If the dems in congress don't show they disagree with Bush's lies in a very public/media-covered way, such as the SOTU walkout that's been suggested, I think Gore should test the waters of running as an independent with some funky name like "People for Truth, Liberty and Justice, and Clean Air too!" and see how many disgusted-with-the-dems constituents donate and get fired up. Like the "deaniacs" did. I bet Mr. Gore knows how to use the internet just fine!
Posted by Sharon at January 14, 2006 11:22 AMSharon -- fun idea. Seriously, is there any other potential DEM POTUS candidate that is even as qualified as Gore? (I'm sick to death of DEMs that think a single term in some office is all the political experience that a POTUS candidate needs. It takes more than that to mount a successful run and know what to do after winning. It was a reason Carter appeared so inept in office and even with all his experience, struggled for most of his eight years.
Posted by Marie at January 14, 2006 11:36 AMIf Al Gore decides to run and shuns the beltway establishment consultants who always lose in favor of one who know how to win, I could get very excited about his campaign.
Posted by rlp at January 14, 2006 11:39 AMThis was an interesting post and I certainly agree with your ultimate conclusion, although, being far less knowledgable about "inside the DLC" matters, it seemed like a "no brainer" issue to me.
For starters, I question whether Gore would have shaken up the Richard Clarke cabinet level anti-terror position that Clinton had set up, or would have decided to substantially reduce the WH's focus on Al Queda and terrorism, as our Clown-in-Chief quickly did upon his appointment by the Supreme Court.
Having a high level anti-terror team that had direct access to the president (read Clarke's book) and power to scream at the cabinet secretaries could have absolutely resulted in foiling 9/11.
If it didn't, Gore would likely have been the recipient of the outpouring of unity the country gave to the clown who had incompetently fumbled us into the disaster. Gore certainly would have invaded Afghanistan and sought to destroy Al Qaeda, no one can doubt that.
But to believe that Gore would have foolishly bulled forward with the insane Iraq invasion, which strategists have declared to be the greatest military blunder in American history, with no credible evidence of Al Qaeda/Saddam ties, the embarrassingly weak WMD evidence we possessed, and in the face of ALL of our closet and most trusted allies counselling against it, is just impossible to believe. Only a Bush could have accomplished such boobery.
Even if one could demonstrate neo-con tendencies, and bellicose foolishness, from Gore's past statements, the idea that, even with 9/11, the Iraq invasion could have occurred in any administration other than the Cheney presidency
is simply not credible.
The Reactionary Right may need to begin peddling this line, because Nero Jr.'s insane incompetence has lead us into this catastrophe, but the Iraq invasion and occupation is utterly and only Bush's War, and would not have occurred absent president George W Bush.
Posted by euzoius at January 14, 2006 11:54 AMNice analysis, Marie. (Although Carter only had 4 years of looking inept as Prez...) Gore definitely should have been President and would have been if we didn't have a screwed up Democratic party which proved to be afraid of the right wing. A right wing that had no problems in cheating to get their guy in the White House.
Posted by Mary at January 14, 2006 11:58 AMI would love to have Al Gore run again either as a Democrat or on an independent ticket. He is a real populist. Nader's treatment of Gore was every bit as full of irrational hatred as Michael Kelly's for Clinton. The rest of the American media went beyond the pale, lying about Gore, his policies, and his statements.
euzoius: If it didn't, Gore would likely have been the recipient of the outpouring of unity the country gave to the clown who had incompetently fumbled us into the disaster.
It escaped nobody that Clinton benefitted from the OKC bombing for precisely that reason. (I will never understand the kneejerk impulse of Americans to respond this way but note that the phenomenon exists.) That,IMHO, is why it wouldn't have happened on Gore's watch.
It's important to remember that Ritter's conclusion is based on the bipartisan DC policy position to oust Saddam. I don't think we should discount that to much or give Gore too much credit for not being personally belligerant or a war-hawk. I just think that Ritter doesn't discount the former at all and gives no credit to the latter. Thus, he has no doubt about his conclusion when, at best, he should see it as a close call. Ritter is mostly credible, but he's not perfect.
Posted by Marie at January 14, 2006 12:05 PMThis It was a reason Carter appeared so inept in office and even with all his experience, struggled for most of his eight years.
should read
...and even with all his experience, Clinton struggled for most of his eight years.
Posted by Marie at January 14, 2006 12:07 PM"The rest of the American media went beyond the pale, lying about Gore, his policies, and his statements."
Mike, you are right and what would make us think the media would treat him any different in 2008?
"Gore definitely should have been President and would have been if we didn't have a screwed up Democratic party which proved to be afraid of the right wing. A right wing that had no problems in cheating to get their guy in the White House."
Mary, again what has changed?
The Democrats are still afraid of the right wing. The media will continue to be controlled
by this WH. Brace yourselves, because in 2008 we are going to see a repeat of the 2004 election, smears, swift boating and all.
I got the link for this from a firedog lake comment:
We were made for times like these
It's inspiring, about not losing heart and that WE are the vessels for change...as in great boats are safe while in harbor but that's not what they were made for.
I think what's changed, Judith, is that the media is so obviously biased toward GeorgieBoy, that the average person isn't swayed. The evidence of that is the poll that shows the majority of Americans would like George impeached if he did what he said he did (warrantless wiretaps) though the media never mentions that this is a problem. Also the Katrina fiasco has dropped off the face of the media but I bet lotsa people are curious and don't believe Bush's crap about how great it's going, and how great the Iraq war is going. I think people are disgusted with the media and many more are getting their news off the internet than did in 2000 or even 2004. And George and the media keep telling us the economy is great. Who believes that? I think the average American is ready for big changes and they doubt they'll get it from the repubs. And if the media lies about Al Gore, why is that any more predicable than whatever Dem candidate wins the primary? At least he has wonderful speeches that can be posted and emailed around to get his positive aspects passed to those who might vote.
Posted by Sharon at January 14, 2006 01:01 PMMost of you must forget how incompetent and awful Gore's 2000 campaing was. Not to mention his choice for VP. Talk about a lay-down, spineless campaign. From shunning the Big Dog to the lack of fight in the post-election controversy, that campaign was a disgrace. Donna FUCKING SHITHEAD Brazille should never work again (especially since the bitch became chummy with Karl "Traitor" Rove after taking it in the ass from him.)
Kerry's campaign team's "strategy" was heinous, but Gore's was worse.
And now you yearn for him again?
I'll pass. If you want a second-chancer, give me Edwards or Dean. They know how to fight.
Posted by God Of War at January 14, 2006 03:35 PMThanks very much for that link, Sharon. I encourage all to visit it.
Posted by euzoius at January 14, 2006 04:52 PMIf you want a second-chancer, give me Edwards
I'll second that.
Sharon excellent link. In spirit, I have to agree. In practice, I think it's best to be a bit more radical.
Posted by phidipides at January 14, 2006 07:32 PM
I must admit, I still can't decide and guess I don't have to for a while. I agree with GoW regarding the running of both the Gore and Kerry campaigns. I had originally supported Edwards, up until he took that latest job. I know he has to feed his family, but given his accurate defining of the two class system, it wasn't the right move in my mind.
Perhaps I am waiting for someone like Clinton. I don't mean a southern relatively unknown governor, but someone whom we have yet to consider, from some unexpected front. Maybe even a true potential third party candidate.
Sorry if I went off topic.
Posted by dorita at January 14, 2006 07:45 PMI went back and read the link, Sharon. Thank you.
Posted by dorita at January 14, 2006 07:51 PMSharon, good points. I hope you are right.
Posted by Judith at January 14, 2006 08:31 PMIt wasn't much of an error. Originally Ritter's anyway.
We'll see how much coverage the big Gore speech gets on Monday. A spark might come from somewhere to stop the war and Bush. Maybe.
Posted by paradox at January 14, 2006 10:15 PMRunning Gore or Kerry/Edwards again would be a mistake. Each already had his chance to win support from the electorate and didn't (we won't count the Diebold/ES&S effect for the moment).
Sadly, Mr. Kerry isn't deporting himself well since the ($)election, and Mr. Gore has been somewhat hit-and-miss. Mr. Edwards seems to have dropped right out of the scene.
Each of these men still has something to offer (as do some others like Hart and Carter), but they need to do it from behind someone who could win the affection of the electorate - and win.
Then - all we need are real elections.
Posted by pessimist at January 15, 2006 12:36 AM