Gore has a snowballs chance in the mohave of getting elected. You may like his holier than thou black preacher oratory skills, but it turns most peoples stomach.
Posted by caliman at January 20, 2006 08:02 AMI'd have no problem voting for Gore again. And I would support his candidacy should he decide to run again. If nothing else he will serve to stimulate meaningful debate throughout the campaign.
Posted by snark at January 20, 2006 08:06 AMHate to say it but nobody likes a loser and unfortunately Gore falls into that category.
Posted by Josh at January 20, 2006 08:10 AM...even though he won...
(thought I'd throw that in)
Yup, Gonna be a big trollerama day.
'Cause y'know, we might do something counter to the backwards psychology the right-wing loves to push at the liberals and Democrats.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 20, 2006 08:15 AMPersonally, I thought he looked a bit overweight and kept wiping his mouth for some reason. Other than that, I agree completely. He won in 2000 despite terrible campaign managers. Unlike John Kerry and his famous "army of lawyers", he fought hard, again with bad advice, only to have it stolen by an activist cabal of the SCOTUS which pathetically tried to say, "we're doing this because we want to, but don't try to use it as a legal precedent".
Channeling Cindi here, NOBODY could have imagined that the neocowboy could have been remotely as bad as he has proven. I've been promoting a second run for Al for a long time. As you can see from the pathetic sniping, he sure seems to scare the trolls.
I love Al too but he won't get a chance, even if he wins again, if Alito gets on the Supreme Court and they annoint another "Supreme President"
Posted by Sharon at January 20, 2006 08:21 AMAl did a great job, he could pull a Nixon comeback, just keep that loser-bitch Donna Brazil away from him. At least Al did'nt vote for the war, like the chicken-dems did. Why is Brazil still on T.V.?
Posted by TIKI AL at January 20, 2006 08:27 AMI believe that Al's experiences after the 2000 election have shaped him into a better man. Why, with nothing to lose and nothing to gain, he has come out swinging, arguing for moderation in our national discourse, trying to return our nation to her senses.
I also believe that those experiences have transformed Al Gore from someone who would have made a good president into someone who could make a fantastic president. For a comparison, look at assessments of FDR from before and after he was afflicted with polio.
That said, I doubt Al Gore will ever run for President again. I take seriously what he says about never wanting to put his family through that experience again. However, should he ever *ever* throw his hat into the ring, he will have my vote.
Posted by Leftist Boddhisatva at January 20, 2006 08:35 AMIf Nixon could do it, Gore can too. Actually I think Gore has better chance to get elected than Hillary, Biden and the bunch that voted for Iraq war. If Gore is not going to run, Democrats need an outsider, a popular governor, so that they can attack Republicans on Iraq, lobbying corruption, wiretapping and all.
Posted by suresh at January 20, 2006 08:38 AMIf I can recall what my moral theology courses taught me, satisfaction for theft requires the return of the thing stolen, and not a substitute, to the person it was stolen from, and not a surrogate.
I, for example, cannot make satisfaction for my theft of your car by giving $30,000 to Habitat for Humanity, unless the car is gone, or you are dead.
Gore in '08 -- it's the moral thing to do.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at January 20, 2006 08:49 AMAnybody but bu$h! I don't care who it is, as long as he is not connected to the repukes!
Posted by bbtb at January 20, 2006 08:53 AMThanks for the link Sharon. It's pathetic that some Dems. still think that they can compromise with Bu$hco.
Gore understands that the game has changed. He has a military background and can attack the yellow elephants on national security. Someone on the 2008 ticket needs a military background. America is going to go through a time of harsh adjustments due to the short sighted policies currnetly in place. Our new deal era infastructure that won WWII and is the foundation of the post war good life Americans have taken for granted for three quarters of a century is falling apart. Deteriorating conditions guarentee that the Reagan game of short term thinking is just about over. Gore understands this, John Edwards and Wesley Clark also understand this. Some combonation of these three should make up the next ticket. Things are going to have to change, Hillary and the beltway types would be a continuation of business as usual and that is a loser for the party and America.
Posted by rlp at January 20, 2006 09:00 AMAl did lose in 2000 in that it should not have been a race close enough for them to have stolen it. Brazil and Lieberman both bad choices that contributed to the loss; both his choices.
Posted by CJ at January 20, 2006 09:17 AMWhen I met Gore in the days when the world was young [1970], he was so stiff I felt uncomfortable. What a contrast to his dad who had a permanent twinkle in his eye or Tipper who was a bundle of personality. But this week erased all of that. If he never gives another speech in his life, he will go down in history as a great orator. But he will give another, and I can't wait ton hear it. I'd hate to see him run just because there's no one else. But if he wants it, I'm there too...
Posted by Mickey at January 20, 2006 09:21 AMI'll admit that i've often knocked Gore for his stiff wonkiness, however, I think it's a trap that too many people fall into, thinking that the POTUS campaign is a popularity contest--why does it matter if you think you 'like' some guy, or could see yourself having a beer with him? Many people fell into this trap with Clusterfuck--gee, he seems like a heckuva guy, doesn't he?
Gore's personality is an easy target, but you'll never see Rethugs attacking his grasp of government or policy matters, because he has a remarkable intellect, so they have to go after his personal traits, and turn it into a popularity contetst--who would you rather have for class preznit, the brainy nerd or the popular shmoozer?
Posted by leftAhead at January 20, 2006 09:43 AMCJ: The Supreme Court stole it but Al lost? Huh?
So you say it wasn't stolen. I see; I see only a human unable to process even the most basic information.
Al Gore won. Our election and country was stolen from us.
You advance the Republican agenda with every word you speak about Gore. Believe me, they are eternally grateful and count you as a dear, dear friend. Your utter obtuseness lets their traitors and thieves completely off the hook.
Posted by paradox at January 20, 2006 10:02 AMparadox,
Not to speak for CJ but I think you misunderstand his/her comment.
Granted it's not well worded but I think what was meant was that Gore ran such a bad campaign that the election was close enough to be stolen. He/she blames the campaign management and Lieberman for the fact that the election was so close when it should have been a clear Gore victory.
But I could be wrong.
Posted by snark at January 20, 2006 10:14 AMparadox, i think you're missing CJ's point. gore would have won in a walk. he barely won and it was stolen. "barely won" is never gonna work for us again.
OT (?), can we get bob shrum to join the GOP? that would help a lot.
Posted by benjoya at January 20, 2006 10:15 AMsorry - should have won in a walk.
Posted by benjoya at January 20, 2006 10:16 AM'Should have won is a walk' is as poor an excuse for 12.12.2000 as 'shouldn't have gone into that neighborhood in the first place' is a defense for a mugging.
Like the GOP wouldn't have at least tried, even if it were 52%-48%, to overthrow the result.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at January 20, 2006 10:26 AMLord have mercy on us and forgive the foolish. Jesus Christ.
John F. Kennedy won with a lot less votes than Gore did in the total count. By a quirk in our totally fucked up electoral system it was indeed close, but only becuase Florida was close.
Al Gore won Florida, of that there is no doubt. Al Gore won Florida, Al Gore won by 435,000 votes, Al Gore won.
Do people sneer at Kenndy because he let that animal Nixon get so close? Well, do they? Uh-huh.
Close. So what? Al Gore won, by a lot more that Kennedy did, but Al Gore won!!!
He won. Our election and our country was stolen from us. Every single fucking time a Democrat rants about how they can't stand Gore and that he "lost" and that he lit ot get too "close" they irreperably harm our Republic!!
They harm our Republic by letting those thieves and felons on the Supreme Court off the hook by blaming Al!!!
STOP BLAMUNG AL!! For the love of fucking Christ, it was stolen, stop covering for those horrible Republican pigs!!!!!!!!
Posted by paradox at January 20, 2006 10:46 AMHear, hear, paradox.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 20, 2006 10:55 AMSorry!
But I think "unable to process even the most basic information" and "utter obtuseness" were a bit uncalled for.
But don't let me rain on your tirade.
Posted by snark at January 20, 2006 10:58 AMit was stolen,
Fucking republi-cons. Never again. Never fucking again.
Posted by phidipides at January 20, 2006 11:42 AMFollowing November, the Administration is going to create a new federal department, DPP, the Department of Perpetual President.
This all-powerful department will report to no one but the current president, and will have powers overriding the Constitution, Legislative, Legal, and of course, Electoral rights.
Under the newly established department powers, only the current president can replace the president, regardless of number of terms. As the Constitution will now be null and void, and therefore so will impeachment. Congressional representatives and Senators will be replaced by clerks with multi-core PC's. An inner cabinet will continue to exist, but only to execute the functions deemed unworthy of the President's time or understanding. As a result, they will be very busy.
The military will be under direct command of the President, and all officers above the rank of colonel will be retired. Decisions regarding war will reside solely with the President, as will the choice of weapons to be used in any given conflict.
The only approved news outlet will be Fox News, and the internet will be filtered to executive-approved material only.
If you are poor, or sick, you die. Welcome to Amerika, if we do not win in November.
what snark said. "we wuz robbed," while true, doesn't erase our candidate's shortcomings. maybe it would have been harder for the GOP to steal a 52-48 or a 55-45 election. maybe selecting clueless joe for the ticket lost some votes, like from democrats.(remember his sanctimonious denunciation of clinton? that's probably why gore chose him) maybe if gore had the balls then that he now seems to have grown, he might be in the white house. maybe he should be the candidate again. i'm agnostic about that one. (i lean to clark, fwiw)
Every single fucking time a Democrat rants about how they can't stand Gore and that he "lost" and that he lit ot get too "close" they irreperably harm our Republic!!
missed that part of this thread.
Posted by benjoya at January 20, 2006 01:03 PM"But I think "unable to process even the most basic information" and "utter obtuseness" were a bit uncalled for."
This is correct and I apologize.
I'm sorry. Why the fuck I write about this I do not know--I lose my rationality and I become a vicious fighter.
[sigh] I'm going to end up an old man with a cane in 2030 yammering about how the country was lost in 2000 when they stole the election and my grandkids will roll their eyes and say that's just Grandpa. It's so completely fucked up.
Posted by paradox at January 20, 2006 01:40 PMparadox, I agree and I'm with you bro...
Posted by John B. at January 20, 2006 01:43 PMOne more thing: just try to imagine running for President yourself with a national media that took anything you said and made you out to be a liar.
Really. Al Gore the stiff policy wonk, always straight arrow, viciously smeared and attacked with the most false and baseless character hits. Endlessly. By a captured shit for brains corporate media.
Walk in those shoes, if you dare to try, and see if you call Al Gore incompetent again, or that it was allowed to "get too close."
Then go talk to Bob Somersby.
Then give Al Gore shit again. Oh yeah, I'm sure that will happen.
Posted by paradox at January 20, 2006 01:46 PMwhat made you think Al gore might run and win the election in 2008? Can he defeat the Unbeatble Hillary, Edward, and Mark warner and Al sharpton???
http://www.electgore2008.com
Posted by rog at January 20, 2006 02:36 PMparadox
democracy died a bit in 2000..it really truly did..and enough can never be said or done about it..the people of the united states of america were held up and robbed...these last five years have been an abboration..justice will be done..i pray that al gore will run..
Posted by dennis at January 20, 2006 03:04 PMat the end of his speech the other day he talked of optimism and hope..brought a tear to my eye and i don't cry much....where there is no hope there is despair...go get em al gore
Posted by dennis at January 20, 2006 03:08 PMAl Gore is not nearly as well-spoken as our nation's first black President.
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 20, 2006 07:19 PMBut he's better spoken than the shitferbrains on office right now, you gotta give me that.
Posted by Sharon at January 20, 2006 07:31 PMTurning his back on Clinton was a Big mistake. Donna and Joe- 2 more BIG mistakes. Sucking Tipper's tounge out on stage- priceless. I would still vote for him, but would'nt a Southern Governor fair better with the "early bipeds"?
Posted by TIKI AL at January 20, 2006 07:51 PMParadox,
Wow. When did you become so vitriolic? It is you who failed to process the basic information (that both Snark and Benjoya seemed able to process).
2000 was stolen (as was 2004 I believe). Gore did win Florida (though I don't know that I agree that you can cite your vote differential with any degree of accuracy). I concur that these are facts. But, they are not the sole facts that resulted in Bush being installed at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Let's say it was a basketball game and the Dems were up by 1 with 1 second left in the game. A buzzer shot by the Repugs is cleanly rejected. All ball. But the ref calls a foul. Both free throws are made and the Repugs win. Was the game stolen? As Dems coach are you going to concentrate on controlling referees in the future or working on foul shots (your team missed 12 in the game). Yes, I know that for a more exacting analogy the ref's call would've had to have been deliberate - let's say it was.
The point is, that in your anger (anger that many of us share), you seem only to be willing to acknowledge a subset of contributing factors (e.g., SCOTUS, press). I have always liked and respected Al Gore but that doesn't mean I'm going to absolve him from any responsibility for the horrendous outcome (I seriously doubt he's absolved himself).
He was a popular sitting VP who was immeasurably more qualified, intelligent and articulate than his ludicrous opponent but he ran a poor campaign. That is also a fact. If you don't recognize that I suggest you go back and review video of the debates, stump speeches, townhall meetings etc., and also give some honest reflection to the result of another running mate and/or Clinton participation in the campaign, etc. Was that the Al Gore you're seeing now, that you saw running with Clinton or that swept Super Tuesday in '88? He only needed 2 of those 12 free throws to put the game out of reach. To suggest that a candidate and his or her campaign is inconsequential in the process is ludicrous and that is, effectively, what you're doing when you single out one factor leading to a given outcome. That said, if Al runs he'll have my vote, again.
Being honest in my evaluation is not "foolish" nor does it "irreperably [sic] harm our Republic". You indicated that my view somehow helps the Republicans. That's crap. And sounds eerily like their "aid the terrorists".
Anger can be a great motivator but it can also blind, paralyze and destroy a person or a movement. I know your bitterness intimately and I'm not suggesting that we forget that clearly the most egregious factor in the last two elections was that they were stolen. But let's get out there and support organizations like truth in voting to ensure we have fair and verifiable elections, pressure sitting Senators to reject partisan hacks as SCOTUS nominees and work even harder to get out those votes but attacking those fighting beside you will accomplish nothing.
Posted by CJ at January 21, 2006 08:46 AM