Title: And Then, There's Al Gore
AlGoreFan - November 29, 2007 06:39 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| And Then, There's Al Gore Posted November 28, 2007 | 06:16 PM (EST) When you really think about the crop of Democratic candidates for president, it's clear that their best hope to win in 2008, is not even on the playing field. That current, non-candidate is Al Gore. He's the only one who can match the experience, accomplishments and gravitas of Rudy Giuliani and yet, the left ignores him. Do Democrats think that nostalgia for the Clinton years will propel Hillary to the presidency? More likely, when voters remember the scandal-plagued, triangulating double-talk of both Clintons, they will be less likely to want to return to those years. Barack Obama? In a world that has become more difficult to navigate, does the left think that a not-even-one term senator is the right person for the job? Against a person with Giuliani's credentials, it wouldn't even be close. John Edwards? The one-term senator known more for the price of his haircuts, couldn't even carry his home state of North Carolina as the Vice Presidential nominee in 2004. But, somehow, in '08, he's going to beat Giuliani? I don't think so. And then, there's Al Gore. He served in the House of Representatives for eight years, followed by eight years as a U.S. senator, followed by eight years as Vice President of the United States. In 2000, as the Democratic nominee for president, he won the popular vote by a plurality. Oh yeah, in 2007, he also won an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. Seems to me, his resume is more formidable than the top three current democratic candidates combined. But the Democrats wouldn't know gravitas if it hit them over the head, so infatuated are they with the style of their candidates over their substance. How many times have we heard Barack Obama referred to as a "rock star"? Or about the "star power" Bill would offer on the campaign trail if Hillary is the nominee? The American people won't be considering "star power" when Rudy Giuliani asks either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama what they were doing when he de-fanged the Mafia and cleaned up New York City during his years as a U.S. Attorney and two-term Mayor. Their answers would make the choice in 2008 easy: Mrs. Clinton was a First Lady (of the state of Arkansas, then the United States, with only the defeat of healthcare to her name) while Barack Obama was, self-admittedly, doing too many drugs. And then, there's Al Gore. His impressive accomplishments, at the very least, blunt the Mayor's obvious achievements. Since Bill Clinton damaged the Democrat Party with his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky almost a decade ago, there have been precious few, if any, Democratic candidates for voters to look up to and admire. Do Democrats hold their heads high when they think of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and how the Democratic Party is now thought of as the party of surrender? Are Democrats proud of statements by John Kerry to the effect that American soldiers were somehow stupid or else they wouldn't have ended up in Iraq? Are they proud of "leaders" like Dick Durbin, who compared our troops to Nazi's or of Nancy Pelosi for choosing to meet with the Syrian leader while he was sending his troops into Iraq to kill ours? And then, there's Al Gore. He's someone all Democrats already take pride in for a variety of reasons. Whether you agree with his Global Warming stance or not (I don't), or whether you think he should be wearing earth tones or not, Al Gore is by very far the most substantial candidate the left has and yet it continues to ignore him. As a conservative, I'm glad. |
Wayne in WA State - November 29, 2007 09:18 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
As a conservative I'm glad |
As a Democrat, I'm not glad at all
Texan for Gore - November 29, 2007 02:55 PM (GMT)
I don't know how it can be said that Democrats are ignoring him. Look at all the signatures on the petition and how much attempt there has been to get him to run. He is NOT being ignored.
earthmother - November 29, 2007 03:40 PM (GMT)
Obviously this person isn't aware of our activities . . . :rolleyes:
Questions - November 29, 2007 06:56 PM (GMT)
No, this person is absolutely right, with one caveat.
Al Gore IS being ignored- as well as the rank and file Democrats.
It's the people in power in the party who ignore Gore and Democrats across the country. The same people who sell out Democratic values for people like "Republican-lite" Hillary Clinton.
This article helps speak to the current state of the electoral process in this country. If possible, the Presidential candidate is already chosen, or at least the opposition candidate is one that will do the least amount of damage to the powers that be, in the primaries.
The clue was in the primary race for 2000, when the Bush campaign went after McCain, who probably would have been the GOP candidate.
Even with all the smearing, media propaganda machine, etc., Gore did win in 2000. It took some hijinks in Florida and a GOP "friendly" Supreme Court to put Bush in the White House.
Electoral fraud isn't only about Presidential races- the best "fix" happens in the primaries. That is why all primary voting should be done, when it is done by ballot, with hand counted paper ballots. And then that counting should NOT be done in a back room, as I've heard about.
The sorry truth for both parties is that the people have to take back citizen control of them first, before any real choice happens in a Presidential election.
Al Gore IS being ignored- as well as the rank and file Democrats.
It's the people in power in the party who ignore Gore and Democrats across the country. The same people who sell out Democratic values for people like "Republican-lite" Hillary Clinton.
This article helps speak to the current state of the electoral process in this country. If possible, the Presidential candidate is already chosen, or at least the opposition candidate is one that will do the least amount of damage to the powers that be, in the primaries.
The clue was in the primary race for 2000, when the Bush campaign went after McCain, who probably would have been the GOP candidate.
Even with all the smearing, media propaganda machine, etc., Gore did win in 2000. It took some hijinks in Florida and a GOP "friendly" Supreme Court to put Bush in the White House.
Electoral fraud isn't only about Presidential races- the best "fix" happens in the primaries. That is why all primary voting should be done, when it is done by ballot, with hand counted paper ballots. And then that counting should NOT be done in a back room, as I've heard about.
The sorry truth for both parties is that the people have to take back citizen control of them first, before any real choice happens in a Presidential election.
Texan for Gore - November 29, 2007 09:49 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (earthmother @ Nov 29 2007, 09:40 AM) |
| Obviously this person isn't aware of our activities . . . :rolleyes: |
Yes Earthmother, there's only been countless youtube videos, a NYTimes ad, radio and tv ads, petitions, people at book signings, all urging Al Gore to run. This person must have his his/her head in the sand. :blink:
But if they are referring to the people in power of the Democratic Party like Questions mentioned, perhaps they have ignored Al Gore. Maybe they don't want someone in there who will make change for the better. Who knows. But something's gotta give sooner or later...
hangingchad - November 30, 2007 05:10 PM (GMT)
"When you really think about the crop of Democratic candidates for president, it's clear that their best hope to win in 2008, is not even on the playing field."
SO TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!! And if I hear ONE more "pundit" saying that Al Gore won't run because "The Democrats are very happy with their field", I will LOSE IT, MAN. I won't have to hear it anymore because the pundits have given up on Gore getting into the race. The thinking now is that it is too late. But anyway, the media consensus seems to be that the Democrats are so thrilled with their brilliant field....NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, let's review the major Democratic candidates, shall we?
H-Rod: A lot of great presidential qualities but she does not have a shot in h*ll of winning the general election, for one thing. For another thing, what issues is the woman really passionate about? Because she seems to say whatever her advisors tell her to say to do well in the polls. I HATE that in a candidate, which brings me to:
Obama: Puh-LEEEEEEZ with this guy! He is my absolute least fave Democratic candidate of the entire field. Why? Because WHAT does he STAND for? I can't, can't, CAN'T abide candidates whose entire campaign is a glint in their handsome eye and a slogan such as "I'm the candidate of change." And Obama is the quintessential candidate of that stripe. All good looks and talk of "change", but where's the beef? WHAT do you STAND for? What's your PLATFORM? You know, on the ISSUES?
Edwards: I actually like Edwards, I think he has integrity and good stands on the issues but, as with H-Rod, apparently he has no chance of WINNING THE ELECTION. And he certainly can't hold a candle to Al Gore in terms of experience and qualifications, ETC.
And thus ends our whirlwind tour of the major Democratic candidates. It is indeed true that our best hope is not even on the playing field. I guess the game has been called off on account of we have no shot of winning against the other team. Which is pretty sad, considering the last 8 years and the mood of America right now. How pitiful does our field of candidates have to be for the Repugs to be a shoe-in AGAIN?
Oh, the humanity.
We need Gore in 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't stop saying it. I can't. I've tried.
SO TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!! And if I hear ONE more "pundit" saying that Al Gore won't run because "The Democrats are very happy with their field", I will LOSE IT, MAN. I won't have to hear it anymore because the pundits have given up on Gore getting into the race. The thinking now is that it is too late. But anyway, the media consensus seems to be that the Democrats are so thrilled with their brilliant field....NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, let's review the major Democratic candidates, shall we?
H-Rod: A lot of great presidential qualities but she does not have a shot in h*ll of winning the general election, for one thing. For another thing, what issues is the woman really passionate about? Because she seems to say whatever her advisors tell her to say to do well in the polls. I HATE that in a candidate, which brings me to:
Obama: Puh-LEEEEEEZ with this guy! He is my absolute least fave Democratic candidate of the entire field. Why? Because WHAT does he STAND for? I can't, can't, CAN'T abide candidates whose entire campaign is a glint in their handsome eye and a slogan such as "I'm the candidate of change." And Obama is the quintessential candidate of that stripe. All good looks and talk of "change", but where's the beef? WHAT do you STAND for? What's your PLATFORM? You know, on the ISSUES?
Edwards: I actually like Edwards, I think he has integrity and good stands on the issues but, as with H-Rod, apparently he has no chance of WINNING THE ELECTION. And he certainly can't hold a candle to Al Gore in terms of experience and qualifications, ETC.
And thus ends our whirlwind tour of the major Democratic candidates. It is indeed true that our best hope is not even on the playing field. I guess the game has been called off on account of we have no shot of winning against the other team. Which is pretty sad, considering the last 8 years and the mood of America right now. How pitiful does our field of candidates have to be for the Repugs to be a shoe-in AGAIN?
Oh, the humanity.
We need Gore in 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't stop saying it. I can't. I've tried.
tkdveg - November 30, 2007 06:43 PM (GMT)
Believe me, you're not alone, hangingchad!! I have tried to figure out what a possible "Plan B" would even be, and I CAN"T!! My poor, little, Gore-ified brain just cannot wrap itself around the thought of anyone else!!
It's really quite disturbing actually - having to believe (at this point at least) that Gore will not run, and being forced to choose only based on "who can win"! I'm totally disgusted with this whole process and may have to just "throw away" my vote by writing in Gore. I hate that term: Throw away. It's sooooo unfitting in this case, as it would be the most heart-felt statement I could make! I have never in my life felt so strongly about a candidate - even Gore in 2000!! I thought it was a 'done-deal', and at the time the country was doing OK, but in this vastly different light (after 7 years in hell), I've realized just how critical it is that we have the right person in the White House. I was so oblivious - we all were, I think! This person is to represent us as a country all over the world, in every action they make! How could we possibly trust this to anyone BUT Gore at this point!
I just don't get it; I really don't. :?: What are we suppose to do now?!?!?
Maybe I should change my vote on our poll and opt for the 4-year bender instead!
It's really quite disturbing actually - having to believe (at this point at least) that Gore will not run, and being forced to choose only based on "who can win"! I'm totally disgusted with this whole process and may have to just "throw away" my vote by writing in Gore. I hate that term: Throw away. It's sooooo unfitting in this case, as it would be the most heart-felt statement I could make! I have never in my life felt so strongly about a candidate - even Gore in 2000!! I thought it was a 'done-deal', and at the time the country was doing OK, but in this vastly different light (after 7 years in hell), I've realized just how critical it is that we have the right person in the White House. I was so oblivious - we all were, I think! This person is to represent us as a country all over the world, in every action they make! How could we possibly trust this to anyone BUT Gore at this point!
I just don't get it; I really don't. :?: What are we suppose to do now?!?!?
Maybe I should change my vote on our poll and opt for the 4-year bender instead!
marla - November 30, 2007 07:48 PM (GMT)
Can totally relate, I haven't even checked the site for days and I used to be on all the blogs every day for hours. I am finding myself not caring any more.
I found myself wondering the other day if Al didn't run because he would be all alone with the house and senate a mess and not be able to get things done. Our congress has no balls and hasn't for years unless it was a republican one and they had balls...
So with looking at that he probably did think he could get more done on the outside. If the inside is screwed up he really had no choice...I still feel sick about it.
In a way the writers strike has helped, with jon and stephen off I have pulled way back from politics and its helped my grieving process of no Gore...
I found myself wondering the other day if Al didn't run because he would be all alone with the house and senate a mess and not be able to get things done. Our congress has no balls and hasn't for years unless it was a republican one and they had balls...
So with looking at that he probably did think he could get more done on the outside. If the inside is screwed up he really had no choice...I still feel sick about it.
In a way the writers strike has helped, with jon and stephen off I have pulled way back from politics and its helped my grieving process of no Gore...
earthmother - December 1, 2007 05:16 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (tkdveg @ Nov 30 2007, 06:43 PM) |
| Maybe I should change my vote on our poll and opt for the 4-year bender instead! |
I had voted for the four-year bender option in the first place. At least I'll have company if you change your vote. :rolleyes: