Al Gore coming back for 2008?

[Dobson73]

I have just read an article in our weekend paper about how Al Gore is quietly roaming the country (my words) and seeming to shore up support to have another stab at the White house in 2008.

It seems wherever he goes he's being greeted as someone with the right goods to lead the Democrats back into the White House as opposed to Hilary who is too polar, she's either loved or hated with no in-between.

The article finished with the line that there is nothing that Americans love more than a comeback and that this would be the comeback to end them all.

What do you guys think?

[Kurn]

We'd have been far better off in every way...
I really like the idea of a 1st-woman president with so many qualifications.
But Gore is tops for a second choice.

[General_Alfie]

I have just read an article in our weekend paper about how Al Gore is quietly roaming the country (my words) and seeming to shore up support to have another stab at the White house in 2008.

It seems wherever he goes he's being greeted as someone with the right goods to lead the Democrats back into the White House as opposed to Hilary who is too polar, she's either loved or hated with no in-between.

The article finished with the line that there is nothing that Americans love more than a comeback and that this would be the comeback to end them all.

What do you guys think?

Americans may like a "comeback" story, but not in politics, not as a rule, and certainly not in Democratic politics. Nixon defied this trend, and I think Gore could, too, particularly since it is so abundantly clear that the election was stolen in Florida and that Gore indeed did win. That itself is a great story line and one that resonates with Americans -- no one likes filthy, dirty cheaters.

I'll be totally candid: I love Al Gore -- I think he's an incredibly deep and brilliant man, a patriot, a visionary, an intellectual and a great fucking guy, a real mensch. I worked in the federal government during his Vice Presidency and his knowledge about the workings of that lumbering giant showed the faith he had in the ability of government to do great things. That alone is a sharp and important contrast between him and almost anyone else running because, you see, if one is elected to the highest office, guess what? Their job is to run the fucking government. If one lacks that faith, if a president hates government, well, one gets the sorry-assed non-performance of Bush's Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.

Gore was utterly smeared by the Republican Lie Machine and the carrier for their diseases of mendacity and distortion was our pathetic, weak and sorry-assed American media. They spread lies (yes, lies) like Gore saying he "invented the internet" (he never said that), or that Gore had hired a woman to instruct him on how to dress and "how to be a man" (not true, either). The press was unceasing in its trashing of Gore and the outcome was a pathetic, dangerous freak of nature, Bush, as president.

BTW, to learn more about just how hard the media worked to slander Gore, I strongly suggest reading "The Daily Howler" blog, located at http://www.dailyhowler.com) Just go to this index page and start reading http://www.google.com/custom?q=gore&...ailyhowler.com.

You say that the article called Senator Clinton "polarizing," and that, too, is another media invention -- that and her being "Angry." Fact is, Clinton is highly viewed by normal, non-wingnut America. The same people who think torturing innocent Iraqis and that illegal spying on Americans is "okay" are the same awful, fearful kool-aid drinkers that hate Clinton, and they are at the very margins of polite, stable, civil society -- they're just one rant away from being incarcerated in a sanitarium for the crimes of hating all that is normal, wholesome, sane, and pure.

[Homoerectus]

Alfie, while I wish 'W' was not president, all evidence and facts indicate the 2000 election was not stolen. The Miami Herald, hardly a bastion of conservatism, published a book about their in depth investigaton of the 2000 election. Ironically, the Herald's report indicates that under the re-count rules and restrictions the Democrats were seeking to impose , Gore would have lost the recount. Also, ironic is that under the rules the Republicans wanted to impose on the recount, Gore would have won. As it was, the system [Constitution] flawed as it might be, worked. Get mad, get over it and now get to work to elect someone worthy of oyur confidence and vote.

[General_Alfie]

Alfie, while I wish 'W' was not president, all evidence and facts indicate the 2000 election was not stolen. The Miami Herald, hardly a bastion of conservatism, published a book about their in depth investigaton of the 2000 election. Ironically, the Herald's report indicates that under the re-count rules and restrictions the Democrats were seeking to impose , Gore would have lost the recount. Also, ironic is that under the rules the Republicans wanted to impose on the recount, Gore would have won. As it was, the system [Constitution] flawed as it might be, worked. Get mad, get over it and now get to work to elect someone worthy of oyur confidence and vote.

Please do not tell me to get over it, m'kay? Unlike so-called "some people," I care deeply that our democracy thrive, not wither, and that the integrity to the ballot be kept paramount.

Second, so far as I know, the Miami Herald is a corporation, not an investigative body duly chartered by Congress with the specific task of determining the conduct of the election and the counting of votes, now is it? The Miami Herald did not have supeona power and the authority to call witnesses to testify under oath, with penalty for perjury, did they? Saying the Miami Herald did an investigation and found everything "okey-dokey" is about as reassuring as saying Fox News "did an investigation" and found WMD in Saddam shirt pocket.

[smelter]

Saying the Miami Herald did an investigation and found everything "okey-dokey" is about as reassuring as saying Fox News "did an investigation" and found WMD in Saddam shirt pocket.

Fox News may have done the investigation but Rick Santorum was the one who personally dug them out of the sand. It may have turned out to be some degraded Grey Poupon mustard smears on a 15 year old howitzer shell, but it still counts .......

[The_Reaper]

Well, considering he won back in 2000......


I think Gore could be a good candidate....

But he'd take a lot of flak for his hardcore environmental views and would find it hard to get some corporate backers to support him...

[khushibagh]

I always thought Gore would be a strong contender in 2008 but I think he has said that he won't run too many times for him to reconsider without it becoming an issue. He used the time since 2000 to become more relaxed and less wooden so that's all to the good. The downside is that he may come across as an environmental extremist nowadays.

I don't see how Hillary could possibly win unless the Republicans dig themselves into an even bigger hole and then run Cheney. If the Democrats are going to retake the White House they need to do a better job of appealing to str8 white male voters. In 2004, I kept hearing from str8 white male voters who are not religous nuts about how dissatisfied they were with W and how they would never vote for Kerry. I think that over time it is has gotten so those voters just tune out the Dems.

[Ben1]

He would be a great President.Better a boring Gore than a crazy Bush.

[General_Alfie]

I always thought Gore would be a strong contender in 2008 but I think he has said that he won't run too many times for him to reconsider without it becoming an issue.

Most politicians play the coquette.

He used the time since 2000 to become more relaxed and less wooden so that's all to the good. The downside is that he may come across as an environmental extremist nowadays.

I don't doubt there are those so-called sad and silly "people," the America-Haters, the fear-biting riff-raff, the flat-earthers who still deny that our world has serious, perhaps fatal, environmental problems, but most serious people intuitively know that we have got to change the way we live. I think Al would actually be seen as prescient.

I don't see how Hillary could possibly win unless the Republicans dig themselves into an even bigger hole and then run Cheney. If the Democrats are going to retake the White House they need to do a better job of appealing to str8 white male voters. In 2004, I kept hearing from str8 white male voters who are not religous nuts about how dissatisfied they were with W and how they would never vote for Kerry. I think that over time it is has gotten so those voters just tune out the Dems.

The GOP has some serious, serious credibility issues, dontchaknow; after all, they captained this ship onto the shoals of disaster; it was the GOP, not the Dems, who went full speed ahead into the deadly waters of neoconism; it was the Pugs, not the Dems, who advanced a rich-man's economic agenda so virulent, so deleterious to the interests of the average working man that our standard of living is in free-fall.

Now, maybe I have the dreamers disease, but I think we're looking at a full-throated hatcheting of the GOP in 2006 and 2008. In fact, come '08, we'll be the only lemonade stand in town. I say, "bring it on."

[vox populi]

Perhaps I'm just more pessimistic than our General, but I don't see anything happening that would prevent the Republican machine from stealing yet another election. If anything, their hold on all three branches of government (especially the judiciary) as well as the popular media (which has happily defined itself as the American equivalent of TASS for the RNC) is healthier then ever despite the poor approval ratings of our reigning clown in commander's clothing.

I agree that current claims that Hillary is "polarizing" have the same whiff of media bullshit as the ludicrous smears endelessly repeated about Al Gore; however, the apparently insurmountable problem is that the People eat up that sort of bullshit by the bucketfulls. Info-tainment is as close as our beloved populace seems to want to get to anything like the truth. Bread and circuses keeps 'em happy. No matter how much the Bush administration reeks of cronyism and out and out war profiteering via outsourcing and lucrative contracts for puported rebuilding efforts in Iraq, the American public smells only money and profit, and they line up in droves hoping they will eventualy get their cut.

At least that's a somewhat more venomous version of Thomas Frank's claim in his book "What Happened to Kansas?" What happened was that people who were being bled dry of their economic health (by corporate interests and paid-off politicos) aligned themselves as supporters of the very people who were bleeding them dry because those were the people who apparently knew how to make money. Similarly, the RNC neo-cons know all about arrogant displays of power, and the People are attracted to those displays if only because they give the lie to their own powerlessness.

Frankly, I doubt that any democrat of note can win in 2008 unless he or she grows a set of balls and comes out swinging very soon. At one point, I thought Russ Feingold might be heading in that direction, but he quickly lapsed into political game playing. Dems desperately need to take the offensive and define the terms for the 2008 election instead of relying on passive-agresive reactions to whatever dreck the RNC oozes forth. Someone has to tell us all to wake the fuck up. Until they can do that, we can all just spread our legs and take it. And not in the good way.

[NedNickerson]

I fear that there will always be someone willing to dig up some sort of negative ammunition against Gore, just as they did with Kerry, like this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...worldtobelieve

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe
By Peter Schweizer

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

==============================================

[unclaimedblessing]

I like Gore and beleive him to be intelligent, compassionate and a moderate willing to listen to reason.
He reacted more quickly and efficiently in evacuating Katrina survivors than Bush and the entire federal govt.
Yes,he is a bit of a snooze, but remember the countrys react to Howard Deans (almost maniacal) enthusiasm.
What the Hell do people want?
The presidency shouldn't be a popularity or beauty contest. We need a forward thinking, intelligent, articulate leader with no special interest commitments.
Wouldn't that be refreshing?

[General_Alfie]

Mon Dieu! Wingnut Peter Schweizer cowardly strikes again... and misses, as usual.

Little Petey has made something of a career (and tidy profit) from nitpicking liberals to dead, pointing out their so-called "hypocrisies," and then cashing in by writing Ann Coulteresque books, suitable for the wingnut crowd: short on cites, short on accuracy, short on facts.

But what about Petey's "hypocrisies? Why doesn't Petey disclose that his employer, the extremist think tank Hoover Institution receives tons of money from oil companies and that he himself denies global warming is occurring? Gee, why wouldn't he want us to know that??? From ThinkProgress:

Unfortunately, Mr. Schweizer's op-ed is the latest in a string of
attacks from organizations receiving money from ExxonMobil-in this case
an attempt to attack the messenger to divert attention from the message
of the climate crisis. Mr. Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover
Institution, which has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
(http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=43)

Further, his piece (which is an opinion piece, BTW, not a news article) is a hail of lies and mistakes, though more lies than anything, and has forced USAToday to issue at least one correction thus far. From USAToday:

In a column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.

That's one. Two, from Gore's Nashville office:

Gore owns no stock in Occidental, and never has (his father did; it was all sold over six years ago). Gore does in fact take advantage of the green power options his utility offers, and was in the process of adding photovoltaic solar cells to his house when the article came out. He pays for his own personal carbon offsets, in addition to the institutional offsets purchased by Paramount (movie distributor) and Rodale (book publisher), which make both the book and the movie completely carbon neutral.

Well, I'm not surprised -- this is, after all, how the extreme right wing operates: lie like hell. Truly, to these weak, scared and cowardly pukes, truth is indeed inconvenient, and usually ignored.

Petey did this in the 2004 campaign and it was sickening. Petey trained his sights on John Kerry's lifestyle and pointed out to a willing media some (*gasp*) "issues" with Kerry -- that Kerry owned a handmade bike, failing, of course, to mention that Bush does, too. Pointing out that Kerry was from (OMG!) a blue-blooded family, failing, of course, to mention that Bush came from a far richer, far more infamous family -- some of whom were war profiteers.

But, like I said, this is how the right wing operates. Their alienation, their disassociation from the truth makes it impossible to engage them in serious debate, and that sucks, because these blowhards have almost limitless access to a stupid and cooperative media, and to the Vast Right Wing Noise & Lie Machine. 'Nuff said -- thanks for posting the article, I guess.

[chance1]

The fact that Gore is in the hunt for 2008 in my opinion speaks to:

1 - The extreme wing of the party is unhappy with Hillary - she's not anti-war enough - and hasn't kissed their behinds to their liking

2 - The desire to go backwards in time not forward - Bill Clinton times

3 - The return of "the election was stolen"

I think #1 grows stronger every day. Hillary is deemed not liberal enough - how ironic as Repubs see her as a liberal nightmare. Interesting how both can be true.

If you want to bring Gore back, why not Kerry? Cause both candidates are damaged goods. Both lost very winnable elections because both candidates were flawed. Better to move on in my opinion

As for the Florida voting, I think it was what 6 years ago? Time to move on on that one too. Especially since it is a red herring and serves only to remind people just how crazy some can be.

2008 should be a Democratic Presidential year. All you need is one sane candidate who is not too polarizing (Hillary a problem?) or too liberal or too soft on terror/defense. Should be a layup - can of corn - fill in the blanks. Instead, the Dems will make it tough.

Going backwards with Gore does not make sense. And since he picked Joe Lieberman to be his VP, how can good Dems trust him?

[Sausy]

trust the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2008,no matter what they do in 2006.The worst thing for the Dems is Hillary,John Edwards,Al Gore or John Kerry.Bill Richardson or some reasonable facsimile of a reasonable,pragmatic relative moderate-liberal may be a slam dunk,but I'm afraid the left will think it's their turn to make a steal at the other side of the court,dribble unimpeded for a tomahawk slam to bring the house down-and completely blow it.

[chance1]

I've seen Richardson on TV - smart, regular, Republican looking Democrat

He'd be great

[Sausy]

I've seen Richardson on TV - smart, regular, Republican looking Democrat

He'd be great

That's the problem with the progressives who want to take over the party-"republican"looking.He's not-but if there is a concilliator,a true statesman who's trying to get the nomination-the anti-heretic left will be sure to take the party down rather than take a chance of an pragmatist and centrist they can't trust will impliment their vision for America,which seems sunny and bright,but would leave us as sclerotic and fractured as the European socialist model they love.Even Sweden got sick of that!

[General_Alfie]

GREAT MOMENTS IN HISTORY: WAR PRESIDENT BUSH DECLARES VICTORY IN IRAQ 01 MAY 2003

The fact that Gore is in the hunt for 2008 in my opinion speaks to:

1 - The extreme wing of the party is unhappy with Hillary - she's not anti-war enough - and hasn't kissed their behinds to their liking.

Well, at least the Dems have a big enough tent to have groups of people that cover the sensible political spectrum; the GOP has two groups: those who mendacious and are looking out for themselves at the expense of the nation: they merely hate America. The other group is the kooky brigade: the Yellow Ribbon Republicans, the Taliban religious crazies, the Burka morality police brigades and "The Rapture/End Times" crusaders -- they collectively wish to destroy America.

2 - The desire to go backwards in time not forward - Bill Clinton times

Well, how much further back do you want us to go, chance? I mean, Bush has brought us back to the Middle Ages, surely you dont want to go back to the Stone Ages, do you?

Ah, chance1, to go back to the days of Bill Clinton! Wouldn't we all like to? Eight years of economic growth -- the largest peacetime growth of wages and income in our history! The government was running a surplus for the first time in sixty years, there was peace abroad, the military was being rebuilt after being left to rot by Ronnie and Coward Bush #1, lowest crime rate in 30 year, lowest poverty level in 20 years, unemployment at 3.9%, wages grew faster than at any time in 40 years -- sure, I'll take that!

And we were safer, chance1, much safer: Clinton funded local governments to hire 100,000 police, and terrorism was being fought with vigor and purpose -- the, Um, foiled Centennial plot ring a bell? Yes, America was free from attack on our soil for ninety-five months. Yes, I'll take that too. All of that and guess what? President Clinton didn't break the law and secretly and illegally bug people's phones, tap their computers and read their mail, yet he STILL kept America safe.

Compared to today, I'd take that trip back in time!

3 - The return of "the election was stolen"

Not gonna waste my time detailing all the reasons why that statement is true. Will simply have to wait till the Dems take the Senate and finally -- finally, once and for all -- investigate the circumstances. Oh, what a time we'll have, getting to the truth after all these years of imposters, chancd1.

If you want to bring Gore back, why not Kerry? Cause both candidates are damaged goods. Both lost very winnable elections because both candidates were flawed. Better to move on in my opinion

Ah, let's see. Al Gore won the primary vote, did he not? And he likely won the electoral, too. Kerry? Kerry ran against an incumbent in time of so-called "war" and nearly beat him. Bush won by the smallest percentage of any sitting president since, Ah, Wilson, which would be 1918, dontchaknow? Had Bush's bidness partner and War Planning Advisor, Osama bin-Laden, not made that surprise video endorsement of Bush four days prior to the election, perhaps things would be different.

As for the Florida voting, I think it was what 6 years ago? Time to move on on that one too. Especially since it is a red herring and serves only to remind people just how crazy some can be.

"Crazy" My, how the right likes to diss liberals for being cruel and using MEAN WORDS, and then turn around and do it themselves. must be that "projection" thing, what do you think, chance1?

2008 should be a Democratic Presidential year. All you need is one sane candidate who is not too polarizing (Hillary a problem?) or too liberal or too soft on terror/defense. Should be a layup - can of corn - fill in the blanks. Instead, the Dems will make it tough.

"You?" Why, chance1! You so-call "claim" to be a Democrat! Was that, too, "projection," or just a slip?

Going backwards with Gore does not make sense. And since he picked Joe Lieberman to be his VP, how can good Dems trust him?

Shows Gore's bipartisanship by selecting a Likudican -- that's what Lieberman is -- a mix of Likud and Republican.

Well, you fail to make any case whatsoever against Gore, but that's okay -- you're not the first Republican to underestimate that man. Take care, chance1, and say "hi" to Sore Loserman for me.

[General_Alfie]

trust the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2008,no matter what they do in 2006.The worst thing for the Dems is Hillary,John Edwards,Al Gore or John Kerry.Bill Richardson or some reasonable facsimile of a reasonable,pragmatic relative moderate-liberal may be a slam dunk,but I'm afraid the left will think it's their turn to make a steal at the other side of the court,dribble unimpeded for a tomahawk slam to bring the house down-and completely blow it.

Sigh. Your party is running the most corrupt and incompetent government in American history, your party has lost control of the war on terror, your party has lost the war in Iraq and soon in Afghanistan, your party is locus to some of the most vile, sick bastards ever to drag their knuckles on Planet Earth, the Middle East is teetering on the brink of holy war, the economy is in the toilet and soon to be flushed, and instead of fixing these manifest and urgent problems, you guys are worried about (LOL!!) what kind of president Hillary Clinton might be? WE SHOULD BE SO LUCKY!

[chance1]

A note to Alfie

Re: the big tent
Big enough tent? what happened to Joe Lieberman? I think the tent is by invitation only. And if you're anti-abortion, no admittance to the tent either. And we both know that the only reason Gore is being mentioned is that Hillary is courting Repubs for gen election purps not just liberal Dems and that drives you/them crazy!

Re: Clinton days
Clinton was caretaker to very prosperous times indeed. My only point was I think moving forward is the way to go. And I believe many Dems are capable of earning/winning the nomination, not just the ones with links to the past

Re: stolen election
I think in life, biz, whatever - gotta look ahead. I think the stolen election thing is sour grapes but it doesn't matter - it's so over - look ahead. I don't mean you're literally crazy just that "it's crazy" to cry over such an old thing - not like a relative died right? And "crazy" compared to your adjectives Alfie is really apples and donuts no?

Re: the "you" word
You're too funny (not crazy) - "All you need" - not you/Alfie - no slip, no projection - I live in NY, being a Republican is a waste of time

Re: Lieberman
Al chose Joe to try to win Florida - that's what I heard. Then dumped him like a bad habit when he didn't need him (CT primary issues). Yup, that Gore is principled for sure

Not looking to make a case against Gore - just the fact that he went from "couldn't get it done/he's done" to "let's try Al again" just makes you wonder what the Dems are up to.

[General_Alfie]

A note to Alfie

Re: the big tent
Big enough tent? what happened to Joe Lieberman?

Didn't you hear? Lieberman lost the Democratic primary election. Yep, the Democrats of Connecticut, who know Joe best and to whom Lieberman reports, decided they had enough. They say Lieberman was out of touch with the voters and too kissy-kissy with Coward Bush #2. Ned Lamont won, so he's the Dem candidate for Senator.

Thank God for democracy, dontchathink, chance1? After all, the vote is the manifestation of the people's will.

[Sausy]

Clinton didn't take on Al-Qaeda when he had numerous chances-Khobar Towers,Kenyan attacks,U.S.S. Cole.The Sudanese government begging us to take him,but we were concerned about appearances.he only got balls in Bosnia and Kosovo when pressured by John Mc Cain and Joe Lieberman among others. He was unable to make Yassir Arafat,may he rest in hell,accept a peace agreement with Israeli Labor prime minister Ehud Barak,and who launched a self-defeating intifada that was aimed at getting a hostile Likud Party under that boo-hiss bogeyman Sharon into power instead,which he did.He fucked up Haiti,was derelict in his support of the oligarchs who ruined Russia's move to free and democratic status.He allowed the genocide in Kenya that left hundreds of thousands dead at the hands of the government,then cried crocodile tears because of it.He bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to look tough on terrorism,and occasionally lobbed missiles into Baghdad.

It was under Clinton's watch that the Enrons and Tycos and all those corporate stock inflaters and high livers do the wretched thing that Bush would be blamed for,cause as soon as the Clinton Administration was winding down to pardon rich financial backers for his library,the bubble burst and all hell broke loose.But it happened squarely under Clinton's watch,and he never addressed or forced greater commitment to corporate responsibility on the national agenda.He did nothing ,with the great opportunity as the budget actually got balanced with close to zero real growth(Only possible because the Republicans were controlling the Congress and at that time had leadership actually committed to fiscal responsibility)with Social Security,Medicare, Medicaid,any of the potentially budget-busting entitlements he could have led the way to getting under control and solvent.He did many little budget gimmicks like the 100,000 police malarkey which was designed to be for a short term only and then handed responsibility for continuation to the states and localities involved-more bait and switch than safe and sound.

I am not a registered Republican,but still a Democrat,as I have stated before in other threads,maybe in forums you deem unfit to visit,i don't know.I think Clinton was a self-absorbed,totally opportunistic politician with great mental acuities but without character or leadership.He could have been more,but his lack of character wouldn't permit it.I do not praise Bush,I have been greatly critical of him because he has proven so unfit for the grave responsibilities he must face in his role as the leader of the Free World.I feel his disastrous tendencies toward incompetence,arrogance,and blind loyalty towards others as incompetent as him have caused America great distress and destroyed credibility with the world community and even now his own people,as the abysmal under 40 % approval rating among the American public has become consistent .

I am not certain Hilary Clinton would win,but whoever wins the presidency WILL be my president.I have seen enough of the Republican overreach and hysteria against Clinton,as the Democratic insanity regarding anyone who doesn't conform to the progressive agenda being smeared and pilloried,so basically-if the right keeps the Republican s in their control,and the left seizes the mantle of who and what defines a Democrat-I''ll fight the both of you and support whoever truly will work to unite America.It's got to start someplace,and Al Gore ain't it.

[General_Alfie]

Clinton didn't take on Al-Qaeda when he had numerous chances-Khobar Towers,Kenyan attacks,U.S.S. Cole.The Sudanese government begging us to take him,but we were concerned about appearances...

That right? Where did you hear that, Rush? Sorry, your hatred of Clinton is no excuse for trotting out a bunch of right wing lies and half-truths, but I'm used to that.

Here are a few, you know, "facts," as we in the reality-based world call them>

On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.


On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)


On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.

On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.
(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)


In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

cite: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Further, from the Washington Post:

August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

Typical America-Hating from the party of bin-Ladenism, the GOP.

He was unable to make Yassir Arafat,may he rest in hell,accept a peace agreement with Israeli Labor prime minister Ehud Barak,and who launched a self-defeating intifada that was aimed at getting a hostile Likud Party under that boo-hiss bogeyman Sharon into power instead,which he did.He fucked up Haiti,was derelict in his support of the oligarchs who ruined Russia's move to free and democratic status.He allowed the genocide in Kenya that left hundreds of thousands dead at the hands of the government,then cried crocodile tears because of it.He bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to look tough on terrorism,and occasionally lobbed missiles into Baghdad.

Not every initiative works out as planned, or on a timeline that we would wish, but to suggest Clinton wasn't engaged is bullshit -=- no one worked harder than Billy.

It was under Clinton's watch that the Enrons and Tycos and all those corporate stock inflaters and high livers do the wretched thing that Bush would be blamed for,cause as soon as the Clinton Administration was winding down to pardon rich financial backers for his library,the bubble burst and all hell broke loose.But it happened squarely under Clinton's watch,and he never addressed or forced greater commitment to corporate responsibility on the national agenda.

Um, excuse me, but the ENRON scandal broke during *cough* Coward Bush #2's term, in fact, almost a year into it. Of course, I believe Bush tried covering up for his pal and former bidness partner, "Kennyboy" Lay. How About That!

As to library donors, the only one I know of was Mark Rich, who was fined $100 million as part of the clemency dead. I would agree that it was probably wrong to pardon him.

He did nothing ,with the great opportunity as the budget actually got balanced with close to zero real growth(Only possible because the Republicans were controlling the Congress and at that time had leadership actually committed to fiscal responsibility)with Social Security,Medicare, Medicaid,any of the potentially budget-busting entitlements he could have led the way to getting under control and solvent.He did many little budget gimmicks like the 100,000 police malarkey which was designed to be for a short term only and then handed responsibility for continuation to the states and localities involved-more bait and switch than safe and sound.

Um, excuse me. President Clinton pushed the Omnibus Budget Act through Congress without a SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE -- not ONE asshole Pug voted for fiscal sanity. Really, sausage, must I do your work for you? And as you should -- but probably don't -- know, it is the president who presents HIS budget to congress .The GOP sat on the sidelines, save for trying to push through (SURPRISE SURPRISE) tax cuts for people like, Um, KEN LAY.

Now, I answered your points, how about answering MINE? I posted:

Sigh. Your party is running the most corrupt and incompetent government in American history, your party has lost control of the war on terror, your party has lost the war in Iraq and soon in Afghanistan, your party is locus to some of the most vile, sick bastards ever to drag their knuckles on Planet Earth, the Middle East is teetering on the brink of holy war, the economy is in the toilet and soon to be flushed, and instead of fixing these manifest and urgent problems, you guys are worried about (LOL!!) what kind of president Hillary Clinton might be? WE SHOULD BE SO LUCKY!

Oh, and I'd remind you, Billy Clinton has been out of office for six years -- of course, some people like living in the past. That being the case, they really should have a better grip on the facts. I await your reply, sugs.

[khushibagh]

I've seen Richardson on TV - smart, regular, Republican looking Democrat

He'd be great

"Republican looking" - is that like "straight acting"?

I don't think Gore is being put forward by people who think Hillary is too conservative. I think no matter how hard Hillary tries to pander to the Right she will always be viewed as a radical feminist by at least half the country - that is why she is unelectable. IMHO the Democrats need a candidate who does not have strong negatives because you want voters who are persuadable to ask "Who's he? - tell me more" Like Mark Warner - I don't know if I would like him if I tried looked closely at him but I'm open to persuasion. Very few people who don't support Hillary right now are open to be persuaded by her so I think she would be a bad choice unless 2008 is a Democratic year like 1976.

I don't think Gore can win if he keeps talking about the stolen election. That's why he would have been a bad choice in 2004, but I think Gore has moved on more than some of his supporters. It's funny to hear Gore being talked about as a dove, since he was a big supporter of Gulf War I and was considered right of center on defense issues when he was a Senator.

[General_Alfie]

"Republican looking" - is that like "straight acting"?

I don't think Gore is being put forward by people who think Hillary is too conservative.

Agree -- that's what Edwards is positioned for.

I think no matter how hard Hillary tries to pander to the Right she will always be viewed as a radical feminist by at least half the country - that is why she is unelectable.

Disagree. The America Haters will never support her, but they're only 30% of the electorate. Besides, she only need 50% of the vote plus one to win.

IMHO the Democrats need a candidate who does not have strong negatives because you want voters who are persuadable to ask "Who's he? - tell me more" Like Mark Warner - I don't know if I would like him if I tried looked closely at him but I'm open to persuasion. Very few people who don't support Hillary right now are open to be persuaded by her so I think she would be a bad choice unless 2008 is a Democratic year like 1976.

I don't think Gore can win if he keeps talking about the stolen election. That's why he would have been a bad choice in 2004, but I think Gore has moved on more than some of his supporters. It's funny to hear Gore being talked about as a dove, since he was a big supporter of Gulf War I and was considered right of center on defense issues when he was a Senator.

Yeah, funny how some people are sticklers for the rule of law and the integrity of the ballot, huh? We should all adopt the GOP cry-baby points and just "move on." Not.

Kerry promised to fight to the death to assure that the voting was fair, and he turned tail in Ohio, instead of fighting as promised. I believe that sealed his future fate with many Dems and Indies.

Democrats need to stop worrying about what the Taliban Party will say, do, or how they'll react -- they should have zero influence on who and how we select our nominee. And frankly, lots of this "Hillary can't win" bullshit is driven by the GOP -- they must be plenty scared of her. We Dems need to act like Pugs in one respect: be true to the party faithful. After all, there are more Dems and Indies than Talibaners.

[Northwest Prince]

i would love it if gore or kerry ran again. they are the onlly ones who can raise the money to defeat hillary for the nomation.

[Toriko]

After all, the vote is the manifestation of the people's will.

Such equivocation... "the vote" is the manifestation of the voting majority's will. In the case of Lieberman/Lamont, that's not even saying much becase it was the larger fraction of the portion of Democrats who voted in that small state's extremely limited election.

[khushibagh]

Yeah, funny how some people are sticklers for the rule of law and the integrity of the ballot, huh? We should all adopt the GOP cry-baby points and just "move on." Not.

American voters don't like whiners. Unless the Dems can find something concrete and clear cut, whining about it is just going to turn off voters who might otherwise be dissatisfied about the Republicans and hence persuadable.

[chance1]

"Republican looking" - is that like "straight acting"?

I don't think Gore is being put forward by people who think Hillary is too conservative. I think no matter how hard Hillary tries to pander to the Right she will always be viewed as a radical feminist by at least half the country - that is why she is unelectable. IMHO the Democrats need a candidate who does not have strong negatives because you want voters who are persuadable to ask "Who's he? - tell me more" Like Mark Warner - I don't know if I would like him if I tried looked closely at him but I'm open to persuasion. Very few people who don't support Hillary right now are open to be persuaded by her so I think she would be a bad choice unless 2008 is a Democratic year like 1976.

I don't think Gore can win if he keeps talking about the stolen election. That's why he would have been a bad choice in 2004, but I think Gore has moved on more than some of his supporters. It's funny to hear Gore being talked about as a dove, since he was a big supporter of Gulf War I and was considered right of center on defense issues when he was a Senator.

What I meant about Richardson is that he's not a screamer - he talks intelligently about issues, he has cred - not a bomb thrower. But the straight acting is a funny one and got a kick out of it. I think Bill if were to get some support, get on TV, show people what he's got - he could be really good.

I agree on stolen election whining - does not play except with extremists who grip tight to that one. It's not a winner IMO. And I hear you on Hillary but not sure Gore is the answer to that one - he's no moderate. Don't know Warner - married to Liz Taylor? that's gotta disqualify you right? LOL

If Bill Clinton was running, he'd win

The Dems need a solid, middle of the road candidate - he/she would win in a landslide

[khushibagh]

Richardson has an impressive resume although he strikes me as a bit boring. If he ran I would certainly take a close look at him.

Chance1 - I think you are thinking of John Warner, the Republican senator from Virginia who was once married to Liz Taylor. Mark Warner is the outgoing Democratic governor of Virgina (I guess they're as inbred there as West Virginia) and former dot com exec.

I am more than a little disturbed that you think that a hallmark of acting like a Republican is talking intelligently about issues. When I hear "Republican acting" I think demagogue who hides behind the flag and calls everyone who disagrees soft on terrorism.

[chance1]

Richardson has an impressive resume although he strikes me as a bit boring. If he ran I would certainly take a close look at him.

Chance1 - I think you are thinking of John Warner, the Republican senator from Virginia who was once married to Liz Taylor. Mark Warner is the outgoing Democratic governor of Virgina (I guess they're as inbred there as West Virginia) and former dot com exec.

I am more than a little disturbed that you think that a hallmark of acting like a Republican is talking intelligently about issues. When I hear "Republican acting" I think demagogue who hides behind the flag and calls everyone who disagrees soft on terrorism.

thanks for the correction Khushibagh - and my apologies to the "Taylor-less" Warner

And sorry about the disconnect on Repubs/intelligent thing - not what I mean - can see why you thought so. I think Richardson is smart, but that when he criticizes the current admin, he does it in a non personal/screaming/irate/etc way. I think some of the more popular dems are too partisan, play too much to the hardcore base and frankly lose moderates like myself who want change but not whining. I think Pelosi, Boxer, Ted K, Kerry (now), Howard Dean - these are people who IMO, lose me with their method/style - so I don't care how smart they might be. Russ Feingold strikes me as an extreme thinker who can articulate his views/vision so that it doesn't seem as extreme. The others - well, IMO, they are not leaders.

I feel similarly about Alfie. Clearly a very intelligent guy who instead of trying to convert/convince with his knowledge and facts, instead he throws bombs at individuals, attacks them personally and then if you disagree, you become part of his attack. It just doesn't work. You need to convince others of what you mean first, why it makes sense and why you should consider it.

Sorry for the rambling - it's an affliction

[snapcat]

Sorry for the rambling - it's an affliction

Chance, I agree with you on Richardson. He's my candidate. And I don't care about the rambling. You're not the only wordy one around.

But I have to finally tell you - and please don't hate me for saying this - but that avatar bugs the shit out of me! There, I've said it and I feel better!

If I may be honest for a moment, it's sometimes difficult to read what may otherwise be a well-articulated post when a series of pre-pubescent boy images is flashing the the left of the message.

Of course I have an Anna Nicole Smith head below each of my posts in my siggie, so I suppose the old saying of 'calling the kettle black' may apply.

[Toriko]

snapcat, the guy in his picture, I can't recall his name, but he is legal... and I don't mean just West Virginia legal either. Of course I can't confirm how old he is in chance's avatar.

Geez, knowing this makes me curious what having the Dark Lord to the left of my posts does to you.

[Sausy]

snapcat, the guy in his picture, I can't recall his name, but he is legal... and I don't mean just West Virginia legal either. Of course I can't confirm how old he is in chance's avatar.

Geez, knowing this makes me curious what having the Dark Lord to the left of my posts does to you.

I beg a little latitude for going off topic,but your avatar seems to have no effect on me at least,my master!

[General_Alfie]

Such equivocation... "the vote" is the manifestation of the voting majority's will. In the case of Lieberman/Lamont, that's not even saying much becase it was the larger fraction of the portion of Democrats who voted in that small state's extremely limited election.

The "Vote," Sir, refers to the election and the integrity of same.

Funny, i don't recall anyone in the GOP wanting to discard the results of the 2000 or 2004 election simply because less than half the eligible voters bothered to vote, nor should we discard any election due to turnout; we must ALWAYS overturn corrupted or fixed elecdtions, however, which does apply to the 2000 election, and perhaps the 2004 Ohio vote.

Lieberman had no problem with low turnout when he won two previousd Democratic primaries, did he? He didn't disqualify himself then, did he? I swear, Lieberman is cut from the same cloth as Bush, which, of course, is why he was rejected.

[Toriko]

...we must ALWAYS overturn corrupted or fixed elecdtions, however, which does apply to the 2000 election, and perhaps the 2004 Ohio vote.

I just disagreed with your use of "the will of the people". The above quoted text is true, but it is interesting how vehemently opposed to this people are---when did it become bad for crimes to be investigated and, assuming those elections were crimes, criminals to be brought to justice?

[General_Alfie]

I just disagreed with your use of "the will of the people".

Fair enough -- how's "the legitimate expression of the people's will?"

The above quoted text is true, but it is interesting how vehemently opposed to this people are---when did it become bad for crimes to be investigated and, assuming those elections were crimes, criminals to be brought to justice?

When? When the criminals took over the apparatus of justice, as in when they seized power, back in 2000. When? When these usurpers came to hold themselves as beyond the reach and jurisdiction of the US Constitution. When? When the supporters of these thugs decided that the laws of the nation apply, but only to their enemies. When? When the Republican SCOTUS decided 'twas best to reward their paymasters by throwing a bone to them. When? When the media decided that their continued well-being (not to mention their continued consolidation of media outlets, dependent, as they were, on federal approvals) required them to ignore their primary mission as truth-tellers and to look the other way as the hit was made on the nation.

When we Dems take over, through legal means, there will be a strong urge to take revenge and act just like the GOP Mafia that has soiled our nation and perverted our laws. After all, what's good for the bin-Ladenites is goodfor the gander, right? Wrong. We wil never, never crawl into that sewer, we will never forsake the sacred trust of the people, unlike the GOP.

The only exception for which I advocate is forced deportation of recalcitrant, freedom-loathing, fear-biting, hardcore wingers, and this would be understandable: we cannot govern with political terrorists in our midst, terrorists who seek to destroy all that is good, wholesome, and pure.

We will never, never seek to destroy our country just to make a few bucks and to score some political hits. But then, that's why we are Democrats -- we love America, unlike the GOP, the equal to domestic terrorists like Republican Tim McVeigh and Republican Ann Coulter.

[chance1]

But I have to finally tell you - and please don't hate me for saying this - but that avatar bugs the shit out of me! There, I've said it and I feel better!

If I may be honest for a moment, it's sometimes difficult to read what may otherwise be a well-articulated post when a series of pre-pubescent boy images is flashing the the left of the message.

Of course I have an Anna Nicole Smith head below each of my posts in my siggie, so I suppose the old saying of 'calling the kettle black' may apply.

LOL - too funny - and I appreciate the "tell it to me str8"

The avatar is Jesse McCartney - and he's 19 - not sure of his political affiliation or if he has even voted - ha ha - he's mega cute no matter if he's conservative, liberal, repub or dem don't ya think?

I guess the avatar plays better on the male celeb and twinks section - I get a lot of compliments there

Back to current events . . . .

Still think Richardson is the goods although I have to see more for sure

Jesse