MyDD :: Al Gore, Spin, and Hillary Clinton

Al Gore, Spin, and Hillary Clinton

by Covin, Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:53:16 PM EST

Yesterday I responded to Chris' entry regarding a potential Al Gore candidacy for president in 2008. In his rant, Bowers made the flimsy case that Gore is supposedly too unpopular, too lackluster a candidate to win the White House. Significantly, he based his entire piece on data that is more than three years old, roughly equivalent to a century when converted to media cycles.

We now see that the lines have been drawn--not by the grassroots but by those who inform them, and it is apparent that 2008 will indeed be Hillary Clinton vs Someone Else. But I believe, as a Democrat, that this potential civil war is entirely beside the point. My fervent advocation of an Al Gore presidency has nothing to do with stopping Hillary Clinton, as Bowers and Kos have pitifully attempted to illustrate. No, I have an entirely and siginficantly more important reason for endorsing Gore.

For me, this ain't about Hillary. This is about America.

This evening, both of the left's reknown blogger-journalists, Chris Bowers and Markos Moulistas--whose work I regard with high respect--declared Al Gore's candidacy dead-on-arrival as the man himself issued a non-statement on his willingness to run for president. Both of these guys, of course, failed to include the following sentence in their spin jockeying:

"I don't completely rule out some future interest"

Now, in the mind of a politician, what might such words indicate? Well, they certainly tell me that he has put some level of thought in the presidency, at the very least. More importantly, however, is not what Gore might be saying, but what he doesn't say: "I will never run for president again." These words, as far as I can tell, have never left Gore's mouth.

The Clinton Crowd wants to make a Gore candidacy about Hillary, and not about fighting for America--which is really where we so-called "Goristas" are at. They have fervently and slyly advocated a 2008 campaign for Clinton in brief and furtive remarks throughout their articles, posts and analyses in the past several months. Today, their objective has been exposed for its homeliness as an attempt by Hillary Clinton to head off a horse race with her most feared challenger of 2008 before he's even left the stable.

It is, indeed, a depressing fact to uncover. But with the advocation of a Clinton campaign now featuring prominently on the front page of Bowers' blog, it is also one that is undeniable and remarkable for the expediency in which it followed a rebuttal of Gore's candidacy.

This sort of underhanded and always, of course, plausibly deniable political maneuvering is unexceptable in a place where open discussion is absolutely essential to defending the Democratic cause. That Bowers and Kos seek to defeat a Gore candidacy through division and derision, without publicly stating their blatant bias for Hillary Clinton, is absurd and offensive, no matter how respectable their work is and has been.

If these accusations are repsonded to at all, such a response will almost certainly contain a plausible denial. They might accuse some of tin foil-hat conspiracy theorizing, but we have seen their brazen maneuvering made public and it is no longer ridiculous to make such assumptions.

The Clinton Crowd would have us forget Al Gore and draw a line between he, reason, and Hillary. They say that we want Gore because we don't want her. And they will say that we are the ones fighting against the progressive sect of the party by battling for the nomination of a man known for his diligence and supposed centrism.

But that is not what we Gore supporters are about. We want Gore not because we despise Hillary Clinton, which many of us do not, but because we want our country back. We want a strong economy again. We want to raise the minimum wage, we want acceptable health care, we want to stop global warming, we want to save the environment and we want to bring our soldiers home. In short, we want the best, and the best is Al Gore.

I do not need to say why Gore is the best. We all know why: because he fights for what he BELIEVES in, and not what will get him elected. It's time for a president who BELIEVES in America's promise. It's time for Democrats to stand up and fight. It's time for the best.

It's time for Al Gore.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 67 Comments :: Post a Comment

Bravo, Covin! (3.00 / 1)

You make a powerful and accurate statement, and in doing so, you speak for me.

Yes, we are absolutely and positively NOT about anti-Hillary. Instead, we're about restoring our nation, our democracy, and our planet, to where it can be and where it should be.

Bill Clinton used to be one of my Heroes, and I always held a high level of respect for Hillary's intelligence, as well as used to appreciate her one-time allegience to true liberal and progressive ideals. It was when these two politicians turned into some sort of triangulating appeasers, at least publicly, in the recent months, did I drop them off my list of favorites.

Today, in my honest and personal opinion, Al Gore and Howard Dean represent the epitome of progressive ideals, principles, and governace, and they have displayed the boldness, courage, and conviction, to speak and stand up for the same.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS DIARY.

thanks.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:07:16 PM EST

Re: Bravo, Covin! (none / 0)

"I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS DIARY."

Even the parts that are blatantly false, like that I didn't include the quote, that all of my data is three years old, and that I am somehow supporting Clinton for the nomination?

And I don't think you are using enough bold type AND CAPS

by Chris Bowers on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 02:40:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo, Covin! (none / 0)

Chris, I am drafting a response to your comment, which I will post as a separate comment or a diary, as it really requires a lengthy treatment requiring me to addres both of your diaries and the responses by myself and covin.

thanks.

ps: sorry about overusing CAPs and bold typefaces. Will try to reduce their usage.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:30:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo, Covin! (none / 0)

Hi Chris, please see my diary post here. While my recommendation of covin's post was an overall one (and covin has responded to you directly on his own secondary reflections), I give a line-by-line response to your "Can Gore Even Win Again" post in my new diary.

thanks.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:39:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This Royal Family Business Has To Stop. (3.00 / 3)

I thought the this nobilism crap went out with George Washington.

xGORE IS GREAT!x

by blues on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:39:40 PM EST

Absolutely right (3.00 / 2)

We can't just rotate between members of two families!

Jesus.

Let's think. If Hillary turns into a two termer, then two families will have split control of the nation from 1989-2017.

This about that for a few minutes.

1989-2017. There are eras in history that don't last that long. In fact, it already overlaps the Cold War and the War on Terror! It covers two invasions of Iraq. It covers two recessions. It will cover two recoveries.

That's insane.

All things being equal, we as Democrats OWE the nation better than just picking the most famous Dem we can find and tossing her out there as the uber-donkey of the moment.

Forget that whole notion. It is wrong. It is almost immoral. It is franly unAmerican.

Let's at least try to give someone like Feingold or Warner or whatever can-win-in-red Dems a chance.

Hell, better yet, let's give everyone a realistic chance rather than a presumtpive nominee.

The GOP did that with Georgie boy, and they slimed a war hero to pull it off properly.

What will the Dems do to put Hillary over the top? Who will they slime -- just like the Bushies -- to get it done?

We as Dems have to call bullshit on this entire process. The eggheads who push our party around ar fuckups. Let's just face that fact outright. These are the same idiots who told us Kerry was a can't-miss candidate.

Rightie?

Let's burn these fools once and for all and maybe, just maybe, take a swing at picking the STRONGEST candidate, rather than the "most electable".

That didn't work.

In fact, the emminently unelectable Bill Clinton, a drawling sex fiend with a pudgy build and folksy message, was a damned two-termer who no one would have picked on profile alone!

Let's just draw the damned line. Right here. No more of this crap.

by jcjcjc on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:26:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely right (none / 0)

.... and let's not leave out Jeb <shudder> Bush. By the time the first dynasty is over the butterfly ballot will have Chelsea pitted against the twins.

Dare to be free.

by misscee on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 02:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Royal Family Business Has To Stop. (none / 0)

But the Bush's and the Clinton's could not be more different in terms of "family." I mean, the Bush family is a classic aristocracy--like the Kennedy's. Landed gentry with successive robber baron progenitors who accumulated wealth and then transformed business capital into political capital to seize hold of huge tracts of the political landscape. One couldn't really appreciate the Kennedy's without visiting the Massachusetts, and the same can be said for the Bush family and Texas. They have built a kingdom out of Texas and used it to mount a lasting influence on our institutions.

The Clintons are nothing like this. Nothing. Bill Clinton lived with his grandmother. He is famous, well, for being a good President who made a stupid mistake. And the reason he continues to influence the nation is not because of some economic base that dominates a particular state, but because a party is nostalgic for what they perceive as his ability to lead.

The Clintons have managed to translate political capital back into economic capital--no small feat, mind you. And exactly the opposite of what the Bush family has done. But make no mistake, the Clinton family could not, for example, install Chelsea as a governor the way the Bush family has done for Jeb. The Clinton's could not make one of their relatives go away for fear that their behavior would taint the politics of one of their rising stars--as the Bush family has done. The Clinton family has never retained influence over the nation's security complex, such that it can use the law to control individuals. And--finally--the Clinton family has never wanted nor held a global alliance with other landed aristocracies in other nations, as the Bushes have done with the Saudi Royal family.

I'm sorry, but on a very basic, Progressive level, the Bush family represents everthing we work against: the enduring and destructive power of accumulated wealth if left unchecked by a government that works for the benefit of the people. While the Clinton family stands for everything that Progressives work towards: the idea that if individual, middle class Americans work hard and play by the rules, then they can become the President--and a good President. I realize that HRC has come from a family of considerably greater means than Bill's, but still: is she not the type of role model that we want for young people in this country, as opposed to the Laura? No matter how many dresses HRC buys from Anne Klein, she still represents the promise of the New Deal, the voting rights act, the ERA, while the Bush family, and all their progeny, still represent the ever present threat that unslacked weath posed to any free society.

Enough said. The point is that just because we have a family feud of literary proportions unfolding in our history, that doesn't mean that we have two equal social phenomena in American society int the Bushes and the Clintons.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:55:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Royal Family Business Has To Stop. (none / 0)

It is true, from what I've read, that the Clintons possess nothing like the aristocracy that the Bushes have erected in Maine. But, come on now:

"While the Clinton family stands for everything that Progressives work towards: the idea that if individual, middle class Americans work hard and play by the rules, then they can become the President--and a good President."

Maybe, but they can't get a job flipping burgers because of Clinton's (and just about every other Democrat and Republican's) NAFTA, etc. It's just the damn truth.

by blues on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Royal Family Business Has To Stop. (none / 0)

NAFTA is a problem.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:44:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perfect (3.00 / 1)

Nice Work Covin, Thanks.

I have been waiting a long time for a person of substance and standing in national politics to adovcate what I believe in. Not simply to oppose the war, but to reject completely and passionately the suppositions that led us to war. It was in August, in a state of complete disgust with the Democratic party, that I realized Gore has been there all along.

I expect that as support for the war continues to fall, more Democrats will speak up (after all, there may be political capital to gain now.) Well, too little too late. I dont know if Al Gore will run for the presidency or not, but I agree that this country needs him.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:52:40 PM EST

PLS. RECOMMEND the diary (none / 0)

Winston, could you please RECOMMEND this important diary? Other folks too.

thanks in advance.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 12:00:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PLS. RECOMMEND the diary (none / 0)

done

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 12:40:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And Gore people want to be taken seriously? (3.00 / 2)

"In his rant"

What, exactly, about that entry was a "rant?"

"Significantly, he based his entire piece on data that is more than three years old,"

Yeah, except for the part where I quoted a poll taken last week that showed Gore underperforming against McCain and Giuliani.

"as Bowers and Kos have pitifully attempted."

Way to make friends and influence people.

" failed to include the following sentence in their spin jockeying"

Yeah, except that I included that quote in my post.

"That Bowers and Kos seek to defeat a Gore candidacy through division and derision, without publicly stating their blatant bias for Hillary Clinton, is absurd and offensive,"

That you would claim to read my mind is absurd and offensive. I definately prefer Gore to Clinton, but just because I'm not willing to claim that Gore's repeated near-total denials of interest mean that he is 100% certain to run and sweep the country, you claim that I support Clinton. That is absurd and offensive.

For crying out loud Gore supporters, thicken up your skin and take a harder look at the situation. Gore has repeatedly made it clear that there is almost no chance he will ever run for President again, and when anyone simply points this out, you cry foul that we don't take him at his word. If you respect someone so much, whether that person is me, Gore or kos, you should take us at our words and not presume to read our minds and know the "real motive" behind what we are saying. I'm not anti-Gore and pro-Clinton. I never said that I was, yet you presume to argue that I am. You did the same for kos, who repeatedly has stated, including in the article that he posted today, that he really likes Gore, and would probably join up if he ran. What you should do is tkae us at our word. And if you really respect Al gore, you should do the same for him, rather than post a diary fileld with unnecessary invective that claims to read all of our minds.

by Chris Bowers on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 12:27:29 AM EST

Re: And Gore people want to be taken seriously? (3.00 / 0)

"What, exactly, about that entry was a "rant?""
"as Bowers and Kos have pitifully attempted."

This is framing. I don't expect you not to take offense, but it's something Democrats need to do more often. I'm not here to make friends or influence the few, because I'm not a politician; I'm writing to influence an audience that is receptive to my ideas, and that is largely an audience that is pissed with the way MyDD and Kos have handled news about Gore and Clinton. And I will get to why these people are pissed in a few paragraphs.

Allow me to reiterate that I DO highly respect the work that you and Kos do. I do not expect you to be my friend, or to be friendly. I simply strongly disagree with the way certain things have been presented.

"Yeah, except for the part where I quoted a poll taken last week that showed Gore underperforming against McCain and Giuliani."

Everyone loses against McCain and Giuliani; it is, therefore, a moot point and as such was ignored. If you were to use that for your argument, then we shouldn't even bother mounting any candidates in 2008.

As for the rest, I agree that the likelihood of Gore not running is pretty damn low. But something I DO know is that all these posts assuring us that Gore ISN'T running and CAN'T win anyway certainly is NOT going to make him, or his supporters, feel more comfortable about doing so, and is, therefore counterproductive to any effort, however difficult, to recruit him. And since you say you like him more than Hillary Clinton, who is obviously the front-runner for 2008, I would think that is something you must agree with. This is why a lot of people who believe this country needs someone like Gore are pissed off, including myself.

To be honest, I'm sick of talking about Gore. He is not the solution to everything, and he is certainly far from perfect. So I'm going to stop writing about him for a good while--there are more important things to talk about right now and this serves as merely a distraction, something I'm sure you agree with.

by Covin on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:35:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't even know why I'm bothering (none / 0)

"Everyone loses against McCain and Giuliani; it is, therefore, a moot point and as such was ignored."

The point was that Gore was losing by far more than Kerry or Clinton. Just because all x, y and z are les than a, does not mean that x, y and z are all the same size. Is that so hard to figure out?

"This is framing. I don't expect you not to take offense, but it's something Democrats need to do more often."

Ok, fine. I wasn't aware that framing meant that you were allowed to just be a jackass to whoever you liked, but since it does, here goes: --I find your entire argument baseless and utterly pitiful, supported only by your repeated contraictions of yourself, and the absurd notion that the netroots are somehow going to draft or recruit Gore into the race, and the teenage tendency to capitlize words as a substitute for actual articulation.

Did I frame the argument correctly? Am I doing it like more Democrats should now? And if this discussion is a waste of time, why don't you delete this diary?

by Chris Bowers on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 02:25:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't even know why I'm bothering (3.00 / 1)

Bowers, if you would , please empathize with your enemy.

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:43:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't even know why I'm bothering (none / 0)

"The point was that Gore was losing by far more than Kerry or Clinton. Just because all x, y and z are les than a, does not mean that x, y and z are all the same size. Is that so hard to figure out?"

It doesn't matter much when Gore is behind by 7 points and Clinton, the best performing Democrat, is behind Giuliani by 11. And this doesn't take into account any campaigning done by Gore, while Clinton has been running a campaign for image for the last four years--I would naturally expect her to have an image advantage. If anything, this poll shows that Kerry has terrible numbers.

"Ok, fine. I wasn't aware that framing meant that you were allowed to just be a jackass to whoever you liked, but since it does, here goes: --I find your entire argument baseless and utterly pitiful, supported only by your repeated contraictions of yourself, and the absurd notion that the netroots are somehow going to draft or recruit Gore into the race, and the teenage tendency to capitlize words as a substitute for actual articulation."

Oh boo hoo. Speaking of articulation, what contradicitions are you talking about? I'm honestly interested since I'd love to improve my argument for the next time around. I'm also interested because most of the feedback I've gotten has been very positive.

And I don't back away from calling your argument pitiful, because it is. I don't understand how you can read Gore's mind and speak so matter-of-factly about his decisions when he's done nothing more than what any politician would do when faced with the same question. But what's more pitiful is that you argue that a netroots campaign can't have some effect on promoting candidacies, which is one of the most fallacious and self-contradicting things I've ever seen you say. Do you truly believe that all these people have no collective impact on the way a politician thinks? You surely can't be serious. There wouldn't BE a "netroots" if that were true.

I think this discussion is very important, but this is the wrong time for it to happen. I won't delete this diary because I stand by what I said. I believe we should move on to issues that need to be addressed and come back to this when it's appropriate--at no point did I suggest forgetting the issue of 2008.

by Covin on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 05:12:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Damn Bowers (3.00 / 1)

Clearly this guy pushed your buttons. Perhaps a cold shower might help.

We've all got a lot of respect for you, and you really don't have to go all attack dog on this guy to keep that respect.

Beneath the empricism lurks something or other.

This administration sucks.

by thief on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 05:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damn knuckle dragging bawl babies (none / 0)

What's up with the attack dog accusation bullshit? Since when is robust disagreement being an attack dog?

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 01:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damn knuckle dragging bawl babies (none / 0)

you are right here, in that Chris wasn't playing an attack dog in his comments here.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 02:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hi Gary, (none / 0)

The thread is stale, but still, I didn't want to skip responding to you.

Chris had lost his temper in this thread, and I was commenting on that. It was obvious to me that that was the case, perhaps not so much to you. It surprised me, because it's not the mode I expect from him.

Please notice that I was talking about the respect I and so many readers have for him when I mentioned his attack dogginess. I just felt like his anger got the best of him in responding to some of the static he was getting.

Chris wrote just the other day about how far we are from having a mature blogosphere. And he's so right about this. And it seems to me that one of the little details that keep us immature is the speed that discussions become heated and accusatory, names get thrown around and low ratings get delivered before we're even sure what the hell anyone is really talking about. Anyone can fall into this, but I think the established bloggers and the front-pagers could help matters if they weren't the first to get defensive and overly "robust."

It's no sign of the end times if Chris Bowers loses his temper in a Gore/Clinton thread. I'm just saying that he looks like the bigger man if he saves some of that temper for the people who are really asking for it.

In other news: you rule Gary, and a 1 rating from you is like a 3 from someone else.

In yet other news: Just look at the attack dog comment as robust disagreement.

Hugs and kisses.

This administration sucks.

by thief on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 05:01:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And Gore people want to be taken seriously? (3.00 / 1)

Chris:

I read you every day. I consider MyDD my #1 go-to blog to see what's going on in the political world.

You have a lot of power, and a lot of pull. Why are you so frightened of one guy who's got no power? It seems a little petty.

This guy basically wants to draft Gore. Why is that idea any less worthy of respect than nominating Feingold, or the inexplicable darling Clark?

I don't think Gore wants to run. I don't think he will run. But I think he'd make a great president. Apparently some of your readers agree; that's why this entry got recommended. You almost seem like you want to shut down debate on that topic. Is that fair?

We have a lot of options; one is "Draft Gore." May not happen, but no need to get hostile about it. Just because we're little guys doesn't mean we're not entitled to our opinion.

The truth is, you, as a daily main pager, have much more power than me or the attacked poster. Maybe you should cut us some slack. Heterodoxy isn't the same as evil.

by Blank Frank on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:22:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And Gore people want to be taken seriously? (3.00 / 1)

...or do I need to take a kos/MyDD loyalty oath before being allowed to participate in the dialogue? /I keed, I keed...

by Blank Frank on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:31:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You need to take your head (1.00 / 2)

and shove it up your constipated asshole.

There is not a more lenient site in the blogosphere than MyDD when it comes to allowing widespread points of view. Where did you and your knuckle dragging ball baby buddies come from?

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 01:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You need to take your head (none / 0)

but, you are wrong here:

"...or do I need to take a kos/MyDD loyalty oath before being allowed to participate in the dialogue?": by Blank Frank

"You need to take your head and shove it up your constipated asshole."

Well, well, well.

"There is not a more lenient site in the blogosphere than MyDD when it comes to allowing widespread points of view."

True, until two of Chris' anti-Gore posts, at least on of which does not qualify for "robust" and reasoned analyis, discourse, and dialogue, IMO. Please see my rebuttal to that one here: Chris, Yes, Gore can absolutely win again (w/ Poll). I am yet to rigorously respond to the other post by Chris.

Also, myDD has also not included Gore in its straw polls (execpt for August, after much dissent). And, in case you noticed those polls generate an enormous amount of dialogue and "robust disagreement" and "widespread points of view". Isn't that suppression (since Gore never ruled out a run in absolute terms, and especially when he leads by a mile in every netroots poll where he is included?)

"Where did you and your knuckle dragging ball baby buddies come from?"

And, yourself?

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 02:41:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm just calling bullshit (1.00 / 1)

And it's a well deserved call. This whole diary sounds like the knuckle dragging bawl babies who were complaining about Markos expressing an unpopular opinion or the ludicrous pie ad flame war they had over there.

It is absolutely ridiculous to complain about a blogger expressing an opinion on his own blog. Jerome and Chris are even more tolerant of diaries attacking their position than Markos is. I think both sites are as tolerant as anyone can reasonably expect.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 10:20:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm just calling bullshit (none / 0)

"And it's a well deserved call. This whole diary sounds like the knuckle dragging bawl babies who were complaining about Markos expressing an unpopular opinion or the ludicrous pie ad flame war they had over there."

But Kos omitted the second part of Gore's statement. Why is that justified? (Especially when FP stories on dKos are tantamount to quasi-news, and are probably read my a million or more people?)

For the most part, Gore supporters were only asking this question, and stating that Gore did leave himself some leeway to wage a run.

"It is absolutely ridiculous to complain about a blogger expressing an opinion on his own blog."

Nope, it isn't ridiculous to complain when statements are not represented in their substantive entirety.

Very few complained about his opinion, except in the title "Gore is not running". You see, most news outlets, except for CBS News and dKos carried the headline "Gore has no plans to run in 2008", which was the legitimate way to state it. Kos was certainly not justified in putting an opinion into an FP title on a story involving a news event. He owns the blog, but the community makes the blog.

"Jerome and Chris are even more tolerant of diaries attacking their position than Markos is."

I fully concur. I think that all three of them are outstanding bloggers. But two of the three have been less than neutral with respect to a possible Gore run in 2008. That is disappointing because Gore has been one of the most pre-eminent progressive voices over the last 4 years, even before Dean burst onto the scene in 2003.

"I think both sites are as tolerant as anyone can reasonably expect."

Very true. But, asking for suitable neutrality in official straw polls and in news coverage is not unreasonable to ask for.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:00:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Blame Al Gore (none / 0)

I've ready both of your diaries and comments in their entirety. In my opinion Al Gore has made a very definitive statement that he is not running in 2008. You can always play smoke and mirror games that his clear statement of intent is a non-denial denial, but I don't find your arguments at all persuasive.

You can pretend that Gore's statement is no less definitive than Hillary's, but I think you are kidding yourself. Gore is young enough to run in 2012 or even 2020. I think that is what he was suggesting as clearly as possible. What you are asking Chris and Markos to do is be as biased towards Al Gore as you and his other supporters. I'm not buying into your delusion and I don't see any reason for Markos or Chris to buy into your delusion either.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blame Al Gore (none / 0)

-->"I've ready both of your diaries and comments in their entirety."

You mean ALL my diaries and comments at myDD? If so, why did you feel the need to do that?

-->"In my opinion Al Gore has made a very definitive statement that he is not running in 2008."

That's your opinion.

-->"You can always play smoke and mirror games that his clear statement of intent is a non-denial denial, but I don't find your arguments at all persuasive."

I was hardly making an agrument on this front except pointing out this part of his Gore's statement. The readers can judge for themselves how much, if at all, Gore has left the door ajar:
Gore: I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that".

You can take your smoke and mirror allegation and chill.

-->"You can pretend that Gore's statement is no less definitive than Hillary's, but I think you are kidding yourself."

Dude, look, I believe that Gore will run if he sees a way of beating Hillary, and right now that's quite an uphill task (no pun intended).

-->"Gore is young enough to run in 2012 or even 2020."

What in Gore's statement is suggestive of a run beyond 2008? I don't think he'll have much of chance beyond 2008.

You've got to be kidding me about 2020. He'll be 72 years old, and 20 years out of active office. That to me is clearly delusional of you to think or suggest.

-->"I think that is what he was suggesting as clearly as possible."

I have no idea where 2012 and 2020 enter the picture in his statement.

-->"What you are asking Chris and Markos to do is be as biased towards Al Gore as you and his other supporters. I'm not buying into your delusion and I don't see any reason for Markos or Chris to buy into your delusion either."

Actually, what am I asking them to do?

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:21:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blame Al Gore (none / 0)

I think you are insisting that Markos and Chris be as baised towards whether or not Al Gore is a legitimate candidate as you yourself are. I agree with them that until Al Gore makes some sort of statement to the contrary, he has taken himself out of the running.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:32:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blame Al Gore (none / 0)

-->"I think you are insisting that Markos and Chris be as baised towards whether or not Al Gore is a legitimate candidate as you yourself are."

I would like to see them include him in their straw polls.

-->"I agree with them that until Al Gore makes some sort of statement to the contrary, he has taken himself out of the running."

I think that your opinion is sincere here, but I (also sincerely) do see more gray in his decision than you do.

Thanks.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:35:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blame Al Gore (none / 0)

Now you're making valid points without name-calling. More productive, IMHO.

by Blank Frank on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:49:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

</snark> ? :) (none / 0)

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:58:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blame Al Gore (none / 0)

BTW, if Gore wasn't getting sidelined in those straw polls when I started reading these blogs some 3-4 months ago, I would have devoted my time instead to Voting integrity and Reform issues. But, I couldn't stand Gore getting dissed, and hence I started doing something about it.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:52:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore (none / 0)

You more than insinutated that Gore's support was coming from anti-Clinton Republicans. I never thought you were pro-Clinton, but do you have a favorite whose candidacy would be jeopardized by a Gore run?

by Paleo on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:29:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no to gore, no to hrc (none / 0)

new blood, not blue blood

by bruh21 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:20:22 AM EST

We don't have time for this (2.00 / 1)

We are not going to win back the White House with a candidate who is coaxed into a run by a group of activists. That's not going to happen. And we need to stop dividing our time and efforts with these write-in fantasies--however admirable the potential candidates or the effort may be.

Simply put: if a candidate has not already decided--in clear and absolutely certain terms--that they want to run for President, then we must move on. Otherwise, we end up with these campaigns where the cart is driving the horse, and we get all excited and up in arms over nothing.

So, may a bright light shine down on Al Gore. But if he's not running, he's not running. End of story.

Let's remember, folks. Running for President takes a massive effort on the ground just to get on the ballot. This is not little league we're playing, here. The Republicans are going to spend a bazillion dollars this next election, and we have got to start thinking with our heads on this one.

And frankly, the idea that Chris and Markos are beards for the Clintons--this type of ridiculous accusation is exactly what happens when these quixotic campaigns poke their heads into the sunlight. If there are any two people on this earth who are not fronting for the Clintons, it's Chris and Markos. Honestly...

Are we really so disillusioned with the entire political system that the only candidates we can support are those whose distinguishing feature is uncertainty as to whether they are candidates? C'mon. If being against HRC makes you feel better about who you are as a liberal, great. Go for it. Or if you want to speak out against what you think are political dynasties, fine. Fascinating and important topic. Knock yourself out.

But for goodness sake, if you're going to talk about runs for the White House, then at least pick an actual candidate.

Otherwise, if you are such a fan of Al Gore--and I think he's a great guy, worthy of admiratio and support--then advocate or go work on the projects he's actually pushing at this time. Which does not include a run for the White House.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:48:28 AM EST

Re: We don't have time for this (none / 0)

-->"We are not going to win back the White House with a candidate who is coaxed into a run by a group of activists. That's not going to happen. And we need to stop dividing our time and efforts with these write-in fantasies --however admirable the potential candidates or the effort may be."

Let each person decide for himself/herself on that.

-->"Simply put: if a candidate has not already decided--in clear and absolutely certain terms--that they want to run for President, then we must move on. Otherwise, we end up with these campaigns where the cart is driving the horse, and we get all excited and up in arms over nothing."

Fundamentally, Hillary is way ahead of all others in field polls on the nomination. IMO, Gore is only one that has any shot of overcoming her lead. And, it is my conjecture that Gore would run, if he can see a good plan for winning the primary.

-->"So, may a bright light shine down on Al Gore. But if he's not running, he's not running. End of story."

Should have said that a few more times, for greater effect :)

-->"Let's remember, folks. Running for President takes a massive effort on the ground just to get on the ballot. This is not little league we're playing, here."

Let's remember folks, Gore already ran for president, and likely won it. Cute try with the "little league" reference though :)

-->"The Republicans are going to spend a bazillion dollars this next election, and we have got to start thinking with our heads on this one."

This debate is precisely on who should/could our flag-bearer for 2008.

-->"And frankly, the idea that Chris and Markos are beards for the Clintons--this type of ridiculous accusation is exactly what happens when these quixotic campaigns poke their heads into the sunlight. If there are any two people on this earth who are not fronting for the Clintons, it's Chris and Markos. Honestly..."

I'll leave that point alone, as much has been said already on it.

-->"Are we really so disillusioned with the entire political system that the only candidates we can support are those whose distinguishing feature is uncertainty as to whether they are candidates? C'mon. If being against HRC makes you feel better about who you are as a liberal, great. Go for it. Or if you want to speak out against what you think are political dynasties, fine. Fascinating and important topic. Knock yourself out.

But for goodness sake, if you're going to talk about runs for the White House, then at least pick an actual candidate."

"actual candidate" picking will get done in the primaries, come 2008. 2.5 years before that, there should be a debate on all the important possible prospects.

-->"Otherwise, if you are such a fan of Al Gore--and I think he's a great guy, worthy of admiratio and support--then advocate or go work on the projects he's actually pushing at this time."

If our discussions generated a few volunteers for those projects, then we will have helped those causes indirectly.

-->"Which does not include a run for the White House. "

Currently, probably not. In the future, why not?

-->"We don't have time for this"

For debate this far out? Yes, we do.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:39:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm confused (none / 0)

Where is the evidence that Bowers and Kos are secretly pushing Hillary?

Hillary is not popular in the netroots, and there is this echo chamber effect that leads some people to conclude that no actual voters like Hillary, but that she is nevertheless being forced upon us by the Man, whoever the Man is.

Even if you believe that, though, I find it hard to believe that Chris or Markos work for the Man. Is the only evidence that anyone who puts down a non-Hillary candidate must therefore be pushing a pro-Hillary agenda? Because it's going to be hard to talk about the merits of any candidates in that case.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:05:02 AM EST

Hillary is the neocons' life boat. (none / 0)

Hillary as a candidate--or a president--would not be good. It's clear that as the neocons leave the sinking Bush ship, she is doing everything she can to bring them over to her side. Guess who will be her secretary of state if she gets in. Joementum!

by Alan S on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:10:44 AM EST

Re: Hillary is the neocons' life boat. (none / 0)

This is ridicuous.

Hilary Clinton is my Senator and she has been as good as anyone. I have never heard one complaint from my other Senator, Chuck Schumer, about her credentials or her ability to lead. And I trust him.

She hires talented people around her and, yes, she seeks to build across the line concensus that actually makes it possible to get things done. Has she single handedly ended the war, eliminated the deficit, upended the GOP, ended global warming, blocked all assaults against Roe v. Wade? No. Is she the greatest thing since sliced bread? No. But she's a goddam impressive and accomplished Democrat.

I don't agree with everything she stands for, but these off hand dismissals of her are nonsense. She didn't get herself elected in New York by hanging out on Wall Street and sitting shiva with Joe Lieberman. She ran a watertight campaign against the most brutal and difficult GOP candidate ever stood in this state. And she blew his ass out of the race. And then she beat another person--two GOP candidates defeated in one race.

And you can bet the GOP is scared to death of Hilary Clinton, which cannot be said for any other candidate that we have.

So, if you're going to trash a Democrat, at least do better than blaming her for talking to another Democrat who happens to be on the right wing of the party.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:22:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is the neocons' life boat. (none / 0)

Well, she's as aggressively pro war as they come. Her solution to the Iraq quagmire? More troops!

She is aggressively courting the neocons. That's obvious. Why is saying that "trashing" her?

by Alan S on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:29:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is the neocons' life boat. (none / 0)

So you think she is as pro-war as George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? Seriously, this is your position?

by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:40:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is the neocons' life boat. (none / 0)

No, and I didn't say anything like that or imply that. By the way, none of those guys will be running for pres in 08. So the fact that she is better than them isn't here or there.

by Alan S on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:45:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is the neocons' life boat. (none / 0)

So, when you say she is 'as aggressively pro war as they come,' do you mean Hillary wants a war in Iraq? Look, I know you don't mean that, and my goal here is not to hound you with dumb questions. But I'm just getting a little tired of well-intentioned Democrats taking up this simplistic position that just because Hilary Clinton doesn't say the phrase "I am against the war," ergo she is for the war. Hilary's position seems to be that the best way to end the war is to bring the troop numbers up to the levels requested by the Generals, then finish certain short term goals, then bring everyone home. I don't agree with that position, but I don't think there is any good way to end the war. All I know is that there are two Democratic positions on ending the war: wind down the troops immediately and wind down the troops after raising the levels request by the generals. Neither position is "aggressively pro war" and frankly, nobody knows which position is better at achieving the goal of "no war."

by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:56:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is the neocons' life boat. (3.00 / 1)

She was on Tim Russert last year and the only thing she disagreed with Bush on the war was his execution of the war. She didn't have a single regret about voting for the war. So I would conclude she is on record as being as pro-Iraq war as the President. She did not seem apologetic about the whole affair. She would not even concede that she was misled by the President.
And I believe she panders to the Israel lobby to compensate for her hug of Mrs Arafat which caused a lot of bad publicity for her.

She has been disgraceful on a national level in addressing issues. Having said that, I do see her
as someone who can do a good job on the environment locally and patching things up with some foreign leaders. As First Lady, she has done a better job than people like Rice and Hughes at impressing foreign leaders.

But once again, does this country deserve three decades of two family rule? Unless Hillary is a clear superior choice, I would not want to see her win.

by Pravin on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is the neocons' life boat. (none / 0)

Well, I think your bravado is disingenuous. If Hilary is the nominee, you'd want to see her win.

And your idea that she is "pandering" to the Isrrael lobby is ludicrous. Please show me the list of elected officials in this country who takes a strident anti "Israel Lobby" position. Take your time...

Again, if you really believe that Hilary Clinton agrees with President Bush's position on Iraq, then there's not much point to having a conversation. But let me tell you this: if you think that the leading voice of the Democratic party has the same views of Iraq as President Bush, then you are seriously misguided. Seriously.

There is a world of difference between a vote and a political position. A world of difference.

Hilary Clinton is running a strategy to win back the White House which involves a series of strategic votes on Iraq. If you think that those votes caused the war, you're wrong. If you think those votes have led to increasing GOP power in this country, you're wrong. The relationship between votes and military action over the past few years has been far more complicated than this simplistic "either you voted against the war on every issue or your are exactly like Bush" logic.

And why on earth would a politician announce on national TV that they were fooled by the Presidents propoganda? What on earth could be gained by that?

Hilary Clinton is in a unique position and she is following a strategy of staying close to the middle--for now--on military issues.

But do you think for a second that she is taking these positions in isolation? Do you think that Russ Feingold, for example, comes out with his "anti-war" position without first having a phone coversation with HRC to discuss it and it's relationship to her position? C'mon. There is strategy involved here and there is absolutely no reason at this point to think that this strategy is not as viable as another. We will not agree with her every move, but to trash her is just folly. She's a strong candidate and she will continue to be and the sooner we break from these crippling habits of exagerating and condemning based on bits and pieces, the closer we will be to achieving our goals.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:28:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What are her accomplishments? (none / 0)

Can I get a top 3 checklist of her accomplishments in public life since I don't find her rhetoric inspiring? Maybe her accomplishments will make me overlook her public persona. I don't know what she really stands for other than that she can only improve the EPA by not being anywhere as bad as Bush. What makes her one of the more qualified people? She hasn't even improved her public speaking voice that much over the years. If you thought Gore had problems in 2000, wait till the right wingers take apart her shrilly voice and get away with such crap.

Her Iraq war vote was a short term gain. I don't see how she can use the Iraq war against the Republicans in a debate when she has done nothing significant in holding the Bushies accountable for this war. Sure, she can say she would have done things better, but many Americans are now feeling that the war wasn't worth it to begin with. The moderates and even some conservatives are coming around to our way of thinking.

I will not try to argue about the Israel lobby point since it is mere conjecture on my part. But I had to find some reason to explain her steadfast support for the war and it is no secret that the neocons had Israel in mind(to what extent is mere conjecture) when planning this war.

Also I think the two family rule is a valid point. It is simply not healthy for a country to be ruled by such a small circle of people over so many years. You need fresh blood. The only way I will campaigning day and night for a Hillary candidacy is if the Republicans nominate another Bush or Cheney. Now, if Hillary is clearly a top notch candidate, I won't hold the family thing against her. She's got 2 more years to convince me.

by Pravin on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are her accomplishments? (none / 0)

Shrilly? I always thought her voice could be more powerful, but shrill? You must be working for Al Gore ; )

by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 05:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are her accomplishments? (none / 0)

Good exchange, gentlemen.

I don't think that she is shrill, but going by her record and/or rhetoric, she is hardly an inspiring leader. Will she make a good administrator? I think so, but so will Gore.

But, in addition, he is also inspiring, since his "rise from the Florida ashes", so to speak :)

"You must be working for Al Gore ;)"

Hmmm, who might you be working for? ;)

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:15:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is the neocons' life boat. (3.00 / 1)

And you can bet the GOP is scared to death of Hilary Clinton, which cannot be said for any other candidate that we have.

I disagree.
A Gore presidency in 2008 would be a repudiation of the failure of this administration, and would be percieved as an outright admission that we would erase them from the databanks entirely... If we could.
A Gore Presidency means the Neocons are politically dead... Forever. The religious right wing will never trust them again, no matter how many reborns they push in the river.
A Gore Presidency would mark an outright revolt against the Main stream media, and that is the "Republican noise machine." All their money is riding on you watching tv commercials.
The Republican "Legacy"... Broke forever.
DRAFT AL GORE!

by mad donkey on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

an experiment. (none / 0)

She hires talented people around her and, yes, she seeks to build across the line concensus that actually makes it possible to get things done.

change a few words here and there and that statement sounds eerily familiar:

Bush hires talented people around him and, yes, he seeks to build across the line concensus that actually makes it possible to get things done.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 02:01:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A counterexample (3.00 / 1)

though I did not see it as a rant. It was an argument that however fine a president Gore might have or can make, his name has been forever poisoned by the relentless media assaults. This argument has merit. In any event, considering the adamant stance of Gore in declaring NO to 2008, it seems unlikely that efforts to draft Gore are little more than an academic exercise.

However, to counter the arguments in the Bowers' post, consider Nixon. Gore is obviously a decent man and not a reptilian paranoid like Nixon. However, Tricky Dick was left for dead after the close 1960 presidential election and California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. But, voila, an unpopular war exposed the cracks in a dominating majority party, and Nixon slithered right in. I see no reason Gore could not be capable of a similar feat.

And, like Covin, I agree that Gore is and will be a fine leader with toughness, foresight, intellect, innate decency, a modest persona (we won't have God speaking through this southerner), and a sterling work ethic. That is the kind of guy I want as commander-in-chief.

by calscientist on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:27:26 AM EST

Re: A counterexample (none / 0)

No one was more vilified during the 90's than Hillary, not even Bill. If she remains viable, then the media poison theory loses credibility.

I'd actually argue that Hillary is the one trying to retrace the Nixon candidacy. Secret plans to win the war and all that. The whole game is to convince a dissatisfied silent majority that you have a credible route out of an unpopular war that can still lead to peace with honor. It's funny because except for his principles and decency, all the other Nixon parallels really do favor Gore.

by morinao on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 02:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A little oversensitive diary? (3.00 / 1)

I am with you on many points. But I gotta tell ya. I don't see Bowers trying to push Hillary to such an extent that he is trying to marginalize other candidates. I could be wrong as I don't read each and every single diary, but from what I read, I didn't remotely even get that idea.

When you use words like "pitifully" and other strong words, you are pretty much disrespecting a fellow diary writer without enough cause. I use strong language too, but I try to save it for those who I have not much respect for or if I am attacked first.

FWIW, I prefer Gore to Hillary. No contest. Democrats and the media are grooming Hillary just like the other side groomed Bush in the late 90s.

by Pravin on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 05:07:35 PM EST

Gore is my President, but it is a room for others (none / 0)

Thanks Covin, I agreed: Gore is the best. But who
and how can convince Al Gore to run in 2008?

Here is an idea:
if Bill, Hill, Dean and Carter (add anybody
you want, but these FOUR should be enough) can join
their efforts and ask Al to run - then everybody
will see that DEMs are united and determined. If
these 5 also will prepare and declare some
real political PLATFORM, then Gore can win.

But I doubt it will happened: Bill will promote
Hill and Dean & Carter together are not enough
to change Al's mind. How that for a bed story?

by WeNeed3rdParty on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:53:30 PM EST

Re: Gore is my President, but it is a room for oth (none / 0)

How about Dean, Carter, Gary Hart (maybe), and NeoLiberal? :)

Draft Gore!

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore is my President, but it is a room for oth (none / 0)

who is a NeoLiberal? Also: Liberal is a Misnomer.
You either Capitalist or Socialist. If you are
for Capitalism, then join GOPs or Fashists.
If you afraid to be called a Socialist then you
are a Democrat, who are still horrified
by McCarthy and his witch hunt in 50s.
You can also hide your head into sand; then you
can call yourself an Independent.

by WeNeed3rdParty on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is all happening prematurely (none / 0)

We haven't even gotten through next year's elections yet. Mr. Gore says he has no plans now. He is busy working everyday to bring out truth and information about climate change and other issues. He is trying to change the way television delivers information by allowing us to become a part of it. There is so much about this man and what he is doing that we could discuss now, and all we are doing is getting bogged down in speculation and political pissing matches about him and Clinton.

Even though I don't think he should run under the same status quo that stole the 2000 election, I would still support him down the line if he said he wanted to run. BUT THERE IS TIME. I just don't understand the feeding frenzy and urgency of getting this out now when there is so much we need to be concentrating on in this country.

And that is another good point. He is already being trashed because groups have already given the impression that all the speeches he has been making (and right down to his airlifting of evacues from New Orleans) were done for political reasons. That is unfair to him, especially in light of the new projects like CURRENT that he is trying to get off the ground.

So perhaps Mr. Gore gave that comment yesterday in the hopes that all of this way too early speculation would quiet down a bit. Right now I believe this country has some pressing matters we need to attend to, and I am kind of enjoying having Mr. Gore out here working with us on them as opposed to being in the beltway again.I am absolutely sure that if he wants it down the line, he will know what to do, and I will be there for him.

by thinkforyourself on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:07:56 PM EST

Re: This is all happening prematurely (none / 0)

well, (V)P. Gore can chart his own strategy, but he and his team should realize that most of the prospects have already started working on their campaigns, and many of them have visited one or both of Iowa and New Hampshire, some of them multiple times.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:01:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is all happening prematurely (none / 0)

And? Gore has visited the entire country numerous times in the past twenty five years. I don't think he'll have any trouble working this out on HIS timetable should he change his mind. And if he doesn't I will still support him. Too bad you can't.

by thinkforyourself on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 06:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is all happening prematurely (none / 0)

it is more of a strategic factor than a scheduling one. Also, your phrase "changes his mind" is not that accurate, since he hasn't completely ruled it out. But you're entitled to hold your own view on it, of course.

thanks for your comment.
take care.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 11:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Newsflash:Al Gore is still not a very likeable guy (none / 0)

by Cyt on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 10:33:49 AM EST

Newsflash: you're playing a Troll! (none / 0)

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At least a 'troll' without a short memory (none / 0)

I was actually around in 1988, ya know.

by Cyt on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 04:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Al Gore, Spin, and Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

Just imagine if Al Gore would be president! Things would go just great and the global warming would be held under control.. The actions he started show us his real have.. and it's a good one for sure!

_____
Marriage Family

by andreea360 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:28:56 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.