For whatever anecdotal evidence is worth from watching diary topics at The Daily Kos, it was a little startling to see Al Gore posts pop up everywhere after The Capitulation, a spontaneous, poignant burst of longing for a real leader who might get us out of this incredible mess. Whatever explanations or rationalizations put forth from Democratic leadership completely failed for The Capitulation, and the Al Gore posts were simply a demonstrative yearning for real leadership.
Paradox, you hit the nail squarely on the head!!
Rank and file Democrats are looking for a leader. The country as a whole is looking for a leader, too. The vote the other day on the Supplemental was just horrible. Yes, Clinton and Obama voted against it, but they didn't lead on the issue. We didn't know until the vote was taken - whether Hillary would vote for or against it. That is not leadership.
And it's not just this vote. Clinton and Obama have been very cautious with their votes and their rhetoric in the senate. Does anyone think of them as "leaders" there? From where I sit - I'd say no!
Wes Clark, Al Gore, Russ Feingold - ARE leaders. They have the qualities that we'd love to see in our party's nominee. I'd love to see all three jump into the race!
We need a strong, decisive, passionate defender of the constitution and all it stands for! That's Al Gore, Wes Clark and Russ Feingold, imho!!
Posted by leftydem at May 26, 2007 10:01 AM"I'm not looking to run. I haven't ruled it out, but I don't expect to run."
I watched Gore last night on Rose's Show. Intelligent, mature, reasonable, and a message that we all long to hear. Gore believes that the restoration of and respect for truth are the two things that must happen to this Country to save it. "Evil is the absence of truth" (Beck in the Road Less Traveled an excellent book), was Gore's message last night. "In the absence of dialogue, we get absence of truth."
The politics of reason is gone. Gore knows that reason has been replaced with "serious intimidation". Whether it be journalists, the military, politicians, or anyone, if you present a different view that conflicts with this WH, "you will be punished." Ask Dan Rather. Gore sited the case of the aluminum tubes, which the people of Oakridge knew could not be used as stated by this WH. However, no one spoke out because of fear. Even when reason tells a journalist, or a commander in the military or anyone something different than what the WH wants to hear, they are afraid to speak out.
Adams said that "we are a Nation of laws, not men." To restore this Country we must decide if we truly believe this. We must bring back reason. We need to wake-up! We need to guarantee freedom of the Internet. We must isolate real news from intertainment. News must not be a commodity that can be bought. Yes, Al we agree with all the above, but where do we start, and who will lead us? My personal opinion is that you do not have a choice to run, it is your duty to run.
If the "Democrats" don't want Gore, then let him run as a 'third party' candidate. It is about time to have someone from a third party running the country.
P.S. scout is not a hypocrite. Troll, yes. Brain-dead, yes. But never a hypocrite.
Posted by jwrjr at May 26, 2007 11:00 AMP.S. scout is not a hypocrite. Troll, yes. Brain-dead, yes. But never a hypocrite.
Posted by jwrjr at May 26, 2007 11:00 AM
Sorry jwrjr, but you are quite wrong about that. He is one of the biggest hypocrites that has ever posted here. He spouts Christianity, and then calls women whores, jezebels and baby killers. His statements about women are vile, and his attacks are vicious against some on this site. Scout is a perfect example of a fundamentalist wacko, who pretends to be a Christian, but isn't. In my book I call that hypocrite.
Posted by Judith at May 26, 2007 11:58 AMBy-the-way, I am surrounded by Christians in my own family and friends. Not one of them, not one, would ever say the things Scout has said about people on this site.
Posted by Judith at May 26, 2007 12:01 PMThe Democrats forced Bushit to compromise, which in itself is a major achievement. Did they have the votes to win on the supplemental? No. Do they have the votes to override veto? No.
Why? Because the Republicans are holding out.
So the obviously reasonable thing to do is the bash the Democrats.
So we didn't have the votes, but as far as I am concerned, every last one of them should have voted NO on the funding bill. PERIOD!
Here's what a real leader had to say:
Even before the ink was dry on the spending deal, antiwar lawmakers expressed strong opposition. "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). But Democrats vowed to continue their quest on other legislative vehicles. The big showdown will come in several months, when funding from the new bill expires and results from the U.S. troop buildup and the Iraqi benchmarks begin to materialize.
"This is another stage in the sequencing of ending this war," said Pelosi, who added that September will be "the moment of truth."
Really Pelosi, "the moment of truth?" Yeah, right, woo-hoo, hoo-rah, uh huh, ROFLMAO. Fool me once.....
Bush isn't going to give them anything, nada, nothing. He will dismiss the benchmarks as irrelevant, and what in the hell will the Democrats do? Well, absolutely nothing, except write another check.
Nancy Pelosi is such a disappointment.
Posted by Christopher at May 26, 2007 01:44 PMGore is quite good when he's not a candidate, but we've all seen his performance on the campaign trail, and it is not reassuring.
Posted by Carson Park Ranger at May 26, 2007 04:48 PMal carries so much baggage.
the first question is, as bob somerby[sic] has documented in excruciating detail, why did the media jump on al gore with both feet and with such consummate prevarication? and why couldn't he get them to suspend their lying attacks? in fact, why did he appear to roll over for them - not fight back?
the second question is, why did demtillian stalwarts that i know from al's harvard days, oppose his presidency? both of these would be fdr's grandson's.
why did al stand with bill clinton for the imposition, continuation of the santions on iraq? why was al so comfortable with murdering hundreds of thousands of iraqis? why was al so quiet about the constant bombardment and destruction of the iraqi infrastructure?
why was al so complicit in bill clinton's invasion of the balkans? so reticent about the clinton creation of the kla and establishment of a narcotics-trafficking islamic entity in kosovo, albania?
why was al so silent concerning the insertion of mercs in the balkans[dyncorp et alia].
and finally, for this post, why was al so silent about the harvard corporation, herb winokur, and the deregulation of electricity and harvard's role in enron?
al's dad was enriched by armand hammer. who was run by the us intell services. was al run just as john kerry was run?
and i close with tipper the censor...who wanted the government to approve music lyrics.
no, al gore might just not be the fellow you think him to be.
Fuck you, albert you piece of shit.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 26, 2007 10:03 PM"no matter what I do with the time given to us my country and society let the world down real bad"
Ha ha ha ha! That's brilliant! How old are you? 14? Is the original post serious, or is it a clever parody of the usual self-loathing, self-aggrandising rubbish that is the usual content of this site?
Oh, Steve Soto. If you delete this post, you're just demonstrating that you're a mental midget.
Oh, iamcoyote, I loved your previous post:
"Fuck you, albert you piece of shit.".
Well, that'll teach albert to disagree with you lot! I'm sure that he's laughing his ass off. I would be; responses like that just indicate that people like iamcoyote are beaten, and don't know how to respond, except through name-calling.
Posted by CaptainReality at May 31, 2007 08:34 PM