Sounds like a presidential speech to me

[wyldwolf]

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622015,00.html

[blm]

1. Agreed - now DNC should come out and pound Giuliani for cheating on his wives.

Isn't that the best way to support a major speech from a Dem candidate?


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1850

[wyldwolf]

3. What I posted was not actually a speech, and the DNC was correct in pounding Bush's guard service

Why is it, blm, that you (attempt) to turn every post into some sort of pissing match with the Clintons?

[blm]

5. Oh - did McAuliffe change his name?

.

[wyldwolf]

6. no, and you haven't changed your tune, either.

[blm]

7. Truth and facts don't change. So the song remains the same

until they do.

"Somebody posts factually inaccurate information? The answer is simple: Post a response and set the record straight."
-Skinner-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3255877&mesg_id=3255901

[wyldwolf]

8. this is the part where you talk about Clinton, cocaine, zombies, and such...

[blm]

9. No - that is YOUR preferred exaggeration used to distract from the basic facts.

.

[wyldwolf]

13. Did you pick up Falwell's anti-Clinton "cocaine conspiracy" tapes this week?

[karynnj]

10. How dare YOU imply that Clinton had anything to do with zombies?

Why are you baiting BLM - who to my knowledge never wrote anything about Clinton and zombies.

[wyldwolf]

11. well, that gets my vote for most hysterical post of the day!

[karynnj]

14. I suggest that this entire sub tread deserves that award

It is pretty transparent what you are attempting to do - and BLM just hit it on the nail. There are utterly bizarre inane lies about the Clintons - I never even heard about the Zombies - as there are about Gore, Teresa and John Kerry, and Obama - to name just a few. And just as there are valid questions that Edwards, Obama and others have to answer, there are questions Hillary may have to repond to - but they don't involve Zombies.

[wyldwolf]

15. well you can thank blm for that one - as usual.

[janx]

2. It's a lot more important than even that, but

I do so hope he runs.

[Clark2008]

4. Well, I wish someone would run I could get behind.

I really am so disillusioned by nearly everyone just now, except for maybe Kucinich, who can't win.

Sigh.

[karynnj]

12. Same here

I would love to feel enthusiastic about a candidate - in the past I've been impressed with multiple possible candidates and the difficulty was picking which one.

I do wish Gore would jump in, but all signs are he isn't. Has Clark been more definate either way. Also, off topic, is Clark aligned involved with the Kerry/Hart/Zinni think tank on national security?

[Adelante]

16. I was wondering the same about that think tank

I haven't heard anything, but thought it's such a good fit.

[SaveElmer]

17. Al Gore is a great guy...but the ONLY scenario I where I see him running...

If there is an enormous groundswell of support based on voter dissatisfaction with the current candidates.

In fact the opposite is true...

Polls consistently show Democratic voters are very happy with this field of candidates, the last poll I saw had it at 60%. Pretty astounding given the usual cynicism politicians are greeted with.

There just isn't a widespread groundswell of support for Gore to get in the race...

And for those around here insisting Hillary drop out because her negatives are higher than the other candidates should be discouraging it as well, Al's negatives are about what Hillary's are currently...

There is just no compelling reason for Al to get in, or for him to believe he would win if he did...