Who would be the stronger nominee in '08--Gore or Kerry?

[WI_DEM]

Poll question: Who would be the stronger nominee in '08--Gore or Kerry?

Both ran before and Gore won the popular vote and had the votes been allowed to be counted in Florida he would have won the electoral vote. There is strong evidence that Kerry won the electoral vote in '04 but the Republicans stole Ohio thanks to Blackwell and company.

Both seem to be at the top of their game today. In your opinion if it came down to Gore and Kerry who do you think would be the strongest candidate in '08?

[truebrit71]

1. Neither. Both are used goods.

We need new blood.

[blm]

9. The one who we can trust WILL open the books on BushInc -

new blood or old blood - that's the only person who will TRULY move this nation and world PAST what BushInc has wrought upon it for the last 50 years.

Anything less is COSMETIC.

[baldguy]

40. That's what they said about Nixon after 1960.

[Phredicles]

2. Gore has shown us with "An Inconvenient Truth" that he has a cause

and one the people can believe in, too.

I am much more impressed by the Senator Kerry of 2006 than I ever was by the Candidate Kerry of 2004. Maybe he can have another go some day if he keeps this up, but after Gore would be my preference.

[blm]

16. And Kerry's cause has been anti-corruption and open government for 21 yrs.

.

[Phredicles]

47. Honorable and necessary, no question, but I believe that at present

coming to grips with our environmental crisis is an even more necessary cause, and one that will resonate more readily with the public at large as we continue to have more and more climate-driven calamities and pollution-induced incidents such as the recent E. Coli outbreak.

I'll take a leap of faith that either would also strive to hold the gang who deprived them of the office they earned accountable.

[blm]

48. Environmentalists are quite familiar with the records of ALL lawmakers and

I don't think they have trouble supporting either one on that count. Kerry ended up with the highest enviro-score of any senator or presidential candidate. Both Gore and Kerry had input on Kyoto.

Gore's just had 4yrs to focus on the one issue above all else. But, Kerry has been a leading lawmaker on environmental issues and was one of the Mass. founders of Earth Day. His creds go way back.

[ms liberty]

3. Al Gore - Al Gore - Al Gore!

I could go into all the reasons why, but we have this discussion all the time here on DU - I would be repeating myself, and parroting lots of other DU'ers!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Surely that should be "ex-president Gore"?

He clearly didn't win the 2004 election, after all.

[WI_DEM]

7. On the other hand, I could argue that had Gore been allowed to

be president he would have been a candidate for re-election in '04 and would have been re-elected. I'll call them both "president".

[dkofos]

5. Neither

[sutz12]

6. Neither...

They are the past. I'd like some new blood.

Right now, I'm thinking Clark.

[Beelzebud]

8. Neither, unless we want to just keep losing.

We need NEW LEADERSHIP.

[mopinko]

10. how about stfu with these polls

diversionary bullshit. sowing acrimony and doing nothing else.

[WI_DEM]

11. how about stfu and not participating if you don't want to

so far this has been a very respectful thread until you showed up.

[WinkyDink]

12. Doesn't anybody remember Nixon? Seems THAT damaged goods managed

eventually to win the WH---twice.

[WI_DEM]

13. If you are a Gore supporter the Nixon analogy makes sense

In '60 Nixon narrowly lost the presidency. He sat out '64 and then came back in '68 with the country involved in an unpopular war and domestic strife.

[blm]

18. You have a strong memory. You should list both Gore and Kerry's strengths

and the efforts that both have taken on over the last 30+ years they have been in the public eye and maybe that would be a better thread for people to learn AND comment about two good public servants.

[William769]

14. Gore would wipe the floor with Kerry.

[blm]

15. On what issue?

.

[William769]

20. We will start with being a Statesman.

[blm]

23. Circumstance BOTH dealt with - Gore showed statesmanship in debates that

Kerry did not?

A statesman chooses to investigate song lyrics while a lesser lawmaker chooses to investigate government corruption and terrorist banks?

Can you please add what prompts your conclusions?

[Beelzebud]

22. Any issue. How many years would it take Kerry to respond?

[blm]

24. Give an example of how both deal with the same issue under similar

circumstances. They were both in the senate together for some time - what battles did they choose to take on?

[blm]

25. CIA drugrunning - Kerry worked to expose it. Clinton-Gore did ...........

fill in the blank.

And we all know that NOTHING going on today has ANYTHING to do with the drugrunning the CIA was doing for all those years, right?

[mtnester]

17. Gore/Clark

perfect combo

[Protagoras]

19. I worry neither can overcome what the media would do with them

But I prefer Gore by a mile as a citizen of the world. On the other hand in the ocean of American politics I think Kerry is better positioned. My hunch is the media would beat Kerry with a smaller stick...not that they'd let him win in the end. But he wouldn't be slandered as much.

Both had obscene things done to them in their elections. Gore won and we know it. But for some reason the idiots on TV think its witty to twist Gore into knots. It's the sickest, most absurd and anti-truth, anti-democratic, anti-American thing I have seen but they just don't give a damn. And even on Global Warming, most of the reports almost have a twitter when they talk about Gore.

Kerry on the other hand is still "institutional". They may mock him for being a New Englander or being morose or even swift boat him, but he's somewhat safe. He doesn't make us think about the whole planet and how amazingly screwed up the world is. So I think he gets MORE of a pass than Gore.

Still, both have already shown the media Vulnerability...and so both would be grist for the mill.

And that is a shame. Because either would improve things immensely.

Still they are not the only fish in the pond. Feingold, Clark, and some others who haven't even shown yet can all offer us something. There are candidates I DO NOT want. But there are many that I'll accept at this point if the alternative is 4 more years of Neocon evil.

[blm]

29. Exposing IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning didn't effect the world?

Institutional? Kerry was OSTRACIZED in DC for years because most of DC was against his investigations into IranContra and BCCI. Including many establishment Democrats who tried to stop him throughout the FIVE YEARS he worked to expose the terror bank.

Had Clinton-Gore administration not closed the books on IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning when they took office there would have been NO 9-11 and NO Iraq war today.

[soul kitchen]

21. Al Gore

Our Country is on a downward spiral. We need a leader who is honest and can truly speak to the people. We need a leader that will empower the people, not scare the crap out of them.

Our Country needs Al Gore.

[newyawker99]

30. Hi soul kitchen!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Balbus]

26. Gore without a doubt.

[mmonk]

27. Our freedom is being lost now. '08 seems quite irrelevant.

That being said, I'd go with Gore.

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. I'd like all the Gore fans to explain why they feel Gore would be stronger

Kerry has come out swinging on every recent issue, and has attacked Bush and the neocon agenda even as he's presenting his own agenda.

Gore made a movie about global warming. While important, I fail to see how that makes him a better "statesman." One issue vs. about a dozen - it's a no contest to me who is more well-rounded and ready to fight.

[JNelson6563]

37. You've missed much

Every speech Gore has made since 2000 he has been a real warrior. Each speech's main focus has been on something different and if you had heard them you wouldn't be parroting this misinformation. He's covered so much more than the enivornment and done so passionately.

With all of that said I think Gore and Kerry are equals on many levels. Both would be excellent statesmen, are very intelligent and could be good Presidents. Where I see them part ways is as candidates. Gore's won the popular vote (undeniably) and was still denied the WH he rightfully won. He's been fearless in all of his statements and often said things nobody else was willing to say at the time.

Gore acts more like a man who faced death and no longer fears it than Kerry does.

Peace--
Julie

[janx]

44. Gore WAS vice president for eight years--

and that was after his 16 years in the House and Senate.

Besides, Kerry just ran! I like the man and respect him, but I don't think the public would relish a repeat in such a short period of time.

[drm604]

31. Gore.

It appears that his movie was at least partly responsible for changing public attitudes about global warming. To me this shows that, when he tries, he can influence people and win their trust.

[Totallybushed]

32. They both lost.

Please. Spare me the discussion about "stolen elections". I agree with you. But Bush is in the White House, and neither one of them are. They don't have the drive, or whatever it is that it takes, and the Dems need somebody new.

[LSK]

33. Kenneth Blackwell? Katherine Harris? is that you??

[blm]

34. The Dems need a PARTY INFRASTRUCTURE that secures the election system

throughout the four years they are charged with that task between presidential elections.

Blaming the candidsates who did their job and won only dustracts from the real failure of the election infrastructure that was supposed to secured by the DNC and its office of Voter Integrity.

Changing the name on the top of the ticket isn't the problem. Both Gore and Kerry CAN win - they both did. The DNC was too weak state by state to get the votes they earned counted.

[LSK]

36. and to do so, we need Democratic Sec of States

Democratic state legislatures and Democratic local candidates winning - EVERYWHERE.

This is what Howard Dean COMPLETELY understands and this is key to his 50 state strategy.

[blm]

46. Both Gore and Kerry win, IF the DNC does ITS job. So, either would be fine

As an anti-corruption, open government Democrat I want the books opened up on BushInc once and for all, because the lies HAVE TO STOP.

So far, Kerry is the lawmaker I trust most to do that. Gore has not yet sold me on a desire for open government.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

35. Gore

This country is nostalgic for the Clinton years. Gore is the closest we can get. He's matured a lot in the past 8 years.

[Thickasabrick]

38. Gore - He already won once

[VOX]

39. Gore would be stronger, especially with Clark as a VP candidate...

A Gore-Clark ticket would be incredibly strong, IMO. They have the leadership credentials, the experience, and the know-how.

Right-wing deep-pockets will be going after any Democratic candidate, but Gore and Clark would both project a strong image, and could not be dismissed as lightweights in any category.

Just my nickel's worth. :patriot:

[AtomicKitten]

41. Gore/Obama with Clark as Secretary of State or Defense

and RFK, Jr as Attorney General

[midnight]

42. doesn't matter unless we get rid of diebold.

[janx]

43. Gore! n/t

[spooked]

45. How about a Co-Presidency Gore-Kerry since they were BOTH ROBBED!

And little is being done to stop it from happening again!