RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


matthewforan -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (24/1/2007 9:08:24 PM)

Yeah Kerry was never gonna get the Nom again and neither will Gore. My uncle was actually at a dinner with him at the weekend in London so i'll have to ask him if he talked to him about anything




lulu karma -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (24/1/2007 9:31:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Up With People


quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.


Yes, because all 300 million Americans are inherently racist and stupid.
Or is that you?


Please don't turn the meaning of my post, especially to something as serious as racism. This is simply the state of affairs in America. There is nothing racist or stupid with wanting to vote in Mr. Joe America. A lot of people want to keep tradition and do not handle change easily. I doubt we're going to see a similar name being voted as Prime Minister or Taoiseach any time soon either.


I agree and don't agree with you, director.  My political wet dream would be to see Obama and Hilary in office.  His name will have no effect to very little effect on whether he gets the White House or not.  The reason that I would be surprised to see Hilary or Obama in the White House is his race and her sex.  THAT is the state of affairs in America, as much as I hate to admit it about my own country.

I see what Vert was referring to about Kerry.  There is just something very bland about the man.




Fluke Skywalker -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (25/1/2007 11:25:54 AM)

Just wondering why Gore or Kerry would go for it in the first place seeing as they are seen as losers in the eyes of the electorate - or maybe Bush is such a monumental lame duck they feel that 2008 is as good a shot as any!




Barefoot Doctor -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (25/1/2007 11:46:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

Just wondering why Gore or Kerry would go for it in the first place seeing as they are seen as losers in the eyes of the electorate - or maybe Bush is such a monumental lame duck they feel that 2008 is as good a shot as any!



Is Gore seen as a loser though? Most people seem to believe he was the rightful winner of the 2000 election.

There's historical precedent for it too - Nixon was elected to be Eisenhower's VP in 1952 and was the Republican nominee in 1960, losing to JFK. 8 years later he managed to get the nomination again and won the presidency.




Fluke Skywalker -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (25/1/2007 12:04:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barefoot Doctor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

Just wondering why Gore or Kerry would go for it in the first place seeing as they are seen as losers in the eyes of the electorate - or maybe Bush is such a monumental lame duck they feel that 2008 is as good a shot as any!



Is Gore seen as a loser though? Most people seem to believe he was the rightful winner of the 2000 election.

There's historical precedent for it too - Nixon was elected to be Eisenhower's VP in 1952 and was the Republican nominee in 1960, losing to JFK. 8 years later he managed to get the nomination again and won the presidency.


Fair enough - you are right that Gore was cheated out of the 2000 election but he did lose his home state which he really should have bagged considering he was a presidential candidate.

Gore and Kerry lack the charisma or charm that allow them to warm to the American people, they look a bit stodgy when compared to the likes of Bush and Clinton




matthewforan -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (25/1/2007 12:20:33 PM)

Yeah i agree with the charisma idea, Kerry just seems really bland. But Gore has been getting really good press because of his Movie and people might see him as more of a leader after that.




Woger -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (25/1/2007 12:25:24 PM)

Plus Kerry had no spine to stand up to the attacks on him and its really annoying hearing Al Gore talk about the 2000 elections now when he done feck all about it back then.
A couple points, the resolution of rmore troops isn't getting support from some Republicans and if the situation doesn't improve more could join.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Apparently just over 50% of women that can vote are now single, this may work in Hillarys favour, and then theres the fact that the election is 21 months away.




lulu karma -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (25/1/2007 2:50:23 PM)

I believe that Gore was the rightful winner in 2000.  That was an insane time in the US and the time sense has been just a spiral down.

I don't think most people consider Gore a loser.  It was so close (if it was a legit win on the part of Bush), that people couldn't really see it that way.  At least that's my thought on it.

He definitely lacks the charisma that Obama has.  When you think of how Bill Clinton won the election, it was not through spouting campaign rhetoric.  He worked on getting voters to the polls that otherwise may not feel compelled to go.  This is why he went on MTV playing his sax and so on.  Some people looked down their noses at this approach but hey, he won, didn't he?

With Obama, he already speaks to Americans on a level they need to hear right now.  Even hardcore Bush supporters are having a hard time keeping that facade going.  However, I do have concerns that race will keep Obama from having a place in the White House.  Pisses me off to no end. [:@]




Woger -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (25/1/2007 5:38:49 PM)

Lu, what did you think of Jim webbs counter to Bush's State of the Union? It was supposed to be good.




lulu karma -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (25/1/2007 6:01:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Woger

Lu, what did you think of Jim webbs counter to Bush's State of the Union? It was supposed to be good.


It wasn't good.  It was excellent.  He focused on Iraq and the economy.  Here is a link to it and a couple excerpts.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2817439&page=1



quote:

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.




quote:

The president took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the Army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command (whose jurisdiction includes Iraq) the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable ó and predicted ó disarray that has followed.
The war's costs to our nation have been staggering:
  • Financially.
  • The damage to our reputation around the world.
  • The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.
  • And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.  On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.


If you notice on the left side of the page, there is a place to vote about Webb's performance. Here are the results thus far:

quote:

Newly elected Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., gave the Democratic response following President Bush's State of the Union address.

How did Webb do?

Very well. His remarks were smart and fair, and I agree with the Democrats' agenda .
[image]http://a.abcnews.com/images/site/poll_gif.gif[/image]5,591

Poorly. More directionless, partisan barbs from the Democratic party.[image]http://a.abcnews.com/images/site/poll_gif.gif[/image]2,745

Okay. He was fine, but he didn't win me over.[image]http://a.abcnews.com/images/site/poll_gif.gif[/image]1,020

Total Vote: 9,356





Woger -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (26/1/2007 1:34:47 PM)

quote:

Newly elected Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., gave the Democratic response following President Bush's State of the Union address.

How did Webb do?

Very well. His remarks were smart and fair, and I agree with the Democrats' agenda .
[image]http://a.abcnews.com/images/site/poll_gif.gif[/image]5,591

Poorly. More directionless, partisan barbs from the Democratic party.[image]http://a.abcnews.com/images/site/poll_gif.gif[/image]2,745

Okay. He was fine, but he didn't win me over.[image]http://a.abcnews.com/images/site/poll_gif.gif[/image]1,020

Total Vote: 9,356




I got a bit of the speech on the Daily Show, ssemed very good. a pity he didn't get 85% approval like Bush did on Hannity & Colmes.




lulu karma -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (26/1/2007 1:42:48 PM)

Well, it IS Hannity and Colmes... [:-]

[:D]




Woger -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (26/1/2007 2:22:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lulu karma

Well, it IS Hannity and Colmes... [:-]

[:D]



Just looking on another website and they have a clip of him arguing with 4 star General Wes Clark about military actions.




stuartbannerman -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (26/1/2007 2:55:19 PM)

If they vote Witchy Clinton into office then we are all doomed. That womans a wolf in sheeps clothing.




lulu karma -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (26/1/2007 2:56:56 PM)

stuart, it helps if you elaborate. [8|]




ilovebeerme -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (26/1/2007 3:21:04 PM)

What's that smell?  Did somebody say Hannity again?  For fuck sake it took weeks to get rid of the odour last time somebody did that!




lulu karma -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (26/1/2007 5:30:32 PM)

There's something sticky on the floor too.  Like a trail left behind. [:-]




LB Jeffries -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (26/1/2007 7:16:58 PM)

Sean Hannity
Bill O'Lielly
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Michael Savage
Tucker Carlson

If you had to spend an hour in the company of one of these right-wing, morally-corrupt, chicken-hawks, which would you choose and why?
I'd probably plump for Malkin as I find it fascinating that anybody who is part of a minority in America can follow blindly a party that treats such minorities with utter contempt.

Oh and Jim Webb's speech didn't disappoint. The man is a giant and destined to be President one day.[sm=51.gif]




Keyser Sozzled -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (26/1/2007 9:59:32 PM)

Although I would come down on the side of the Dems should I have to vote in the election (alas im not from the US) I am a little concerned at the lack of balance on the thread. Can we hear from some Republican supporters--who are they plumping for?

The left wing side are looking at this as an electoral pissing contest, lets not forget the safety of the Western World is at stake (albeit due to an illegal war) abd many many lives depend on the outcome of the election.

We shoudl try and rise above the mindset of "as long as we win" it doesnt matter who or how,  lets take the debate into a realm of who would actually make the best president, Republican or Democrat.

So Republicans lets hear from you and we can have an actual debate...........................




LB Jeffries -> Gore to announce candidacy at Oscars? (3/2/2007 4:53:33 AM)

quote:


Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are the hot early front-runners, while 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry has already bowed out. But could former Vice President Al Gore be waiting to make a dramatic entrance into the 2008 presidential race, especially if he wins an Oscar next month?
 
His former campaign manager, Donna Brazile, strongly implied that possibility while speaking at Moravian College in Bethlehem Tuesday night.

''Wait till Oscar night,'' Brazile told an audience of about 100 people at Haupert Student Union. ''I tell people: 'I'm dating. I haven't fallen in love yet.' On Oscar night, if Al Gore has slimmed down 25 or 30 pounds, Lord knows.''

''An Inconvenient Truth,'' a film built around Gore's presentation on the effects of global warming, is one of the Oscar nominees for best documentary feature. A red carpet turn for the former vice president could make him as much a pop culture star as former first lady Clinton or Obama.

 
Brazile is the first black woman ever to lead a major presidential campaign, managing Gore's ill-fated 2000 effort. At one point during her speech, she said she still believes Gore won that race. Brazile is a frequent contributor to political coverage on CNN and ABC and leads the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute.

Before making her Oscar night comment, she said she was ''so proud'' of Gore's work to bring attention to global warming.

''I believe [Gore] is ready for this moment,'' Brazile said in an interview after her speech. ''He is a good leader. I think he can be one of the few leaders who can bring this country together.''

She acknowledged it will be a tough decision for Gore, noting Kerry's announcement last week to bow out of the race. Gore believes he is now doing his life's work, Brazile said. However, she conceded that Gore might be able to do more about global climate change from inside the Oval Office. He has already made an impact by forcing President Bush to talk about the issue, she said.




Now, that would be a pretty good acceptance speech!




Barefoot Doctor -> RE: Gore to announce candidacy at Oscars? (3/2/2007 12:15:39 PM)

Is it a good idea to announce from the Oscars? He's also up for the Nobel Peace Prize, I say he should announce at that (should he win of course)




matthewforan -> RE: Gore to announce candidacy at Oscars? (4/2/2007 11:32:35 AM)

There is a wee article in todayís Independent about Obama (page 65). He seems to be one of the top 3 for the nomination.




m_er -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (4/2/2007 1:05:19 PM)

I neither have the faintest idea how they run the elections there nor about the election procedure. What I hope is that that Hilary Clinton wins the presidency.




LB Jeffries -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (4/2/2007 5:11:37 PM)

John Edwards gave a speech to the Democratic National Committee on Thursday and talked about his plan for Universal Healthcare. I think it's pretty good.

quote:


Thank you.
Weíre all here together Ė but why are we here?
Why are we here?
We are here because somewhere in America an eight-year old girl goes to sleep hungry, a little girl who ought to
be drawing pictures and learning multiplication cries herself to sleep, praying that her father, who has been out of work for two years, will get a job again. It doesnít have to be that way.

We are here because somewhere in America, a hotel housekeeper walks a picket line with her union brothers and sisters fighting for decent health care benefits during the day and works the late-shift at a diner at night so that she and her family can live a decent life and so her boy can go to college and have choices she never had. And somewhere a young man folds a college acceptance letter and puts it in his drawer because even with his part-time job and his motherís second job, he knows he cannot afford to go. It doesnít have to be that way.
We are here because somewhere in America a mother wipes her hand on a dishcloth to go answer a knock on her door ... and opens it to find an army chaplain and an officer standing there with solemn faces and her boyís name Ė her patriotic son who enlisted after September 11 Ė on their lips. It doesnít have to be that way.
We are here because somewhere in the world, a 5-year old boy in a refugee camp is bending under the weight of his 2-year old sister. His family massacred, he carries his remaining sister everywhere, and sleeps with his arms wrapped tightly around her, knowing that tomorrow he will have to do the same thing, and again the next day and the day after that because she is all the family he has now. It doesnít have to be that way.
We are here because somewhere in America a father comes home from the second shift and feels a raging fever on the brow of his sleeping daughter as he kisses her goodnight. And now, bone-weary and worried, he cradles that child in his arms at the emergency room, because there is nowhere else for him to go. It doesnít have to be that way.
They are why we are here. Because everywhere in America , people are counting on us to stand up for them.
And so I ask you, will you stand up for that tired father forced into emergency rooms to get health care for his little girl?

Will you stand up for the brave young boy in the refugee camp?
Will you stand up for the working men and women in our labor movement who have to fight for decent working conditions and living wages?
Will you stand up for the young man who knows that education is his way out of the cycle of poverty and yet it seems beyond his grasp?
Will you stand up for that hungry eight-year old girl so she doesnít give up on her life before itís even begun?
Will you stand up for all the American families whose loved ones are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Will you stand up?
Will you stand up for America?
Because if we donít stand up, who will?
If we donít speak out, who will?
Forty years ago, speaking in protest against the war in Vietnam on the eve of its escalation, the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King said there comes a time when silence is betrayal. Silence is betrayal.
That time has come again. We cannot stand silent.
They have to hear you. Can they hear you?
I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war our nation is engaged in today, in Iraq.
It is a betrayal for this President to send more troops into harmís way when we know it will not succeed in bringing stability to the region.
And it is not right by our silence to enable this President to escalate the war in Iraq. And we must not delude ourselves: our silence enables this President to escalate the war.
It is a betrayal not to stop the Presidentís plan when we have the responsibility, the power and the actual tools to prevent it.
Being satisfied with non-binding resolutions we know this President will ignore is a betrayal. And shutting down debate in the Senate on this issue is worse than a betrayal. Itís an outright denial of the peopleís will.
And one more thing, while Iím at it.
You described yourself as "the decider." I have news for you. The American people are the real "deciders," Mr. President. And they are saying, "You have had your chance."
Americans are speaking out. And our leaders must do no less.
You must stand up now against George Bushís escalation of the war in Iraq . George Bush is counting on us not to stand up, not to fight against this escalation with everything we have. George Bush is counting on a Democratic Party that will not press for what we know is right.

Silence is betrayal.
Opposing this escalation with all the vigor and tools we have is a test of our political courage. And youíd better believe that George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are betting that we donít have that courage.
They donít think we have it in us. Theyíre counting on their opponents to be weak, and political, and careful.
This is not the time for political calculation. This is the time for political courage. Stand up.

Being honest and changing course in Iraq is the first step in restoring America ís ability to provide moral leadership throughout the world. And make no mistake: America must lead. We are the pre-eminent, stabilizing power in the world. If we donít stand up, who will?
This is the time for political courage Ė not only when it comes to speaking out against Iraq , but also about the challenges we face here at home.
Because, when it comes to 37 million Americans living in poverty, silence is betrayal.
One in every five children Ė count them, one in every five American children Ė live in poverty, here on the richest nation on the planet. It doesnít have to be that way.
The causes of poverty are complex, entrenched, and powerful. And our will to address them and restore the promises of equality and social justice must be just as strong. Are you strong enough? Will you stand up to end poverty in America ? It means addressing education, jobs, health care, housing, predatory lending, and personal responsibility. The fight will be long and it will not be easy. Are you ready? Will you use your voice against poverty, or will you stand silent? Stand up. Stand up to eradicate poverty in America.
When it comes to 47 million Americans without health care, silence is betrayal.

The 47 million are silent victims of a health care system gone wrong, where policies are driven by profits not patient care. We have to stop letting the health insurance companies and the big pharmaceutical concerns decide our nationís health care policy. We have to give the silent victims, who stand in line at free clinics and use the expired medicines of friends and neighbors, we have to give them the dignity of universal health care.
And while weíre at it, we have to stop using words like "access to health care" when we know with certainty those words mean something less than universal care. Who are you willing to leave behind without the care he needs? Which family? Which child?
We need a truly universal solution, and we need it now.
Will you stand up for universal health insurance in America?
And itís time we stood up for an energy policy thatís not dictated by the profit margins of Big Oil -- and an environmental policy thatís not promoted by or regulated by polluters. Today, not tomorrow, or in the next decade or in the next generation. Today, our planet is at risk, and here, again, silence is betrayal.

So, will you speak out? Will you stand up?
These are the great moral imperatives of our time. And by breaking the silence we are not breaking faith with our flag or our forefathers or our brave young men and women in uniform. We are keeping faith with America.
Because we are better than this. We are better than this.
We should be the bright light, the beacon for all the world.
We are not the country of the Superdome in New Orleans after Katrina;
We are not the country of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo;
We are not the country of secret surveillance and government behind closed doors.
We are Americans, and weíre better than that.

And we are Democrats, the party of action Ė not reaction. We are Democrats, the party of principle Ė not appeasement. The time for half-measures, empty promises, and sweet rhetoric is gone. Now is the time for courage, decisiveness and moral leadership.
Itís time to stand up for the promise of America again -- and for the principle that every American matters, no matter where you come from, or what color your skin is, or how much money you have in your pocket.
Letís stand up for the working people whose labor made this country great. America was built by men and women who worked with their hands. And organized labor has fought for and made better the lives of every working man and woman, by giving them a voice Ė labor never stands silent where wrongs need to be righted. Will you stand with them? It is time we acknowledged that it is organized labor, which has protected the American worker against mistreatment by corporate America . I am proud to stand beside organized labor? Will you stand with them, too? Will you walk with them and march with them?
We know one thing for sure: it is time to be patriotic about something other than war. It is time to do what you know is right and to speak out against what you know is wrong.
Not tomorrow. Now. Speak out now, take action now.
We donít have to wait to see if someone keeps the promises of a 2008 campaign. In fact, the transformational change this country needs cannot wait until January 2009.
Tomorrow begins today. And our obligation to act starts right here, right now.

Because somewhere in America , because everywhere in America , people are counting on us to stand by them and to fight alongside them for what we know in our hearts is right.
So letís stand up together. We have always been the party of promise who stood with the working man and woman, the party of hope who stood with the needy, the party of compassion who stood with the young and the old and the frail. It is who we are.

In times like these, we donít need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party.
Thank you, God bless you and God bless this great country.





tini_man_anga -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (4/2/2007 7:09:13 PM)

Heya peeps - I'm a new member on the forum; like y'all, a sucker for American politics (worked on the Kerry campaign in '04 and was posting at sites like Democratic Underground since they started), and just wanted to stick my oar in on this thread.

My take on some of the topics that have come up:

*I'm not sure how wise it would be for Clinton to offer the VP slot to Obama if she's the nominee. Their positions on Iraq were so different (hers so pussy and politically safe, his so reality based, if you like, but different anyway) that it's going to be tough them running as one ticket. Even if they make a good team and come up with good reasons for why they're united for strategies for the future, the Repubs are going to paint them as indicative of a divided party. "Flip-flop", "wishy-washy" and some new petty jargon is going to start wielding its power again. The Dems don't need that kind of shit if they're up against a golden boy like McCain or Giuliani.

*I don't really give a shit that Kerry isn't running, because he probably is seen as a loser by the electorate. He was a good candidate who blew his shot in '04 -- not that he didn't ultimately do well in the election (for all we know he could have won the vote count; it's sad that we have to wonder how corrupt the technology and tallies are nowadays, considering this is the USA), but he ran a shitty campaign and acted like a pussy, and if he hadn't played it so safe, he could have done better. I am sorry that Gore doesn't seem to want to run; he's become so much more passionate and outspoken in the years since 2000 that he would probably do a good job as a nominee and indeed as president. I'm with Barefoot Doctor on thinking of Nixon -- the '00 election is sort of like the one in 1960, with a policy wonk vice president up against a smooth operator from a political dynasty, two very well-run campaigns for a new commander in chief coming off a well-run period of peace and prosperity into a new and exciting decade of challenge and change, and a razor-thin margin in the electoral returns. Bush is like the evil flipside of Kennedy, and I thought it was indeed possible Gore would pull a Nixon and come back for a shot in '08. Maybe he's too wounded, maybe he doesn't want to inherit the unholy fucking mess left by W, maybe he's comfortable being engaged in his other projects... but still, a shame he hasn't been warming up the public for a run. (By the same token, I think if he decided now, and especially if he announced at the Oscars, that could be a sign that he's just diving into a giddy and ill-conceived campaign that will ruin any chances of having one in the future.)

*Maybe I'm losing my mind, but I don't think race will be too bad an obstacle for Obama as much as his young age and phoney-seeming polish. The polls I've seen suggest Americans are willing to consider a black American as president; even if they're just being coy with their prejudices in answering those pollsters, that does suggest that there's not enough out-and-out racist fucks in the US to affect the outcome of a presidential election. The slips of Fox News are blatant enough to embarrass themselves rather than put paranoid racist anger vis a vis Obama not being "one of us" in the hearts of potential voters.

*There's not been much discussion of the Republican nominee, but if it is either McCain or Giuliani up against Hillary or Obama, this is going to be a great election for America, in that it will be the first time in decades (1976?) that there has been a good candidate from both major parties offered to the US electorate. Bring it!




Barefoot Doctor -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (4/2/2007 9:40:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tini_man_anga
I am sorry that Gore doesn't seem to want to run; he's become so much more passionate and outspoken in the years since 2000 that he would probably do a good job as a nominee and indeed as president. I'm with Barefoot Doctor on thinking of Nixon -- the '00 election is sort of like the one in 1960, with a policy wonk vice president up against a smooth operator from a political dynasty, two very well-run campaigns for a new commander in chief coming off a well-run period of peace and prosperity into a new and exciting decade of challenge and change, and a razor-thin margin in the electoral returns. Bush is like the evil flipside of Kennedy, and I thought it was indeed possible Gore would pull a Nixon and come back for a shot in '08. Maybe he's too wounded, maybe he doesn't want to inherit the unholy fucking mess left by W, maybe he's comfortable being engaged in his other projects... but still, a shame he hasn't been warming up the public for a run. (By the same token, I think if he decided now, and especially if he announced at the Oscars, that could be a sign that he's just diving into a giddy and ill-conceived campaign that will ruin any chances of having one in the future.)


I agree that it's too early for Gore to jump in. From here on in all the announced candidates are going to be under incredibly intense scrutiny. Gore can stay in the public eye with his global warming talks but avoid all the pressures of the campaign. Then come November or December he can announce that he's running and he'll leap above most (if not all) of the candidates. He'd make a ton of money within the first week of announcing. He's in a great position and it's better for him just now to make it look like he doesn't intend on running.




tini_man_anga -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (4/2/2007 9:58:41 PM)

quote:

I agree that it's too early for Gore to jump in. From here on in all the announced candidates are going to be under incredibly intense scrutiny. Gore can stay in the public eye with his global warming talks but avoid all the pressures of the campaign. Then come November or December he can announce that he's running and he'll leap above most (if not all) of the candidates. He'd make a ton of money within the first week of announcing. He's in a great position and it's better for him just now to make it look like he doesn't intend on running.

I kinda meant that it was too late for him to run, even though the election is almost two years away. I don't think he's done the public preparation for it, and I don't think it's a good idea for him to be in the field with Hillary. But then again, if he does it, and does it with style, who knows...




Barefoot Doctor -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (11/2/2007 1:10:27 PM)

Rolling Stone has a great article on why Gore should run and how he can win - Link.

The article is spot on - if Dean got that much money from the internet, think how much Gore would get!




Rgirvan44 -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (11/2/2007 1:55:34 PM)

I would love Gore to enter the race again - i think a Gore/Obama ticket would be unbeatable. Not sure if he will do so, but even if he doesn't the person he throws his support behind will get a huge boost from Democratic voters.

Did anyone watch the Obama speech yesterday? I thought it was amazing. Did anyone else feel a West Wing style vibe in it? And I don't mean that as a bad thing - about time someone stood up and wasnt afraid to have convictions and inspire people to make their country a better place. Wish this country had people with the caliber of Gore or Obama. If I lived in America I could have seen myself joining his campagin.




Dirty Hartigan -> RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election (11/2/2007 2:18:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barefoot Doctor

The article is spot on - if Dean got that much money from the internet, think how much Gore would get!


Indeed. He did invent it, after all.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.125