Slime Machine got behind the Swift Boat attacks and amplified them into a candidacy-destroying storm is unprecedented.
How do you fight something like that? You'd be forced to spend all your money trying to fight the media. The Republicans were spending nothing. You'd be out of money by October.

In spite of all that, most voters chose Kerry, and the Repiglicans had to steal another election.


Sadly, we seem to have used up our best candidates in the 2000 and 2004 elections, and now we have to make do with what's left.

I shudder to think what the Mighty Slime Machine will do to Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards.

[proudmoddemo]

2. Maybe

Though there are others that have never run that might emerge from a convention like that. Among them: Jim Webb, Kathleen Sebelius, Ed Rendell, and (gasp) Ted Kennedy (though he ran in 1980). Kennedy might well be the one if that happened. If the Republicans nominate McCain, his age (he'd be 76) really wouldn't be a factor.

[AndyTiedye]

4. DRAFT GORE!

Al Gore and John Kerry were both far better candidates for the President than any of the current slate.

No doubt about it. We have the weakest candidates in living memory running for the 2008 election.
It is only because Bush**'s popularity is near record lows that any of them have a chance of winning.
Even then, all of our candidates are at least 15 points behind a "generic Democrat".
The people want a Democrat in the White House, but they don't want any of these Democrats.

It is testimony to the Democratic politics of personality that Clinton, Obama and Edwards are our options today.

It is a testament to the Repiglickans ability to destroy those who are a threat to them, leaving us with…

There are still some that think that Gore is waiting for Hillary to be halted before accepting the Draft.

I DO NOT.

For all of our sakes, I hope you are wrong.

So, maybe we should accept what the process has spawned and unite behind winning the Presidency and not demean our candidates.

What the process has spawned are unelectable candidates. The process is going to result in pResident Gouliani or pResident Upchuckabee.

[Sensitivity]

8. Us Dems must take some blame -- The party is always looking for the NEW THING rather than the Real

[1corona4u]

12. Sad, but true.

[AndyTiedye]

13. I Have No Idea What You Mean By That

[Kucinich4America]

9. At this point, that would be the second best possible outcome

The best would be a Kucinich nomination, of course.

[MalloyLiberal]

11. I don't want Gore anymore. He's not man enough to run

It's either Edwards or Obama now

[Sensitivity]

15. A Gore run would be too painful if he has to fight the Clinton machine

I am sure he would have if it had not been made crystal clear that this was Hillary's year.