Clintons (both), Kerry, Clark, Dean - all (D)s should back GORE now!

[kid a]

Lets get on one page and back the man who should be and will be the president of the US!!!

[saltpoint]

1. In the off-chance that other candidates don't surrender their

impulse to run for the nomination, we might have to brace ourselves for the scenario where caucus and primary voters get to vote their choices.

[Pirate Smile]

21. Oh, NO!!! LOL. That is generally how things work and I'm sure

that is what will happen this time too.

[saltpoint]

24. Hi to you, Pirate Smile. You have a great user ID by the way.

I'm getting over-extended on the 06 midterms but I'm keeping an eye out for 08 also.

It's going to get interesting, I think.

Nice to bump into you on DU today.

[Pirate Smile]

26. Thanks, I kinda like it too. It wasn't my first. I can multitask too.

Focusing on 2006 and intrigued by 2008 as well.

It is nice bumping into you too. :hi:

[savemefromdumbya]

2. Gore should have been....

except we have a corrupt 3 branches of government which kept him out

[stray cat]

3. Why? Its 2006 - lots of time to see who runs

[mod mom]

32. Why, because 1. he rightly won in 2000 and 2. The planet needs a leader

who understands the urgency of global warming.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Number 1 only matters if the general public wants him again

If not, it is only history. Times change, and people can change their minds, or be offered what they perceive to be better choices, or whatever. There are no instant replays and there are no reruns. New day, new election.

Number 2 is a more compelling argument. I can think of at least two other Democratic Contenders who share a belief with Gore about the urgency of global warming; John Kerry and Wesley Clark, and there may be others. Is Al Gore more expert at understanding the ins and outs of global warming than one or both of those two men? Quite possibly. Has Gore written more about it, and spoken out longer and louder than either one of them? Quite possibly. But that isn't the point. Gore isn't seeking an appointment to staff a scientific advisory board, he is running for President. If Gore is elected President I am confident that he will act on the urgency of Global Warming. If John Kerry or Wes Clark is elected President, I am confident that either one of them will act on the urgency of Global Warming.

The next President of the United States doesn't need to be the world's foremost expert on Global Warming (and while Al Gore is indeed an expert, I don't think he is the world's foremost expert though he may be the world's foremost political leader speaking out on the issue). The next President has to be someone who hires experts on Global Warming to draft government policies, and the next President needs to agree to implement the advice of the worlds experts on Global Warming. Al Gore would certainly do both which speaks loudly in his favor, but that doesn't make him uniquely suited to becoming President. A good case however can be made that a Democrat who doesn't acknowledge the urgency of Global Warming should NOT be elected President.

[Placebo]

4. GREAT! Except for this one teeny-weeny little problem.

Hillary Clinton wants to be president.

John Kerry wants to be president.

Wes Clark wants to be president.

Howard Dean wants to be president.

Joe Biden wants to be president.

Evan Bayh wants to be president.

Mark Warner wants to be president.

Tom Vilsack wants to be president.

Russ Feingold wants to be president.

Bill Clinton wishes he still were president.

[ladjf]

18. because human nature is what it is and doesn't change much.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. You are WAY WAY WAY out of line here

I am a Democrat. One reason why I am a Democrat is because I am fond of Democracy. One thing that I like about Democracy is democratic elections. Among the democratic elections I support are those known as Democratic Primaries. We have those for Presidential candidates every four years. The next ones are a little less than two years away now as I type.

Gore fans can be just as enthusiastic as they want about Al Gore far as I'm concerned, but a line is crossed when it is suggested that the rest of us need to be just as enthusiastic about Gore as you are, for the good of the Party or of the nation. I'll leave it at that for now.

[blm]

12. Exactly - and I will add - Let the DEBATES show who prevails for Democrats

Democrats tend to make their decision AFTER a series of debates. We kinda like it that way.

[ladjf]

19. Your argument to let the debates show who is best qualified is

a good and logical one. However, recent history has shown that the debate process and weakened the Democratic chances by virtue of the time and money spent on the primary runs and the vicious criticisms made by the candidates of their opponents. If they could simply debate without assassinating each other, your idea is most definitely the way to go.

[blm]

25. What does money have to do with the debates? As I recall, Kerry had so

little money the last few months, he had to put up his own money and use it sparingly.

And since ALL candidates' camps were tossing bad juju around about each other, that issue is a wash.

Wanna know who started the Flip-flop meme, and the Kerry never accomplished anything in the senate meme?

[NastyDiaper]

35. I expect to support Gore, but i completely agree..

I plan to see every major D candidate speak who campaigns in my area in 08. Even Hillary.

Assuming that the Fourth Reich has not taken control, and the Democratic party is still legal anyway.

[itzamirakul]

6. I'm going to be a little bit leery of ANYONE that the Clintons and Kerry

endorse. They are a major part of the DLC and I am sick of that group trying to act like they own and run the party.

[wisteria]

9. Kerry is NOT DLC !!!!! Clinton Yes, Kerry, NO!!!

You are being unfair to the man. Senator Kerry has be a major backer of the grassroots efforts and has given much money and his time to promote Democrat candidates.

[Pirate Smile]

22. Calling Kerry DLC always seems particularly ridiculous to me.

He is one of the more liberal Senators.

It seems as off the mark to me as all the skull and bones crap.

But that's just me....

[itzamirakul]

36. Yeah, and what I said is just me...

The DLC took over Kerry's campaign and he ended up hiring some of their sick-minded, never-won-a-damned-thing-in-their-lives consultants who really sunk Kerry's swiftboat in the quicksand. So, by his falling into their clutches in 2004 I group him with the Clinton's. But, that's just me...

[wisteria]

7. I would still support Senator Kerry, although Gore is also a good man. n/t

[blm]

8. Why? Has he pledged to open the books on all the BFEE crimes he helped

Clinton cover up during their terms in office?

How the hell do you think we GOT Bush in the first place?

Gore would be a good president, but he'd be a GREAT president if he pledged to open the books and have an Open Government in this country.

[aquart]

10. I favor Gore, but...................

Only an idiot would want to set him up as the sole target for the Republican destruction machine for the next two years.

The greatest Democratic strength is that no matter what happens to one good man, we have many other fantastic, dedicated men and women to take his place.

We actually have an embarrassment of riches in that area. The Republicans have Frist, Giuliani, McCain...

[Auntie Bush]

11. There are a lot of good intelligent and worthy opponents who may

run in 2008 that weren't running in 2000. (Clark being one of then.)
They need a fair chance to run 2008. Gore had his chance. Now he should join the group...duke it out...and let's all VOTE on who is the best qualified to run in the election as the world and it's problems relate to 2008. Times have changed drastically since 2000.

I thought Gore was best in 2000...however, after Bush screwed up the world, I believe we need someone with executive military experience
to dig us out of the hell hole we're now in. I BELIEVE GENERAL WESLEY CLARK IS NOW THE BEST SUITED FOR THE JOB.

[bowens43]

13. Gore couldn't beat the idiot.

What makes you think he can beat a real candidate?

[NYCGirl]

14. What part of "Gore got more than half a million votes in the popular over

Bush" don't you understand? Everyone knows Gore won, except the SCOTUS.

[OneBlueSky]

15. oh, even the SCOTUS knew . . .

it's just that The PNAC Conspiracy required that the neocons take over the government and install a malleable puppet as president . . . so SCOTUS disregarded the wishes of the people and proclaimed Bush the winner . . .

and all of us the losers . . .

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Which Gore won in 2000, the Old Gore or the New one?

And if it was the "Old Gore" that won, how do we now know that the "New Gore" will keep all of the "Old Gore"'s votes? The "Old Gore" chose Joe Lieberman to be Vice President. If the "Old Gore" had taken the White House in 2000, than Lieberman would now be the presumed Democratic candidate for President in 2008. If we argue that Gore is a different person now than he was in 2000, not only will the Republicans have a field day over "born again Gores", but that effectively de-links Gore from the eight years of the Clinton Presidency, since a "different Gore" was Vice President than. Now a lot of leftist Democrats might be happy with that proposition, but it is less certain if a broader base of voters will be.

Of course Gore won both the electoral and popular votes in 2000, but no way in hell should it have been that close. A sitting Vice President to Clinton, when Clinton was then enjoying favorable ratings in the 60's, coming out of 8 years of relative Peace and Prosperity, should have equaled or exceeded Clinton's victory margin in 2006 against a weak Governor from Texas blood relative to the man Clinton beat in the first place, how did he let it get that close? Diebold wasn't in play back then, remember?

A good case can't be made that Gore was a strong candidate in 2000, and it is uncertain whether Gore will be a strong candidate in 2008 outside of his strong activist base of supporters now. Gore is a Strong Democrat, granted, but being a Strong Democrat does not automatically equate to victory in 2008. I think Gore would make a great President, even a better one now than he would have in 2000. I also think that Gore could have what it takes to win the nation to his side now in a way that he was unable to in 2000, despite all of his then advantages over Bush.

But I won't decide that until I see Gore on the stump again first, arguing for himself, making his case to America, and I then want to compare how well he does with that compared to a few other Democrats who I also believe would make great Presidents. I love Gore on the issues, but if that was all that mattered I could have been a Kucinich backer in 2004, or could be in 2008. The fact that Gore "should" have been President in 2000 is not a good enough reason for me to now say, "clear the field for the rightful President Gore". I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way.

[NYCGirl]

27. Actually, it was the New Gore. About two weeks before election day, he

shook off his handlers and came on as the populist we now know.

This moved him from being behind by double digits to winning.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Personally I don't buy the "blame the handlers" meme

I don't with Kerry either. By the time someone emerges as the Presidential candidate of a major Political Party, and stands before the public saying "Trust me" to have the right judgment, and to make the right calls on the tough choices, blaming the handlers for pushing the wrong arguments is weak. Gore made a series of choices when he emerged on his own as head man in the Democratic Party. His first one was to select Joe Lieberman as his running mate, and if it was a handler who forced him to do so, than that decision was even worse than if it were his own idea. Gore's other choice was to choose his personal "handlers". And ultimately it was Gore's choice all the way through the General Election campaign what advice to follow and what advice to reject from those "handlers".

The buck stops at the top. I can forgive someone for making mistakes a whole lot easier than I can forgive them blaming subordinates for their having made them. It's called accountability, and the failure to embrace it is one of the many aspects that make George W. Bush such a disaster for a President.

[NYCGirl]

31. Obviously, two weeks before election day, Al Gore realized he had been

making a mistake.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. A lot of good that did him

Victories like that aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

[jaysunb]

16. Please wave your magic wand and make it so!

:evilgrin:

[ladjf]

17. That, my colleague, would be the recipe for a sure VICTORY for

America and ALL of it's people, including citizen Republicans. I'm doubtful that the Democratic hopefuls could be that practical and unselfish. But, who knows? America and the world is in an awful jam as a result of the Bushco coup.

[blm]

23. WHY? Did he promise you he'll open the books? Please share.

Want to REALLY talk about being practical and unselfish...or what REALLY allowed the coup by Bushco?


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

>>>>>>>>>
So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.
>>>>>>>>

[FrenchieCat]

30. Damn....now it ain't just the corporate media telling us who to choose!

Far as I'm concerned, Al Gore's "turn" was in 2004.
Why didn't Al Gore run in 2004, anyways?

If Al Gore had been as assertive in 2003 in insisting on his "rightful turn " to run in 2004, as you are about clearing the way for his run in 2008, he could have saved you and us a whole lot of trouble. That's why I know that the "Old" Gore was still alive and kicking in 2002-03 when the Democratic Party Powers-that-be decided whose turn it was. If the "New" Gore had been at his game, he would never have allowed being pushed out of the way (again :eyes:)as he was.

Al Gore is just gonna have to get in line. MY Turn ain't working anymore!It's democracy's Turn in 2008!

Right Now, it's time for everyone to get out of the way, and quit distrating us from keeping our eyes on the Prize by issuing out orders on what's ways away.....We've got an election to win, and it ain't the one in 2008!

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

33. I support Al, he just has to declare his interest

I'm not sure where his heart really is right now. But if he declares, he'll have an army of supporters and fundraisers at the ready.

[MH1]

34. Poppycock. n/t

[TayTay]

37. I don't think so.

Gore would be y 5th or 6th choice among the possibles that are out there. I would back Kerry, Feingold, Clinton, Warner or Clark before him.

[truebrit71]

38. No thanks. Clark 08.

Gore? Love him, groovy guy, but "been there, done that"...

Time for fresh blood....

[dae]

39. I'll second your comments. eom

[Mass]

40. Why bother with a vote? You're right, they should fold to your wishes

and endorse a man who said he did not want to run.

It does not make a lot of sense, but, given we are on DU, no surprise.

[LittleClarkie]

41. Shouldn't he announce he's running first?

Right now, nothing is indicating he wants to do anything of the sort.

[Bucky]

43. No, NO! We don't have time for democracy! This is an emergency!!1!

Forget voting! We have a chance to help candidate X and it'll all work if only all the other candidates shut up and get in line! Oh, you wouldn't understand. Don't you see how debating and arguing and figuring things out in a prearranged schedule of public forums and primaries weakens democracy? We must all surrender our rights to think and fall in lock step with Candidate X. NOW!!1!