As of right now, Hillary is the favored Democrat to recieve the nomination for President in 2008. I think only three people can stop her. They are Bayh, Warner, and Gore. Bayh and Warner because they have qualifications that Hillary doesn't have. These include the Governing experience, the massive amount of cash they're raising, their real Democrat-Centrist views, their ability to get elected in red states, etc. But, a sure fire way to beat Hillary in the primaries is if Al Gore announces. I think if he were to do this, all hell would break loose and Democrats from all over would flock to his side. Who knows, if Gore beats her to the punch and announces before she does, maybe she won't even enter the race. Don't get me wrong, i really like Bayh and Warner, but if it came down to a two person heat with Gore vs Hillary, i'm voting for Gore. If this were the case, then Gore/Bayh 08... the ass kicking ticket.

Have you been talking to ReElectAlGore? (another member of the forum) I'm just kidding. I don't really think Hillary's running, at least not in 2008. As far as Hillary's views, she's a DLC Dem too, and last time I checked was chair of the "American Dream Initiative", and has (purported) a centrist view. I think her biggest obstacle is the mass right-wing attack machine against her. I've heard soem good things about Bayh, but I don't really know all that much about him. I don't really know what would happen if Hillary and Gore were in the same race - it sure would set off a lot of fireworks though.

Naw, i havn't been talking to ReElect... although, him and i post in other forums besides this one.

I hear it all the time about how Hillary is "Moving to the middle" and how she is really a "Way left Liberal." She is nothing of a Democrat-Centrist like Bayh or Warner.

One site I post on besides this.

Forget about Bayh and Warner already. They are unknowns and won't stop Hillary.

only Al Gore is big enough too, but time is running out. I give him 9 more months. If there is no sign, it will mean Hillary has it.

Look at what Bill Clinton is doing the last 3 days.
Helping Hillary.

Where was his help during the 04?

He could have talked about the Kyoto treaty then, but NOOOOO, he is saving it to help Hillary.

But i do NOT think Bayh or Wiarner will make it past the second tier. Sorry.

As I asked on the CSCG board, what has Warner done besides win a race?Maybe Virginia is fated to be democratic for Governor and it has nothing to do with who the person is.
Maybe???

I am not convinced he could take VA in the Nov.08 race, nor do I see how he could win the delegates away from Hillary.

Maybe VP although I hope not.

I'll take Obama please.He has a bigger resume too

Forget Bayh. He hasn't done anything. For a centrist, I'll take Bill Richardson. If Gore and Kucinich announced they would not run, I'd get right behind a Bill Richardson capaign. Diplomat, cut taxes, strong push for clean energy, moderate on gun control, fiscally conservative, and tough on crime.

Why would this help Hillary? Maybe he's doing it to help Al?

Think about it. What if Hillary really doesn't intend to run in '08. What if she knows she's too divisive and couldn't win nationally (she is a smart woman, and unless she's delusional, she probably knows this, or at least others have told her). What if the Clintons really support Gore because they know he could and should win? What if Clinton is talking up Kyoto now as a way to help smoothe the way for Al to announce sometime in '06? You have to admit, it's a possibility. Kyoto is Gore's thing, not Hillary's. Kyoto has Al's name all over it. If Clinton talking up Kyoto would help anyone, I would think it would help his old veep. It makes sense to me. ;)

As i recall, you still have failed to respond on the CGCS board about why you think Obama has a better resume than Bayh, Warner, or any of the other candidates.

"Before his election to the Senate, Bayh served two terms as Governor of Indiana, where he established the state as one of the strongest, most financially secure economies in the nation. "Mr. Bayh's record," reported the Wall Street Journal in 1992, "is one of a genuinely fiscally conservative Democrat." Stressing fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, job creation and lean government, Bayh's list of achievements are remarkable: eight years without raising taxes; the greatest single tax cut and largest budget surplus in state history; national leadership in moving people from welfare to work; more dollars for schools every year; high academic standards and new college opportunities; over 350,000 new jobs; tougher laws on crime; and improved environmental quality."

Maybe we shouldn't drop Bayh considering he was good enough in 2000 to be on Gore's short list of VP picks... that and on Kerry's short list in 2004.

I'm waiting for ReElect unleash the wrath on your choice of Richardson...

There's no question that Bayh is great on the economy... I'm however looking for more than somebody who will do more than get the economy in gear.

What else are you asking that lets say, Bill Richardson has?

Diplomat and clean energy.

We're talking about Bayh as Gore's VP right now... does it matter that much if Bayh is a Diplomat?

Regarding clean energy:

http://bayh.senate.gov/issues_energy.html

http://www.evanbayh.com/
"A bipartisan group of senators planned to unveil legislation today they say would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day within a decade and 10 million barrels a day by 2031. The country now uses a little over 20 million barrels of oil a day, most of it for transportation.

The legislation would include tax breaks, as much as 35 percent, and loan guarantees to get automakers to switch from producing gas guzzlers to gas-electric hybrids, advanced diesel or other alternative technologies.

It also includes new tax breaks for those who buy such vehicles for car fleets, and incentives for developing alternative fuels such as ethanol from cellulosic biomass, research into use of lightweight material in cars, and the promotion of mass transit corridors.

"We must find a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil so America is prepared for the future," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., one of the bill's co-sponsors."

http://www.evanbayh.com/
Sign the petition to investigate oil companies.

I did answer three times why Barack is THE one

If Al Gore does not run, Barack is my pick for the top spot and I would write his name in a primary probably should Al 100 percent make it clear it is not him. (Hillary would be #2).
Barack should be either's Vice President(or anyone who runs).

He will not cause one vote to be lost, and he will make up a good five to ten percent

Al Gore got 94 percent of the black vote. John Kerry 89 percent. With Obama on top, he would get 05 to97 percentor 98 percent.

Those 5 to 9 percent over John Kerry's totals were enough to turn 2004 into a democratic sweep

Obama is the only one who brings voters in, while retaining ALL the blue states

Obama is more than a first term Senator. Look up his resume. He has other elective statewide office, and he has a loss in his background too, which so does Gore and Bill Clinton.

Ask the big eastern blue states who Evan Bayh is and no one knows. He has the potential to lose New York, same with Warner, and the other "lower tier".

If we lose NY or California or Michigan or Illiniois, or PA we can forget about it. There are not enough other states to make it up the #s.

I do not for a minute though believe Hillary is not running, and I believe it is fixed for her as much as it was fixed to get rid of Howard Dean in 2004.

Why does Bill speaking up now help Hillary? Everytime Bill speaks, he sets the Clinton's apart from anyone else. Why would Bill help Al? He didn't help him in 2000? Why didn't Bill speak up saying what a bad president Bush was last year when it could have helped Kerry? I don't recall him saying that then.

IMHO (I know james is going to say I am nuts).

We shall see. If Al Gore does not run, it means he thinks he cannot get the nomoination away from Hillary. (Hillary won't even be hurt long term with the loony anti-war people. It just pushes her to the center and she becomes even more appealing to those who didn't at first like her.)

If Al runs, then he and only he will be the opposition to her.

But other than Al or Hillary,or Barack you need someone to bring people to the polls
and Bayh, Richardson, Warner, and anyone not named Al Hillary, Barack cannot do.

I don't think Barack should wait, because there is not an opening should the 2008 candidate win for 16 years. By that time he is yesterday's news and missed his chance.

Al Gore is a special difference because he actually won in 2000.
Most democrats have that one time when "forces" conspire to make them the one
(Bill Clinton's 1992 run...had he lost he would have been history)...that no major
party person challenged him, and he almost lost to another of my favorites Jerry Brown is why he won.

Who here thinks Al Gore wouldn't have kicked Bill's rump if Al didn't have to back out of the 92 primary season because of his son's health after the accident?

Someone to watch out for(NOT Richardson) is the new New Jersey senator Robert Menendes(I have NO 26th letter of the alphabet key), spelling mistake is on purpose, and aside from the hints you have given me, I cannot cut and paste.
It brings up a prompt saying I don't have the permission to do it for some reason, at least on this stupid old laptop).

He is a Cuban-American, and if he wins the full term election in 06, he could elevate himself to a possible VP...I doubt it, but it is possible

the Democrats have got to do more than have two white men in 08.
After Katrina, Barack is even stronger

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Bill Clinton didn't help Al in 2000, I believe, because Al distanced himself from Bill over Monicagate. He didn't want Bill campaigning with him. Had it not been for Bill's scandals (of which Monica wasn't the only one), I imagine Al would've been more than happy to have such a popular and brilliant president campaign with him, and I'm sure it would have helped. But the scandals tainted his presidency, and I believe Al was trying to not be associated with all that during campaign 2000 (and I think he was probably wise for doing that). But, it's my understanding that they have since mended fences, and I think that if Al were to be interested in running, Bill would help him (assuming Hillary weren't running). Everyone assumes Hillary is running, and yet she continues to say she's not interested. We can either believe her or not.

As for why Bill didn't help Kerry, as I recall, he spent the better part of 2004 suffering with heart problems and ultimately heart surgery and recovery. I don't think he was in any position to be helping anyone.

But would AL want Clinton's help, since Clinton is so chummy with the elder Bush?? I think there is a trust issue here. This is just my opinion, but I wouldn't trust anyone who associates with any member of the Bush family.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...pic=42443&st=20

Actually, you didn't.

So in other words, you think he would be good because he's black. Ok, as much as i don't mind black elected officials, alot of people around the country do mind.

I think you're also forgeting that the landscape is going to be different by 2008. You cant just assume that it will be the same because it won't. Because of this, you cannot say that if we get another 5-9% we will win. Even so, i want to start winning more than than Cali, Oregon, Washington, and the NE. With Bayh or Warner we can do it because they're respected by both sides. We need to face the facts here, 2008 is going to be rough. The GOP is going to have a fresh candidate will a great record that doesn't have all of the problems and screw ups as Bush/Cheney did. You want to take the gamble of having a VP that brings nothing to the table except a few percentages of the black vote?

Once again, it is December of 2005, both Warner and Bayh have plenty of time to become known. Hell, as each day goes by, more and more people are becoming familiar with them... not to mention the massive amounts of cash both are recieving.

Yes, of course it will be harder for Gore to recieve the nomination with Bill Clinton campaigning against him... but i still think he can beat Hillary. You, as well as all the other Democrats on this board, have been anticipating a Gore comeback ever since 2000. If he announces before Hillary (Which is definitely possible considering she won't announce until after her re-election) then all hell is going to break loose and voters will flock to his side... i bet on it.

Democrats are going to come to the polls regardless because we have seen the effects of the Bush administration. Just because having someone like Bayh or Warner as VP, doesn't mean that it won't get them to come to the polls. If anything, it will bring Democrats and moderate Republicans to the polls to vote for us. There is no reason why Bayh or Warner wouldn't be a good choice. They both have accomplished a ton, both have great records of working with both sides, both are respected by both sides, both speak very well and are very intelligent, etc, etc. All i have heard from you of why they wouldn't be good choices is because 1. they're white and 2. they aren't known. Fact of the matter is, Obama won because of who his opponent was... Alan Keyes. Enough said.

Please this is not an election for High School Class President. Clinton and Bush's personal friendship is irrelevant.

I have to disagree, it is somewhat relevant. The entire Bush family is corrupt. I sure wouldn't want anything to do with anyone who in any way associates with such corrupt evil. So yes, it matters, Clinton chummy with the elder Bush, who helped his son, GWB, steal the 2000 election from AL GORE, Clinton's vice-president of eight years. Why is that so hard to understand??? It sounds like a stab in the back to AL GORE by Clinton, buddying up with those who stole the presidency from him.

There are personal relationships and political ones. Senators Kerry & McCain are close personal friends but their friendship was irrelevant in the 2004 election. Jimmy Carter & Gerald Ford have developed a close friendship over the years. That doesn't mean Carter has become a Republican. Dan Quayle and Teddy Kennedy were very good friends when Quayle was in the Senate. Again it was irrelevant to their political loyalties. There is a long history of political rivals being personal friends in this country. Stop being a political neophyte.

I would have said the same thing in 2004, and it didn't happen. By all rights, the Dems. should've swept Bush out of office on a tide of discontent. But Kerry failed to light people's fires, and we all know what happened next. Granted, by 2008, the damage done by Bush will have been so horrific that it's hard to imagine the Dems. not coming out in full force to get one of their own in, but it could happen again.

It DOES matter who we nominate. It matters a lot. I think Obama is still going to be a bit too wet around the ears to make it nationally, and I'm really not sure that the whole country is ready for a black veep who could ultimately end up as president should something untoward befall the president. I'm not sure they're ready for a woman, either, which is one of my arguments against nominating Hillary. I would say that the big cities on both coasts could handle it, but there's that vast space between where people are not so open minded (in fact, they can be downright backward).

The DNC is going to have to be very smart this time around. It would be too easy to throw it all away again on the assumption that America is fed up with the neocons.

Very good points EM.

What does everyone think of Joe Biden? So far is he the only person who is openly running. Personally, I'm still undecided about him.

After seeing the Virginia governor race, I've come to realise probably Al's best VP choice would be Wes Clark. The reason for Kaine's success in the red state was because of his success in the military areas. Without the military areas in Virginia, the repub (Kilgore) could not win.

With Clark campaigining on the military bases, and Al rallying the unions and pro-environment groups, we would have an awesome shot of victory.

O.K. James, you can stop with the name calling everytime someone disagrees with you. I stand by what I said, I will never defend anyone who befriends someone in George W. Bush's family.

I got a good question, would you defend someone or trust someone in Charles Manson's or Saddam's family???

It did happen in 2004... but it did with the Republicans too. Kerry recieved the most votes out of any challenger in the history of the United States. The GOTV on both sides was very well. One other thing you have to take into consideration is the fact that Bush is President during wartime. Never has a wartime President ever lost an election... never.

I agree with you, it does matter who we nominate. It's gotta be someone with a ton of experience. Someone who has proven results to back up his/her visions. Someone who will work with both sides and someone who will bring in votes from both sides. Like Mark Warner says, you cannot try for just 16 states and hope for a slam dunk on the 17th state that will deliver the Presidency.

I've been watching Bayh and especially Warner lately, and i'll tell ya what, they're becoming very strong candidates. It would be a great mistake to write either one of them off.

I think he's a great Democrat... but maybe as VP. One other thing to think about is that Biden is a Senator and we need all the Senators we can get right now.

Joe Biden had this to say about Mark Warner's candidacy:

”My name is Joe Biden and I’m here to audition for Vice President of the United States of America” and even more obviously, “When I’m Mark Warner’s Vice President.”

Biden also hinted strongly that Mark Warner might run in 2008, and that if he did he would make a fine candidate.

It would depend on the person. I would judge them for themselves not for whom they are related.

But thanks for proving a point I made earlier, about extremists on the left being as bad as those on the right. Your question is the same kind of 'guilt by association' tactic that Rush and O'Reilly would employ.

Thus another problem I have with Bayh. ;)

Warner and Bayh both seem like good people and I'd vote for either in a general election. However, I look for more than just a good guy to be in executive office. I want someone who has big plans that make big differences. NOT a rubber stamp for either party. Here's what I want somebody to make the issues:

-end NAFTA, WTO, Fast-Track, and similar programs that outsource our jobs
-strong environmental initiatives, which include setting aside public land, combatting the logging companies, and protecting endangered species
-strong support for unions, so that people can have a good paying job with good benefits
-strong support for alternate fuels
-fixing the school system so that there is more emphasis on building intergrity and life skills, and less emphasis on popularity contests and content that is not practical for the future of most people

I just don't see that stuff coming from any candidate from either party. Perot and Kucinich were the closest, but there's no chance of them running. Gore is second closest, therefore my support for him now.

Does anyone know if Gore still supports NAFTA?

I certainly hope he doesn't. I want our jobs back. That begins with ending NAFTA and WTO.

One of Gore's big claims to fame was his debate against Ross Perot regarding NAFTA. While both NAFTA and the WTO are flawed, I would doubt that Gore would do a complete 180 on his previous positions. More likely he'll propose ways to fix the flaws.

excuses,excuses.

If we believed everything a politician says, why are we here?

Why did we try our hardest for the longest in 2003 when all signals said Al Wasn't running?

There is not one candidate currently in office who was indicated they were running
for sure. They can't. You know that. I know that.

Anyone who officially announces has to follow the official campaign money guidelines, and would be broke before 2008 even was in sight.

The only person normally who is known to be officially running is an incumbent president in his first term.

But-if we tke the word of everyone out there, well, then the following are NOT
running in 2008
Gore,Hillary,Obama,Warner,Bayh,Vilsack,Richardson,McCain,Rudy,Brownback,Frist,Reed,Allen,Kerry,Mrs.Dole,Hutchinson,Lindsay Graham, Bob Graham,WesClark,Harold Ford,Kocinich,Sharpton,Carter,Kennedy,JesseJackson Jr. & 3rd,Lieberman,Gephardt,Jerry Brown,George McGovern,Cindy Sheehan,
Daschle, dancer comet and vixen........I think that takes care of EVERY SINGLE SERIOUS candidate one can name...I might have missed some lightweights or no possiblity whatsoevers

Yes, but interestingly, everyone believes that Gore is NOT running, while they believe that many of the others are.

The only way Hillary would not run is if she were a kind, decent person who wants to do what is best for the country instead of the party, and that is to beg Al Gore to be the one and only candidate, and annoint it to him.


It's a beautiful dream, isn't it?

:good:

Yup.
:clap:

and I am still dreaming some way it will happen
(and I still insist Al would be very wise to not to slam the door on being Hillary's
veep, should he not get in, and she becomes the nominee...at least he could
have some say in how things could go in america the next 8 years, and who
would do a better job? It is NOT lowering or demeaning, not if you are #2 and she wins Nov.08 because of his help.
Who out there is better? No one. If it comes to that, I think if Al ever looks in on these boards, we should encourage him to take it. It in the end would be better than any other position but Supreme Court Justice, which after the Miers fiasco might just be out of the question).

But I still am dreaming the other way

Well, with your uncalled for name calling and your arrogance, you remind me of the extreme right, the Limbaughs and Hannitys, the ones that 'know it all' and stoop to name calling and arrogance when someone disagrees with them.

I happen to agree with AGIML that the name-calling was out of line.

James, you ignorant slut. :tongue:

Sac-le-blur! :o

It's hard to tell if Gore is going to run. He keeps insisting that he isn't going to, but why would he have basically come out of nowhere and start making all of these speeches? I still think that Presidential ambitions do not go away... especially when you won and the other guy became President. Who knows, maybe he doesn't want to be President anymore... i mean think about it, Dubya sure got us in some deep sh*t.