Well, at least one of the party elders is speaking up, actually, two, because Bradley has his own thing to say further down in this post.

Is it possible that through these kinds of stories, some of the party will try to get the message to Hillary to cut it out? Does this mean that some of the super delegates may be pretty unhappy with her campaign and she cannot count on them swinging the nomination her way?

On another note, there is an opinion piece on the end that puts forth the idea of Obama and his supporters literally creating a third party if HRC gets the nomination without winning the most delegates and voters. Kind of like a resurrected democratic party. Which leads to the idea, (SPECULATION, OK?) of a Gore/Obama ticket. Still a dem but cut loose from the party of Clinton- no, must be dreaming again.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/br...le_b_90420.html

Breaking the Final Rule
(Gary Hart)

“It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.

By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.”




Clinton appears to have her own Canadian NAFTA snaffu:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...J9Y&refer=canad

“Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Harper, told reporters on Feb. 26 that a Clinton campaign official told the embassy staff ``not to worry'' about her calls to renegotiate the trade agreement, the Canadian Press said, citing a person who heard the remarks and wasn't identified by name.”

Regarding the alleged Obama snaffu:

“Harper, who on March 4 denied Brodie was the source of the leak, said the circulation of the memo was ``unacceptable'' and that an internal investigation is under way.”



Another one on NAFTAgage:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_pa...on_win_ohio.htm

Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?

“Suppose someone in the North Korean government released a false story that shifted a key American election. If Bush were negatively affected, we might be bombing Pyongyang by now. But this just happened with what Hillary Clinton called "NAFTAgate" Without it, she might never have won Ohio, or her margin would have been minuscule. But as a Canadian Broadcasting Company story reveals, practically the entire story was a lie, one that played so central a role in Clinton's Ohio victory as to thoroughly taint any claim she raises about a swing state mandate.”






Explaining a little bit of the why about the problems with lack of release of records:

Bradley: Bill Clinton's Financial Backers Could Pose Big Problem

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/b...-f_n_90283.html

“Though known for his soft-demeanor, former senator and current Obama supporter Bill Bradley let off a bit of steam at the Clinton campaign during an appearance on NewsHour Wednesday night.”




The tangled web:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7021900972.html

A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser

“"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.”


March 4 is a wash for HRC:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/...results-cer.php

“Nobody seems to be covering this, but it seems relevant news. The
California Primary results were finally certified on Tuesday, March 4,
and the final result is that Obama has picked up 4 delegates from
Hillary - for a total 8 delegate swing.”


An opinion on Monstergate:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archiv...onstergate.html

“In "Monster"-Gate, Clintonites Get Away with a Slur, While Respected Obama Aide Falls

The big news today--if you listen to the Hillary Clinton camp--is that Samantha Power, a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama (and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide), referred to Clinton as a "monster" in what she believed was an off-the-record remark with a reporter. She did apologize. But the Clintonites, ever on the lookout for an issue (or non-issue) to hype, quickly called on Obama to fire Power.

Non-News Flash: Aides to presidential candidates routinely refer to the competition in harsh terms, particularly when they talk to reporters off the record. More than once, a top Clinton person has told me that s/he believes Obama is a self-righteous fraud--or worse. It was, of course, always off the record. But if I had reported any of these remarks, I could have gotten the pop The Scotsman has received for disclosing Power's comment.”



And a twist on the Primary battle I hadn’t thought of: Obama as a third party candidate? I doubt it, and the author doubts it, but goes on to theorize why it could happen and why it might be a good thing. (If you think the country can survive until 2012- ugh)

http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles...st_of_Fate.html

“Oh boy. Where have I seen this movie before?

I think it was four years, surprisingly enough. Hey, what a coincidence! Wasn’t there a presidential election going on back then, too?

Remember how Howard Dean came out of near total obscurity, how he started walloping the presumptive front-runner, John “Fearless” Kerry, by taking bold positions (at least in the context of American politics) against the war, and against George W. Bush? Remember how Kerry changed his tune to ape Dean’s message, and how nervous Democratic voters played it safe and came home to the guy with the experience and the name brand? Remember what an outstandingly effective candidate he then turned out to be? Remember the “real deal”? (Oh, and what a deal it was. I think experienced card players refer to that hand as a ‘jack-shit straight, seven high’, if I’m not mistaken.)

Is this ringing any bells for anyone?”

John Kerry weighs in on the Clinton mantra for Obama as VP, and gets to the illogic of Clinton's attack that Obama is not ready to be president:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080310/pl_nm/...Zv5OTv29ois0NUE


"Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who has endorsed Obama, derided the suggestion. "The first threshold question about a vice president is, are you prepared to be president?" Kerry told CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

"So on the one end, they are saying he's not prepared to be president. On the other hand, they're saying maybe he ought to be vice president," Kerry said."

Interesting ;)

thanks Questions

I had this exact same thought a few weeks ago. Since the battle is becoming so ugly between Clinton and Obama, I was thinking, What if Obama left the party before the nomination (or even after, if it goes to Hillary), to become a third-party candidate, with Gore at the top of the ticket? But again, wouldn't that just guarantee that McCain would win in November since you'd be splitting the votes between Hillary and Gore/Obama?

That's the weak part of this scenario, and it's something to take seriously.

I'm wondering if Bradley was selectively quoted by our MSM (oh....shock) because in this piece from Australia, looks like he let loose:

Clinton attacks on Obama may boost McCain

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...1-26397,00.html

"Former senator Bill Bradley, a leading supporter of Obama and who ran for president in 2000, accused the Clintons of "lying" in pursuit of victory. "The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they've got. That's been their whole approach," he said. "She's going to lose a whole generation of people who got involved in politics believing it could be something different."

Bradley believes Clinton will stop at nothing to tear down Obama even if it boosts John McCain, who was confirmed last week as the Republican nominee: "The Clintons do not do long-term planning. They're total tacticians and right now their focus is on Obama, not McCain"

(end of quote)

There is more in the piece. According to this article, HRC thinks she can get the popular vote. That still seems unlikely.

Were that to happen, if Obama got the delegates and HRC the votes, that really sets the stage for a compromise candidate.

Now I'm wondering if the HRC camp has thought of that, or if they think they've got a tight lock on superdelegates such that the supers won't go the compromise candidate route?

Bill Bradley lied repeatedly about Al Gore all during the 2000 campaign. :mad:

He is hardly a credible source.

earthmother said:

"I had this exact same thought a few weeks ago. Since the battle is becoming so ugly between Clinton and Obama, I was thinking, What if Obama left the party before the nomination (or even after, if it goes to Hillary), to become a third-party candidate, with Gore at the top of the ticket? But again, wouldn't that just guarantee that McCain would win in November since you'd be splitting the votes between Hillary and Gore/Obama?

That's the weak part of this scenario, and it's something to take seriously."


IF, and that's a big if, there were a way to break off and form a new Democratic party, which would be more of a relabeling, then maybe. I don't think it likely and IMHO, I don't think Gore would run on that ticket unless he had the solid support of Obama's delegates, majority of the supers, and enough of the party leadership to insure a new Democratic party might have a chance in the general. That's a lot of "mights" and "ifs". "Dreaming," if you will.

On the other hand, if it did happen, the message could be framed that the new democrats are rescuing the party and returning it to its roots. Framed right, it might carry enough weight. But there is that "might" again.

It would be putting the 800 lb gorilla in the fight that the GOP probably doesn't want to face. Strategy wise, they'd be geared up for Obama or HRC. That's time and money down the drain for the GOP. All a Gore/Obama ticket would have to do is pick up Obama's platform and run. Dreaming again...

Maybe Gore has got Edwards to hold on his delegates to wait until there is no chance for HRC to win it on votes or delegates, then have Edwards put his delegates behind the majority choice for a small, but increased lead. That's assuming HRC can't pull ahead in some way and most of the projections don't see that happening.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I honestly believe that Gore isn't talking to anyone or involving himself in any way with this contest. Any talking he does with Obama or anyone else is most likely about policy, not about somehow planning a coup at the convention. That's not to say he wouldn't accept a draft if it came to that, but I don't think he's doing anything to plan for that.

maybe one of these days you will see how evil the Clinton's are

They will stop at nothing

There is some reason Gore and others have not run in 2004 and now

And then there was Paul Wellstone...

nuff said.

Please don't tell me you blame the Clintons for what happened to Wellstone . . .

Earthmother,

I THOUGHT I read a story, it may even be on this forum somewhere, that Gore had some influence in keeping some supers, and Edwards, neutral for a bit longer.

In a brief Internet search, some blips come up that it may have been in the New York Times, but I'm not getting anything right now directly from the Times.

It wouldn't be Gore trying to influence the supers so much as getting them to wait to see what the people want.

I do not think he's planning any kind of coup. :!:

People were thinking of Gore in third party terms and I didn't see any way for that to happen unless he did run as a dem, albeit a new dem. I said that was dreaming. :rolleyes:

Maybe this is what got me thinking about Gore encouraging others to stay neutral. That is not what is said, here, but that people, including Edwards, had spoken to him. None of these have endorsed yet that I am aware of. Does not mean Gore is responsible for that, does not mean he isn't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/1....hillaryclinton

Gore emerges as power broker while Clinton hopes for a lifeline (2/17)

"Gore emerged yesterday as a possible mediator who could negotiate a resolution if the primary campaign ends in a stalemate and has to be decided by the party convention, where divisions are likely to run deep.

The former vice-president, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental campaign, is among a number of party 'elders' who plan to remain neutral in order to keep such an option open, the New York Times reported yesterday.

They are increasingly concerned that the momentum built up by Clinton and Obama's enthralling race could be squandered if neither lands a knockout blow and the nomination is decided at the convention by an elite of 796 Democratic 'super-delegates'. A perception that a backroom deal had ignored the wishes of millions of voters could be a gift to the Republicans, who have already in effect settled on John McCain as their candidate.

Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, and three candidates who have dropped out of the contest - former senator John Edwards and senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden - have spoken to Gore recently. None has declared allegiance, although Gore is said to have been wooed by supporters of both Clinton and Obama."




Wouldn't you know that I'd find it after posting the above:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/polit...agewanted=print

February 16, 2008
Democrats Look for Way to Avoid Convention Rift

"Former Vice President Al Gore and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday.

Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates.

The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election. "

....

"At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said. Although a number of his supporters had been urging him to endorse Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton has actively sought his backing, Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said."

Did Pelosi weigh in?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030..._No_ticket.html

Pelosi: No ticket

Nancy Pelosi tells Boston TV that a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket is "impossible."

"I think that the Clinton administration (sic) has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama. I think that either way is impossible," she said.

Also: "Nothing ever resolves itself -- it has to be resolved by some outside forces," she said.

I'm not saying that Gore is having nothing at all to do with the race. I agree that he's probably urging other superdelegates to remain neutral for now. And I'd love to know what, if anything, he's said to Edwards about his delegates. I'm not even sure my comment was addressed to you, Questions (who can remember?). But there are those on this board who seem to believe that there's all kinds of back-room stuff going on and that Gore is quietly plotting how he can get into this race. Having believed that he was keeping his options open during the last few years, only to discover that when he said he had no plans, he truly had no plans, I now believe that things are exactly as they appear with Gore, which, at this point, means he's not going to be a player in 2008.

Earthmother, I agree. There's figuring out how to get Gore on the ticket because of the situation, :good: then there's the idea that he's working behind the scenes to get himself in the race- of the latter, I don't think so. :wacko:

If Gore is having any influence, like I've said before, I believe it's to get the supers to wait and see what the will of the people is. Then, rather than have an acrimonious convention, put their votes behind the people's choice. (Are there enough non-committed supers left to do that?)

Unfortunately, I can just see the MSM, floating the idea of a Gore ticket, then turning on him for not declaring "his" intentions from the outset, even though they have been the ones pushing it. :!: Never underestimate the right wing control of the MSM. They've just framed the message as left wing media so the media can go even further right to make up for their "leftness." You gotta wonder if the MSM would quake in its monopoly in fear of a Gore presidency putting fairness and ownership quotas back in the media.

Which, by the way, I'd like to see the Dems do although they don't dare say anything about it. ;)