Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DLC blog speculating on Gore run in '08

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
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:02 PM
Original message
DLC blog speculating on Gore run in '08
Most of the potential '08 Democratic contenders either supported the decision to go to war in Iraq or oppose an early withdrawal. However, it is clear that many in the liberal base of the party favor an early pull out. Nature and politics abhor a vacuum, and an explicit anti-war candidate is likely to emerge.

Besides Senator Feingold, General Clark is the only other likely candidate who explicitly opposed the war. With his military credentials, he could be the ideal "dovish" contender.

However, one major player is rarely mentioned in the 2008 Democratic sweepstakes - Al Gore... Since the 2000 campaign, Gore has generally identified with the left. He has used the vehicle of MoveOn to deliver several blistering attacks on the Bush Administration. Gore came out early against the Iraq intervention. He has voiced the criticisms of the left against the Patriot Act. No potential candidate can match his credentials as someone who has both served as Vice President and actually won the popular vote for President.

It is quite likely that a President Gore would have come to blows with Saddam in the aftermath of 9/11. In the past, Gore was a strong supporter of the use of American power whether it was in the first Gulf War or Kosovo. As a Congressman, Senator and Vice President, Gore was always identified with the hawkish wing of the party.

But times have changed as has the former Veep. Gore must now see this vacuum on the left and view it as inviting. Nixon waited eight years for his comeback. After two terms of Bush, might Gore think his time has come?

more...

http://www.bullmooseblog.com /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh lord no, I certainly hope not
I was an Al Gore supporter in 2000. In fact, when A LOT of DU'ers were trashing Al Gore in the wake of the 2000 election (don't even TRY to deny it), I was one of his few defenders.

But the Democrats need a new face. And yes, that means I don't want Hillary as our candidate either. Let's leave political dynasties to the Republican Party. I'd much rather see someone like Mark Warner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celeborn Skywalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. What about Wes Clark?
I think he'd do well in the general election. I agree with you that Mark Warner would be another good choice for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. He'd have been a good choice for 2004, but I think his time has passed
Besides, I wasn't particularly impressed with his 2004 campaign. He looked great on paper, but he had quite a few self-inflicted wounds on the campaign trail, including associating himself with Michael Moore. If Moore REALLY wanted to do Wes a favor, he'd have stayed as far away as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. 4 MONTHS in a campaign ......and Wes' time has passed?
You are incorrect, Dolstein.....Wes associating himself with Michael Moore was not a mistake. The "mistake" is committed by those Democrats who run away from Michael Moore because the GOP and their media tells them so. Those who are too afraid to stand up for what's right.

Next, you'll be saying that Clark blew it when he acknowledged that he was a liberal (and didn't run away from the word)....or when he refused to diss Howard Dean. Maybe he made a mistake opposing the War too.....or that '04 was a national security's election, and so will '08 for that matter.

Problem with pansy wanzy Democrat rank and file....is that they allow the media and the GOP to define what is right and what is wrong for Democrats.

That's why we will be left with a Senator "the media's doing it for me" Hillary Clinton or a Governor "almost 1992 but oogly with no foreign experience" Warner Candidate - Cause we let others determine who we are, and what we represent.

If Warner is such a great candidate....why don't any of us know his stance on any foreign policy issue.

How is that good?

I say.....BOO!

you say.....scared.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. Wes Clark would make a super Secretary of Defense, but no Prez
After Rummy has trashed the military, Clark would be the most qualified person to be Secretary of Defense and rebuild the troops morale and engineer the military for 21st century conflicts. By 2009, Clark may have passed the 10 years out of the military tha is a mandatory requirement for Sec. of Defense.

Clark doesn't have the Dem Party credentials that Al Gore has. If Clark really wanted to be the Dem Nominee for Prez, he'd have gone right into running for civilian political office after he left the military. But he didn't. He enjoys being a prima donna on Faux and the impression I get from him is that he views the Presidency as the Prima donna of a TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Your impressions
Don't impress me.

Too many pieces of shit of politicians are "purists"....and look where it got us.

Your analysis is poor AND predictable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. My analysis has been consistant on Clark. If you don't like it, too bad
but I'm sticking with it and I don't care if Clark supporters don't like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Except your analysis is based on incorrect assumptions.
As former military, Clark isn't allowed to serve as Def Sec for 10 years upon retirement; therefore, he CANNOT be Def Sec until 2010, two years AFTER the 2008 elections.

You can stick with your analysis, but you'd better do some checking up on the law regarding military leaders in civilian cabinet positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. I knew it was 10 years. I just couldn't remember when he retired from the
Armed Forces.

That's too bad for Clark. Sec. of Defense was the only major post I'd consider him qualified for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Except that he can't be secretary of defense until 2010.
So.. I'd rather have him president in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. I think Clark would make a great President
and we're all agreed he can't be SecDef. I don't think his track record is strong enough to convince the public that he's presidential material yet, and that's why I like the idea of him being a cabinet member. ooes that law preclude him from that as well? I know he can't be in the DefDept. but he would make a good Dep. Sec of St or Security Advisor. I don't know if the latter is Defense Dept though.

I know you and the rest of the Clarkies think he's imminently qualified, and I agree with much of your analysis, I just don't see the public buying into that line of thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ksclematis Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
54. Yes, but.... (Message misplaced in order-s/b after Warner))
Edited on Sun Jul-31-05 10:10 PM by ksclematis
Mark Warner doesn't have the credentials: no foreign policy experience and NO MILITARY experience, which in my opinion are two of the most important qualifications for POTUS at this time.

I'd like to see Wes Clark at 1600 PA Ave....We really need to have an intelligent (who can think for himself) strategist (no Karl Rove), and who has had a great deal of leadership experience (i.e. Warner: 1-time Gov.of not-too-politically-critical state -- no offense to Virginians!).

As far as being a politician is concerned, one doesn't get to be a 4-star, SACEUR, without having political savvy. He even won a war, of which we hear very little, without losing a single American. He's got budgeting experience in Pentagon, as well as current consultant to Pelosi & H. Reid, plus bags full of other credentials.....

He's da man!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Mark who?
I'm going to drop my usual ideological bent in responding to you, Mr. Dolstein, and take this one from a purely pragmatic view. Most people don't know anything about Mark Warner. I know that he's a Democrat and the Governor of Virginia; that qualifies me as a news junkie. It's more that most people know about him. It's about all I know about him.

Now, I'm sure Governor Warner has many fine qualities as a candidate. Obviously, he is a Democrat capable of getting votes in a burgundy-red state; that's nothing to sneeze at.

I decided that I would provide a photo of Governor Warner for this post.




It should be noted that when I googled on "Mark Warner" that the official website of the Governor of Virginia, from which the above photo is taken, came up third, behind two links to a British travel agency named Mark Warner, Ltd. I didn't check to see if it has any relationship with our Mark Warner, but I doubt it.

One of the problems Governor Warner would face, as well as would any other "fresh face", is that the Republican attack machine is very good about defining someone's personality long before that person is able to do so himself. Much of what the GOP attack machine will say will be news to to a lot of people. A lot of it will probably even be news to Governor Warner. That's the way the GOP attack machine operates.

That would make a case for a more familiar face, although not necessaily an air-tight one.

It's really too soon to seriously discuss who the Democrats should nominate in 2008. Perhaps long before then, Governor Warner will gain some name recognition and develop a persona that will give him some kind of shield from the whatever of vicious lies the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove wannabes are going to throw at him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Most people didn't know who Bill Clinton was in 1989
and those who did probably knew him from his incredibly long-winded keynote address at the 1988 Convention.

The point is, name recognition, especially at this early stage, doesn't count for much. If it did, Joe Lieberman would have swept the 2004 primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Response

Most people didn't know who Bill Clinton was in 1989 and those who did probably knew him from his incredibly long-winded keynote address at the 1988 Convention.

This is true. However, Clinton's victory in 1992 had a great deal to do with President Bush defeating himself. We saw how the GOP attack machine worked and it had something real to work with. Of course, when they don't have something real to work with, they'll just make it up.

The point is, name recognition, especially at this early stage, doesn't count for much. If it did, Joe Lieberman would have swept the 2004 primaries.

I'm not going to disagree with the first sentence. However, the 2004 Democratic primaries were won by a man of whom I have been aware much longer than I have been aware of Mr. Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't think he's calculating and positioning
I think he's finally out from under his political legacy re: his parents.

I think losing in 2000 changed him. I don't think he's filling a hole in a calculated manner.

But he will have an uphill battle. Just yesterday, I heard someone, on a sports show I think, making comments about how Gore claimed to have invented the internet.

One problem: he never said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Never said it!
But he did do a *lot* of footwork in Congress to get the original funding bill for DarpaNet through. Think he was sponsor, too. Gore is an Internet hero for that alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. I would vote/campaign for Gore. he is no....you know who. as for clark
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 05:26 PM by msongs
how bout vice president?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I'd vote for a Gore/Clark ticket over anything being pushed by the DLC ...
...at the moment (Bayh/Hillary/Plagarizing MBNA PNAC boy, etc.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
31. Why does everyone want to put Clark in charge of the senate
and a senator in charge of the military?

This makes no sense!

:grr:

(I'd rather have a "hair-pulling-out" smilie instead of the mad one, but it was the closest one at hand.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. do you suppose they would talk to each other?? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Clark can be secretary of defense if you prefer.
But I said VP, because it's the most logical way for Clark to get to the White House someday. He's not going to walk in there with no elected experience, and you guys need to face that reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. He can't be Def Sec, either.
You need to read up on that law. A person serving as Def. Sec. has to have been out of the military for 10 years, mimimum. Clark is not eligible to be Def. Sec. until 2010, two years after the 2008 election.

He's already served as CinC in the European theater and served as the adjunct "governor" of the thousands of NATO troops, having to go to Congress to get money for their roads, schools and living quarters. Personally, I think, as a result of this, he has more executive experience than any senator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. So is this a warning to the DLC to get their Gore-bashing machines ready?
Because I know they aren't reporting this to endorse him ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Al Gore's his own worst enemy
Honestly, I don't think the DLC is losing any sleep over this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. You mean that after all your historical posts yesterday.....
...you can't see a "Nixon 68" style comeback for Big Al??

It could actually work MORE to Gore's favor than it did to Nixon's. Tricky Dick's fans couldn't even point to 8 awful years caused by his opponent. One, because his opponent was dead, two, because aside from the obvious of the Vietnam War, the 60's weren't all that bad.

Any Democratic candidate in 2008 can (and probably will) use the line "Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago?" and know what any honest person would answer. But Al Gore is the only one who can add to that line "Now can you really deny I can do better than that" - or some other words to that effect.

Obviously the DLC'ers won't agree with this, but the Al Gore who has delivered the kick ass speeches of the last few years would have blown the stiff and wooden Al Gore of 2000 off the campaign stage. Let alone that bumbling chimp. And it's the "new improved" Al Gore whom I believe would be a great candidate. Give him Clark as a VP and you'll even pull in those mythical moderates you guys are always whining about ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
12. Better Gore than Hillary or some other DLC puke
After all, Gore did win Florida in 2000, and it was the DLC that told the Democratic Senators to not join the Congressional Black Caucus in challenging the Florida electors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
36. Gore, Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin were the most pro-corp people
in the Clinton administration. I haven't read a single book about the Clinton administration -- and I'm thinking most specifically of Stiglitz's Roaring Nineties and Clinton's SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt's book -- which doesn't put Gore way over in the right wing of the party.

If your measure is that the candidate isn't a DLC puke, you couldn't go more wrong than Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #36
48. Gore rejected the DLC and has done a tremendous job of rehabilitating
himself and promoting a populist agenda, especially in regards to the environment.

Gore was never anti-business nor anti-union. He believed that business could work for the good of the country, not just for their bottom line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Gore doesn't have blood on his hands due to IWR, PATRIOT, etc
Many of the potential candidates in '08 that voted for IWR and PATRIOT are still unrepentant and are now advocates of the "stay the course" path in Iraq that will result in more unnecessary American and Iraqi deaths.

Let's nominate someone that is not tainted, and Gore has redeemed himself once he was no longer joined at the hip with that neocon running mate of his, Holy Joe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Two things about that:
(1) That doesn't mean that Gore wouldn't have voted for them if he had been in a position of power and had a vote. Bill Clinton practically called Gore a hypocrite on CSPAN for publicly coming out against the war after being one of the people in his administration who wanted to attack Iraq based on evidence available at the time.

(2) Gore's own father probably voted for Tonkin Gulf Resolution and was later praised for being anti-war, which sort of defeats the logic of your claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. Bill Clinton the womanizer calls Gore a hypocrite!!
Bill must have been looking in the mirror when he said that.

Gore gave VERY good reasons why the 2002 Iraq War was wrong. Bill Clinton is a womanizing lout who is really only in love with himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #57
62. and Bill Clinton wants to get back to the White House
by getting Hillary elected President.

Let's get real, this is the same Bill Clinton that bombed Iraq for 8-years to soften it for a future invasion, and he is the one that brought us Plan Colombia.

Gore remained loyal to Bill, and Bill is only loyal to his pecker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Bill wants to get near the Oval Office again so he can chase the intern's
skirts again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #57
64. If Bill Clinton claimed he didn't have a problem with marital fidelity
then it would have been fine for Gore to criticize him.

Gore, however, claimed the war was wrong, and it was fine for Clinton to point out that in cabinet meetings Gore was arguing for a military solution to the problem in Iraq based on evidence that was available prior to January 2001.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Why should we believe Bill Clinton's word on Gore?
Bill is a proven LIAR.

Gore is no dove and favored a strong response to Saddam, who had invaded Kuwait and was a brutal dictator. I have no problem with being tough on dictators. Whether Gore favored invading Iraq during the Clinton term or not, I don't know. I'm sure he mulled over it. That would not surprise me, but the Clinton-Gore Admin didn't invade Iraq because they must have known that the occupation would cause more problems than it would solve. Bush I knew that, so Clinton and Gore must have too, though I'm sure Lieberman and Chalabi and the PNAC crowd tried to make convincing arguments otherwise.

If Gore did favor an invasion during that term, then why did he make such a great case opposing it in his great speech on Sep 23, 2002? It would have been eaiser to follow the DLC mantra of war, but Gore did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Because Clinton was his boss, and because there were many people
in the room listening to Gore argue for war and I haven't heard any of them come forward and say Clinton's impression of Gore's position was wrong, and because everything I've read about Gore confirms that what Clinton has said is accurate.

What Gore did in September 2002 is for Gore to explain. But if you wonder why he did it, just look around DU at the people who want him to run for president as an anti-war, anti-DLC populist -- three things he never was before 2002 and probably really still isn't now. Gore needs a political conviction transplant in order to be politically viable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Gore never said he was anti-war. He just opposed the 2002 Iraq War
and gave very good reasons as to why.

As far as Clinton, bosses have been known to lie about their subordinates, and of course Clinton's allies will have motivation to either spread the lies or remain silent about them, which gives those lies consent. They want to ride the Clinton coat tails into the White House.

Bill Clinton has motivation to lie. He wants his wife to be President so he can be near the Oval office again, and he'll do anything to clear the way for her, which could be a good reason why Gore doesn't think he'll be a candidate again. Clinton is ruthless and HAS NO MORAL PRINCIPLES. He's as addicted to power as Bush & Cheney are.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. That is a fantasy. Read Stiglitz's Roaring Nineties and then
try to convince yourself that Gore wasn't more interested in Wall Street than Main Street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
14. Your signature rocks wyldwolf.
The whole thing. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. thank you very much!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
15. Whoever becomes the democratic candidate
Has my 100% support.

Even if it's someone that I really don't like, such as Hillary.

I will be involved in gotv.
Be out and about, and not just on the internets.
I will do all that I can to make sure it happens this time.
I can't go thru another loss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. "whoever becomes the Democratic Candidate" better
be ready to fight and kick many asses .....That's what I say!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Fucking hurt, didn't it
still does.

Do they get any better? This was my first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
20. I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but...
I could actually get behind this. *If* he were able and willing to a) come out strongly *against* the war and b) *for* a clearly articulated and easy-to-understand Plan for his 4-8 years as well as c) a even easier-to-understand and clearly articulated moral position from which his positions are rooted. All of which would require d) a complete persona makeover, which apparently he's actually gone a good way towards in the past few years, and e) a take-no-prisoners campaign manager that has *only* been involved in WINNING campaigns.

oh yeah, and to a lesser extent, but still important, f) a *good* running mate.

after all, with our microscopic attention spans, a runner-up after 4 years is out of fashion; but 8 years practically takes you into revival/nostalgia territory. We do like a successful comeback. Emphasis on successful. Which depends heavily on change and luck.

anyway, i'd certainly far rather him than Kerry again. or Hillary for that matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Here is the link to Al Gore's Sep 23, 2002 speech against Bush's Iraq War
and pre-emptive strike doctrine.

Iraq and the War On Terrorism, Sep 23, 2002 http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&t...

This was a much anticipated speech at the time for those of us in the anti-Iraq war movement. Gore gave us the senior stateman's opinion of why the US should not invade Iraq. Also, remember, Gore did NOT have access to top secret information at this time, so his opinion in this speech assumed that Saddam still had some WMD, but they were not in a state of imminent deployment. Gore feard at this time that an invasion would bring chaos and terrorists could get hands on vials biological weapons that could be mass produced and used against the West later.

Contrary to Bullmoose's assumption that Gore would have sparred with Saddam in open conflict, this speech shows that Gore as President would most likely have continued US containment policies. Lieberman may have spent time pressuring Gore to invade and take out Saddam, but Gore's line of reasoning in the speech tells me that Gore would not have believed Chalabi's lies. Remember, Lieberman thought Chalabi, the convicted embezzler of Jordan, was an honorable man.

Also, Gore explained why he supported the 1991 Gulf War -- Saddam invaded one of our allies and had to be pushed back. Contrary to Bullmoose, that's not the reasoning of an ideological hawk, but a senator, who based his vote upon sound judgement and the fact that Bush I did secure UN and our allies' help and approval before launching the invasion.


Here is another speech made earlier in 2002 about Gore's view on how to combat Islamic terrorism and extremism A Commentary on the War Against Terror: Our Larger Tasks, Feb. 12, 2002 http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&t...

I much prefer Gore's view of combating terrorism while at the same time offering an "olive branch" to Muslims opposed to Islamic extremists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
53. I imagine that all of that would happen. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
21. The DLC is only interested in Class war against working people
They have proven it time and time again with their votes. They vote for the Bankruptcy Act, they vote for NAFTA, for CAFTA, they vote for war in Iraq and tell us we need to "stay the course". They only goal is to reduce the US working people into serfdom for the corporations and the banks. They are collaborators with the Republicans, propping up the illusion that they are somehow different. They are LAUGHING AT THE WORKING PEOPLE, thinking that we have no choice. Half of this country doesn't even bother to vote because they feel that no one represents them, and they are absolutely right. Instead of appealing to wishy washy centrists that don't stand for anything, they should address the issues that really matter to working people, then maybe people will begin voting again. However I don't think anyone is listening, least of all the RIGHT WING DEMOCRATS that call themselves the DLC.
Fuck em all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
22. Al Gore is my #1 choice for 2008
He's done a great job rehabilitating his political image amongst progressives. David Podvin gives a progressive reason why Al Gore should be enouraged to run by Progressives in this June 2005 piece Resurrection http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/050609_Resur...

Environmentalist magazine, Grist, has an excellent article on Gore's improved public image Esprit de Gore http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/06/09/little-gore /

Al Gore won the Nashua Advocate 2008 Prez nomination poll http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/05/nashua-advoc... Gore beat Hillary by a significant margin in the semi-finals of this poll.

Yesterday's St. Petersburg Times (story is archived now so I don't have a link) talked about Gore's TV Channel and actually praised Gore

Al Gore's TV revolution Series: EDITORIALS

Scheduled to debut Monday, Current's format seems impossibly simple. Reasoning that its age-18-to-34 target audience already is living in a high-velocity, on-demand media universe, 's channel will offer bite-sized video packages no more than seven to 10 minutes long, allow viewers to submit pieces of their own and vote on their favorite amateur video online.

It isn't often that a politician who has come within a Supreme Court decision of the White House can thoroughly reinvent himself. But with his new youth-oriented, populist TV news and information channel, dubbed Current TV, former Vice President Al Gore has made an ambitious start.

Scheduled to debut Monday, Current's format seems impossibly simple. Reasoning that its age-18-to-34 target audience already is living in a high-velocity, on-demand media universe, Gore's channel will offer bite-sized video packages no more than seven to 10 minutes long, allow viewers to submit pieces of their own and vote on their favorite amateur video online.

One of the channel's slogans makes the ambitious pledge to turn TV into a two-way conversation. And Gore, facing the public without a tie or any willingness to talk politics, has emerged as the unlikeliest of faces for a channel trying to make the video musings of unknown twentysomethings not only hip, but revolutionary.

Gore has morphed from a political punch line to the man aiming to end TV As We Know It. Not a bad perch for a guy seeking the kind of sweeping change as a media executive he never achieved as a politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
61. He's been my top choice all along. Run Al. Run!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
28. Gore/Feingold.. ..Feingold/Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
33. Run Gore, run!
That'd be great! He's really evolved into quite the warrior. I can't imagine the DLC would be too thrilled with him. He's offended many a Rethug over the last few years and DLC tends to frown on that sort of thing.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
35. Al Gore despises the DLC.
Didn't Al Gore endorse and publicly support the Anti-DLC candidate in the Democratic Primaries?

I would vote for Al Gore before I would vote for a Corporate mouthpiece wearing a donkey suit.

It is pathetic that DLC promoters cling to the images of Al Gore and Bill Clinton, neither of which are Representative of the DLC. The images of Will Marshall and Al Fromm would be more representative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. To me, Gore embodies DLC.
He supported Dean, whom the DLC knocked not because of what Dean believed in but because of how Dean campaigned. Dean was a member of the DLC while he was Governor and was chair of the committee responsible for recruiting and advising governor candidates.

Dean also was a utilities privatizer while governor.

He was DLC enough for VT, it was just that the DLC didn't think he could win a national campaign for demographic and stylistic reasons, but not for policy reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. Exactly! It was a stylistic difference! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sundancekid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. thanks for the much needed reminder about how Dean governed at center
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #38
69. Link to dean as member of DLC I call BS on your assertion
Yes, dean was the chair of the board of governors. That is not a DLC committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourStarDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
41. Gore recently described himself as a 'recovering politician'.
He said that he is out of politics for good. This is from an interview taken with him for a an article published earlier this month in the NY Times on Gore's involvement with his new television network targeted to the 18-34 yr-old demographic. Sorry that I don't have the link to the article, but it is archived with the Times. Gore basically said that he loves what he's doing now and he's finished with politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. I'd like a link to the exact quote where Gore said he's finished with
politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourStarDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Fortunately the article is still up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/business/media/25gore...

Some excerpts:

For all his channel's innovations, though, Mr. Gore's effort to reinvent himself as a media entrepreneur - "I think of myself as a recovering politician, and I'm on about Step 9," he said in an interview last week - may prove his hardest challenge since running for the presidency.

(snip...)

"He's really funny," said Laura Ling, 28, a producer and reporter for Current who formerly worked for Channel One, the network seen in schools. "When I go home at night, I tell my husband, 'Isn't it weird I work with Al Gore?' "

The person who seems least surprised is Mr. Gore himself. Asked if he had ruled out running for office in the future, he said: "I don't expect to ever be a candidate again."

He added, "I've not reached the point in my life where I would say there's a zero percent chance. But I truly don't expect it."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. He said that he didn't expect to be a candidate but he didn't rule it out
That may be why David Podvin said that progressives should encourage Gore to run and support him; else what we have are longshot anti-war candidates and war criminal Dems to choose from, and yes, Hillary is a war criminal Dem because she supports the Iraq venture. If Hillary is the nominee, she will be tongue-tied over Iraq, just like Kerry was. She's banking on people being tired of the Repuke regime to win the White House, but once inside the WH she'll continue the PNAC agenda, aka the PPI agenda.

Gore knows that he won't get the DLC backing, so the only group who could make a pitch and support him over the DLC is a coalition of progressives who want a viable anti-war candidate who has extensive experience in government. The only one who really fits that bill is Al Gore.

Gore will always be a politician. Just like alchololics can't really be free of their addiction, neither can Gore be free of politics.

The feature film that Gore is working on and will be released at the end of this year could go a long way to determining if progressives should support Gore. That and the 2006 elections may determine if Gore wants to run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
45. Al Gore is my choice for the democratic nominee. i'll work on his campaign
gore knows and understands america's current needs better than anyone in the country.

he's the best pilot we have on this river.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. !
I'd not have thought. Maybe I've forgotten something.

We should get together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. Al's a Deadhead, what more is needed?
actually I think he can connect more than anyone else with the average citizen who thinks government has a lot more to do to help folk other than provide tax cuts to millionaires.

if you saw him giving his Move-on speeches he was hellfire and brimstone, controlled outrage at the rape of this country at the hands of the busheviks. translate that to the campaign stump and we have the best speaker and advocate for the average american since mario cuomo spoke in SF in 84.

i would like to see a Gore/Clark ticket. I think hillary clinton as the nominee will wreck the party. she is just like her husband, always ready to make a deal while those who need help most wind up sucking on hind teat. if she runs, expect a lot of liberals to give up on the democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. heh - I forgot the Dead connection.
:D

Gore was actually winning me over just before he dropped out of the nomination race two years ago. It'd be an interesting thing to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatchWhatISay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
56. Gore would be fine with me
But I hope he wouldnt run as the DLC candidate, or I would have to think again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doremus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
58. I'd support Gore
In fact I can't think of anyone right now who would be a better candidate.

As a poster upthread noted, 8 years is a long time, especially with the junta in charge. Rather than being thought of as a loser (which would have been the case last year), I think this time Gore's image would resonate back to an era that most people would give anything to go back to. Pre-9/11, peace, prosperity, cooperative government, etc. etc.

Hard to beat a positive connotation like that. Give him a strong military running mate (Clark), and they'd kick some repig ass, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 05:01 AM
Response to Original message
59. Rootin' for a Gore comeback
I just wanna add my voice to those of Larkspur and others who are looking at Al Gore as the best candidate for 2008.

Right now it is still too early for potential candidates to be talking about running. It does not make sense to formally enter the race at this point. And there is no way of saying that you would run, without effectively starting up your campaign.

If Gore decides to run for President then he is very unlikely to say anything definite in public until January 2007.

Personally - I really hope he does run. Al Gore has been proved right on Iraq, on the PATRIOT act, on the environment and climate change, on the budget deficit and on every other issue that matters.

But the conditions would have to be right for Al Gore to enter the race. He would have to know that the "mainstream" (in the positive sense) in the Democratic Party was moving in his direction.

Many bloggers and commentators have already noted that Al Gore would be in a strong position to rally the support of democrats (the progressive majority) who believe that Bush lied about Iraq.

My dream ticket: GORE BOXER 2008

www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net /
http://www.pacforachange.com /
www.boxer2008.com

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
63. President Gore & the "aftermath of 9/11"...
Let us not mention that 9/11 might not have happened under Gore. That would be controversial--we'd risk being "marginalized."

I'd support Gore in a minute.
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 Thu Oct 19th 2017, 10:35 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