How about a Kerry/Gore ticket?

[elshiva]

[JI7]

1. no

Gore was already vp and wouldn't want to be vp. and none of them would agree to it anyways.

[GRLMGC]

2. Agreed nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. Gore's already been veep

He'd never run at the bottom of a ticket, and I can't say I want him anyway.

[elshiva]

4. Oh, course you don't want Gore

We all know you WANT Kerry.:evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

5. I'd even go Gore/Kerry

If the two of them get together and decide they want to rip it up, I'm behind them, any way they want to do it.

I just do not want any more Clinton centrist bullshit. I do not believe America is as far right as these centrists seem to think it is.

By centrist, I mean we need to find new ways to talk and offer solutions, but our core values is still where America is at.

[TayTay]

6. I agree with that

But it is still too early. I want to see what happens in the Gubernatorial elections next year in key states like NY, FL, OH (and my native MA.) to mention just a few. If we can get Dem Govs in FL and OH, that might mean a better chance for fair elections in those states in '08.

Dems have a chance to clarify themselves to the voters by saying what they believe. There s a great article in this months 'Mother Jones' about values and about Dems strongly articulating there core values, including the idea that some things that are good for society as a whole have a $ sign attached to them. (Some upper income people have to give up some money in order for lower-income people to have a better quality of life.) Dems used to do that all that time and we need to recover that voice.

[sandnsea]

7. Me too

I think all this 2008 talk is a complete waste of time. Anything can happen in 4 years. We've got alot of work to do for the party as a whole that we ought to be focusing on.

[whometense]

9. And me too.

I think we really have to focus on local races in 2006. It's the only logical incremental step.

And I'm with JK on this. I think we need to get brutal. I hope RI decides to can Chafee, who is a terrifically nice guy and a true moderate, if he decides to stay repug. The gloves ARE OFF. Not to mention Mittens. Oooh, I can't wait to campaign against him...

[ginnyinWI]

8. Gore-Kerry? Hmm

There'd be a lot of jockeying for position. I don't know if Kerry would go for running for veep. And are they on the same page, policy-wise? Sometimes I think Gore is further left--if those impassioned speeches tell us anything. He's the emotional one--the one who shows it anyway. There is a real difference in temperament, but that might be a good thing. They've both won the presidency, already, haven't they? It would be poetic justice.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. Well, he used to be really conservative

I dunno, I don't want JK at the bottom of the ticket. Kerry/Gore won't happen, and Gore/Kerry SHOULD'VE happened in 2000. Kerry's my man for the top of the ticket in 2008.

[JI7]

11. Kerry would not accept VP

and i think Kerry likes and gets along with Bill Clinton a lot more than Gore anyways. not on the issues as there are differences but in a personal way.

Gore was VERY conservative and i'm not sure how much he really differs from Clinton. remember , Gore picked Lieberman for vp. and he removed Kerry from the list since he was too liberal and because of his life while in the Senate as a single man.

but i enjoy watching Kerry in the Senate also. especially committees.

[sandnsea]

12. I'm just saying

If Kerry went for it, I'd be behind it.

I don't think Gore is further left than Kerry at all, I just think he was in a position to be more vocal about what Bush was doing. Whereas Kerry knew he was going to be in a position to have to deal with Iraq and it's kind of hard to be radically against the war and then turn around during a Presidential campaign and support a policy of succeeding in Iraq. Kerry had a hard enough time making that case, can you imagine if Howard would have had to try to make it? And success in Iraq was his position too. Success in Iraq was Nader's position for chrissake.

The more I look at this election, the more it seems clear to me that Democratic Party dysfunction lost it. People who supported the "leaders" who said "bring the troops home", but when you look at their actual plans, they don't say that at all. I don't know if it's some form of self-delusion or what, but it sure makes for a confused party message. When people say Kerry's message wasn't clear, it seems to me more that the Democratic Party message wasn't clear and that would be true and still is.

[TayTay]

13. There were reports during the campaign

of Kerry trying to figure out how to differentiate himself from * on Iraq. It always came back to stubborn facts. We are in Iraq. If we pull out of Iraq suddenly, a lot of innocent Iraqis will die. The pullout would make the Middle East even more unstable than it already is and give terrorist groups free reign to set up training camps. Kerry had his 4 point plan to make the situation better, but there wasn't master stroke of inspiration that would solve the problem. (Cuz it doesn't exist.) "What the f*ck am I supposed to do?" was one quote that a reporter attributed to Kerry. I agree.

[sandnsea]

16. I saw a differentiation

The way you go about nation building, bottom up, through NGO's and Iraqi business, not US corporatization. Real international outreach and inclusion. Maybe the campaign just couldn't figure out the words to use to describe it, I don't know.

What pisses me off the most though, is people like Nader who said Kerry supported Bush's war when their solutions weren't any different from Kerry's. Him and others on the left could have helped clarify the differences, instead they chose to lump Kerry in with Bush and Lieberman and that made it all the more confusing.

So now we've got an Iraq vote and the left doesn't seem to know what to say because they can't seem to find a justification for "bring the troops home" anymore; when the real issue has always been US imperialism and puppet regimes and US corporatization, at least to me. It never should have been an issue of dealing with rogue regimes, it always should have been the how of it, like Kerry tried to make it.

[ginnyinWI]

15. true

I've been saying on various threads that so much depends on the Democratic party clarifying its identity to the public. We need to give the media something easy to work with, 'cause they sure aren't going to do it for us the right way.

A lot of what happens from here on out depends so much on the DNC and Dean, and the high ranking Dems in Congress to get out a clear message. So far, signs look hopeful. Bush didn't run alone--he ran in the context of a strong and unified party message. They can put up a crappy candidate and still win! We need to do the same for our candidates, then we can win, because our values are mainstream, and our candidates are better!

[rox63]

14. Kerry was on the short list

As a possible running mate for Gore in 2000. He would have been such a better choice than Joementum Loserman. :eyes:

[ginnyinWI]

17. I wonder if Gore has had second thoughts about it

They would have been good. Had they won, we would have had a great team, probably for two terms. Then Kerry for two more! Oh I can dream, anyway. Kerry would have made a good running mate, and deserved it, after all the support he had for Clinton's initiatives. Those two could have taken over from the Clinton administration without missing a beat. Everybody was running scared to the right at that time, and I think that's why Gore picked Joe.