Elect Barack Obama
Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Vote Early-Absentee-Nov4
Visit the Democratic Party
Al Gore/Barack Obama 2008
After witnessing the Al Gore of 2006, the Al Gore of An Inconvient Truth, I realize now how different our lives would have been if Al Gore was President. He must run in 2008, his passion is addicting. What are your thoughts?
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Winning Combination
It would be great if Gore does decide he will run. A lot of Dems have been calling him a loser but I think he is the best we have going right now.
Hi Ray...long time no see...welcome back...
Since we will be concerned with the candidates as they ultimatly have to stop dancing and declare for the job, why is it that few seem to favor a Clark/Feingold ticket.
Both are heavyweights, heavy on education, training, experience at very high levels, understand how the Congress and goverment works, and both have been working very hard all over the country in the lead up to this last election.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Gore -Obama
It would be nice if Senator Obama was a true progressive democrat,he reminds me of Liberman I would prefer to se a fighter like John Edwards heading the ticket with either Gore or Fiengold as the VP.
Gore had his shot and he turned out to be chicken heart, this is to much baggage for him to carry and win.
Al Anderson
Indianapolis IN 46220
augustand@sbcglobal.net
Let us begin!
I like General Wesley Clark because he understands both military operations and diplomatic primacy, and supports our troops but not the escalation.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)is an adamant, authentic, tireless progressive who preserves whatever the odds. And so, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he noted:
I'd suggest that we should be considering our long-term agenda: not only electability in 2008, but also, who may want to serve our nation in 2012 - and for the next 8 years after that...and beyond that...
We must face that it will take years - decades - to rectify junior's and shotgun's sadism, delusions, inadequacies, and excesses, and restore our republic to its democratic traditions rather than endure greedy fascist tendencies.
Let us begin!
Seems to me that Gore would make a very fine...
Secty. of the Interior. That is where his expertise is. Would be interesting to watch him take on the mining/other interests and their effects on our dwindling natural resources.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Gore isn't running for President.
He's a nice guy. I worked on his campaign in 2000. He won, and he should be in the White House right now. However, he's not planning to run in 2008 - or so he's said.
You know
That is a really good idea.
Sounds like a great ticket!
Even if Gore won't run for prez, he can at least run for VP... heck , with Cheney setting precedent, Gore would even have MORE influence as a VP !!!
Draft Al Gore
Check out the Baltimore Draft Al Gore Meetup Group at Meetup.com.... Don' just hope for Al Gore to run for president in '08... You can be part of a nation wide drive to get him to run in'08... Please take this opportunity to take action.....You are needed !!!! The U.S needs his leadership and the World needs his leadership. I truely believe he is the right person at the right time for our Country and our Planet.... Bob North (Organizer of Baltimore Draft Al Gore Meetup)
Al Gore The real president
george bush cheated and lied his way to the whitehouse he should be in prison.Everybody knows Al Gore really won the election.So he should run again he has my vote
Gore's mission
We are sooo lucky Gore got the White House stolen from under him! I just did his Climate Project training with him in Nashville and he is now totally focussed on education to stop the climate crisis. Ultimately, the Earth is more important than the U.S., right?
climate project training
Hi... would like to know more about Climate Project Training. You seem to know better than most I've read about his intentions and what he is doing. Where I live I don't get much info. You are right... sometimes this is way things work, the earth is more important than the US. I really would like to know what you know. Is he coming to California with this training or is it at a permanent location? Who would he vote for
I wonder?
thanks,
Marta
pcschools@hotmail.com
Al Gore 2008
I agree. Gore is the most qualified candidate. I would love to see him run w/Obama as VP.
Qualifications? Why not take a few minutes and find out...
just exactly how the qualifications between the different candidates differ--instead of just saying this one is qualified or that one is.
A most interesting comparison would be between Gore and Clark. I'll let your fingers do the walking. Training and experience works out the same. Ability to plan and carry out both the financial side and the logistic side of those plans that will be so necessary to repair this horribly broken country.
I am decidedly a Clark backer. I want for this country, the very best brains, the best educated, the best experience and so on for the next few years.
When you look at all the candidates, Clark is head and shoulders above the rest. Don't take my word for it--take a look for yourself.
Gore is such an environmentalist? What courses and what colleges prepared him to claim scientific expertise? I don't see any in his resume.
We have a year to let our folks work things out. Why need we decide right now, immediately, who our nominee will be.
Oh yeah, the last I heard, the nominee appoints his candidate for VP and we the people have no say. Thats how we got stuck with Judas Joe during Gore's last run.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Winning Combination
I am quite sure that they would be a winning combination. Gore won before and he is twice the speaker and a lot more self-confident now than he was then. Obama appears to be a sensation everywhere he goes.
Ditto
Al Gore is a winner , and deserves to be our president now... I think he could easily win in 2008 , and you are right about Obama as a perfect running mate!
I thought Feingold was our
I thought Feingold was our guy?
No Russ
Sorry to say, but Russ has bowed out. Very sorry to say...
Russ has said he had no
Russ has said he had no plans to be President - BUT he did NOT say he would turn down a chance to be in the White House as VP.
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security
like it's some kind of federal program."
- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000
Gore for Hillary
It would be great if Gore would just support Hillary for president. He has allready become old news as far a run for him goes. He was great on the talk show the other night in his area for the environment.
Something doesnt ring right about Barack Obam. He seems like a nice likable kid but not Presidential material.
The only problem with
The only problem with Hillary, is that she is not a Democrat. She is a DLC neoliberal "New Democrat" with the same corporate backing, and same goals as Joe "Republican-Lite" Lieberman.
And Now....
We have won Congress it is time that we start showing these DLCers that they have to answer to us. It is time to fight the second battle now, winning back our party. Nominating Hillary is not going to do that. After hearing Carville rave against Dean I believe the battle lines are drawn and its time to let Democrats know DINOs will not be tolerated.
Hi Richard,
you are so right. The DINOs don't help us, they hurt us.
We need real Democrats to help bring our party back to
the forefront.
It's good to see you back here.
;-)
Been busy
At work and am going through finals so I haven't had as much time to get on and look around. I must admit the results in Ky took the wind out of my sails a little for a while too. While I was so very thrilled with the work my fellow Dems did all across the country because they really came through big time, I mean it was inspiring!!! It showed me however that we have a long way to go here in Kentucky and it was disheartening with so much good everywhere else. Besides the candidate I supported in the primaries, Eric Streit and some State house members we are poisoned with DLCers. We even had one that put in an ad how he opposes gay marriage. Expect to see me posting a lot shortly on our governor's race which takes place in 07. I have got to find a way to help defeat McConnell and Whitfield in 08 also. I hope Chairman Dean might consider organizing something here in West Ky soon, because we need it!!
United we stand
People, people. We have to stop with the name-calling. Whether folks are DINO's or SCHMINO's shouldn't matter. We have to respect each other to win. We just cannot afford to pick at each other. You want to pick on somebody, pick on Republicans, or Jerry Falwell, or people who deserve to be picked on.
Sure, it's OK to disagree. I am OK with Gore, with Hillary, with Obama, with Clark, with Biden, even with Vilsack. Yeah, I think Vilsack is OK even though nobody's ever heard of him. All these people are better than the shrub-in chief and his dastardly side-kick. So, yes, let's debate the merits of each candidate, pick the one you think will do the best job, and may the best person win - that's the democratic way. But to start with "that guy's a DINO", or he's "Leiberman-like" and stupid stuff like that is a waste of time and will hurt us all in the end. OK, I wouldn't have voted for Leiberman, but over all, he is basically a good guy. He is wrong on Iraq, but is right on practically everything else.
I have been observing the Republicans for years now and I am delighted to report that many of them are saying that the reason they lost the last election is that they weren't "conservative" enough. Great! Let them think that. Let them get back to their minority status and exclude everybody who doesn't think like a fundamentalist preacher. Great for us, but let's not mirror these people and start with this "purity" thing. I'm personally for gun control, I don't believe that people have a "right" to own guns, that gun ownership is a priviledge and should be strictly regulated, but I'm not going to be stupid and not support a fellow Democrat who wants to appeal to the gun-owning segment of our country. We need those votes, too. We have to decide, what makes you a Democrat, and tolerate people who do not believe everything we do at 100% because that will never happen.
So let's discuss candidates, positions, electability, but please, please, let's not badmouth each other. We have to get back to winning elections, and we will only do that when we are united and inclusive.
But if the democrats don't
But if the democrats don't support impeachment soon, they will lose their chance in 2008.
The whole Bush Crime family
The whole Bush Crime family should be jailed for crimes against humanity, just like the leaders of the Nazi party in WW2.
Pete, dunno what you are concerned about...
a highly critical answer was written in this thread to a visiting Repugnant whose sole reason for being here was to disrupt the site. The popular name for such critters is TROLL.
Lieberman is not ok...as you state. He may have been ok years ago, but he has made his choices over the past 6 years...and he likes what this misadministration does. That is why The Dems in his home state fired him. That he chose, with Republican assistance to make a run as an independent, just shows us the monumental ego of this has-been and wanna be Nazi.
We are in the very early stages of seeing who will survive the popularity contest of presidential candidate. Lots of people want to be the candidate, but there are also those who, for their own political reasons, know that they cannot win...but enter the fray for a while as local boys/girls in their own backyards.
DINOS are objects of scorn. Collectively, they have no spines. They are essentially opportunists. Too many times over the past 6 years, our party hacks(dinos)have voted with the opposition and against the good of the people. If the DINOS are going to vote with the opposition, then that fact is a factor in the course of the nation. Donkeys are not elephants the last time I looked.
Our party is not a party where we march in lockstep. The other party does.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Concerned about winning the White House
I'm not suggesting that we march in lockstep at all. We believe in vigorous debate and that is very healthy. We should argue all of our points and try to convince each other of the righteousnous of our points of view. That's what Democrats do. What I'm referring to is demonizing the folks who are in the party who we don't agree with at 100% or even at 85%. They are part of our group whether we agree with them all the time or not, and if the majority of our group decides to back someone we agree with only 80% of the time, we can't afford to just walk away and not support him or her. If we do that then we give the White House away to the Repugnants as you called them.
If only half the folks who voted for Nader in Florida had switched to Gore we wouldn't have to endure the creeps who currently run our country. And I personally know people who wouldn't vote for Gore because he wasn't quite perfect enough, and Nadar was better, blah, blah, blah. And we got the Shrub. And we can blame the Supreme Court, and the State of Florida, etc. but we did it to ourselves.
My point here is to remind us all that the perfect is the enemy of the good. You don't like Leiberman? So you prefer Cheney? I don't think so. So if you had to chose between Leiberman and Cheney, it's not even close, in my opinion.
So please, let's see if we can win this one.
Actually
I think the choice might be harder than you think. The problem a lot of people have with Lieberman is that he supports the same things Cheney does, he just lies about it. Thus the choice to some would be Cheney and a wanna-be Cheney. Put like that I think that there would be a lot of problems. That is why we are trying to get many of these DINOs out of our party before it comes to that.
I'm not for Leiberman
It sounds like I'm for Leiberman, perhaps. I'm not. I didn't like him even when he ran with Gore, but I went ahead and supported Gore anyway. And resisted the temptation to stay home or vote for Nader. I don't think Leiberman could win the nomination even if he personally ended the war at this point. So he should not even be an issue. The issue is who would make the better President, and let's argue about that.
My personal view is that the public is looking for a fresh face which is why Obama is so popular, but I'm afraid that his lack of experience can be used effectively against him. So I'm not sure if he is ready yet. He's young enough to be able to wait a few years. Maybe vice-President?
As for President, I always liked Wesley Clark since it would be difficult for the Repubs to say he didn't know anything about national security. And a general who is against war as a first resort is my kind of general. I think Hillary is OK but she is such a lightning rod for the yahoos. I also like Edwards, and he has a real positive attitude that would carry the day, I think. I can see a Clark-Edwards ticket but I have a feeling that Edwards might not want to take the VP spot again, so that might be a problem. But there are other combinations out there that could work. Maybe Edwards-Clark would be better.
I am certain of one thing, however. Whatever combination we come up with as Democrats will be a whole lot better than anything the Repubs have to offer.
I agree with some of what you say
However the definition of DINO is Democrat in name only. This means they run as Democrats and then when elected do nothing for the Democrats that got them there. They side with Repugs. The problem with these people is not only do they not represent our party, but they give our party the illusion of being spineless because they are afraid of voting for what they believe in. The other problem with them, they lose elections because the average voters can't stand spinelessness.
What is a DINO?
My problem with the term DINO is that it is so subjective. It is so easy to label someone you don't like. Who are the DINO's, anyway? I remember many folks considered Bill Clinton a DINO. Who cares if he ran the most successful Presidency of the last twenty years? He was pro-death penalty. He ended welfare "as we know it". But he was a damn sight better than both Bushes combined. So when we start calling people DINO's we are saying something more about ourselves. Because unless you have specific voting records, like how different organizations like the Sierra Club, keep track of voting records, then it is all perception. Now if people want to compile voting records of the key contenders, that would actually be a useful service. Like percent voting on pro-environment, or education, or health care. That would be a much more useful exercise than simply calling someone a DINO. That is just way too simplistic and subjective. I would like to see a compilation of people's voting records on the major issues. Then, we can start making real comparisons instead of playing with labels.
You obviously know very
You obviously know very little about the Democratic "Leadership" Council (DLC), or its founders Al From, and Will Marshall, and their ties to neoconservative causes (see PNAC, the Third Way, and support for the invasion of Iraq). See this node for a full explanation: http://www.democrats.com/node/10456
They are NOT Democrats, and neither are their "followers:" Lieberman, Vilsack, Bayh, Warner, Hillary, Kerry, et al. They are "neoliberal" Third-Way "New Democrats," and have no resemblance to the values and goals of traditional Democrats or the Democratic Party. The DLC and its members are directly responsible for the current split in the Democratic Party, and the main reason for election losses during the past 12 years.
In fact, they work in opposition (right along with the Republicans) to the only officially-elected representatives of grassroots Democrats -- the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and its Chairman, Gov. Howard Dean. This does, in fact, make the DLC and its corporate prostitutes DINOs.
Just because they call themselves "Democrats," does not MAKE them Democrats.
Interesting that you didn't mention
Bill Clinton in your list. He was one of the stars of the DNC. But he was still a better and most successful President than any Repubs that I know. And to compare "neo-liberals" with "neo-cons" is not only naive, but wrong. Sure, if you debate enough, you will find some common ground between an extreme right-winger and a left-winger, but that does not make them equivalent.
I don't believe in using bogeymen to motivate voters. That's what the Bush crowd has done successfully. Whenever they are in trouble, they want us to think about all these mean-looking Arabs ready to kill us all and vote our fears. I won't play that game among our own. Hillary, Kerry, Vilsack, et al are Democrats, even if they don't follow everything you and I believe in. And the more we divide ourselves into smaller and smaller groups the more likely we are of losing another election. We live in a very large country that is very diverse with lots of opinions about everything. We have to learn to appeal to a great swath of thinking, from the extreme left, to the center, and yes, even to the center right. I wouldn't go so far as the "hard" right because we don't need them to win, but we need the DNC types to get absolute majorities. And if you think we can win a national election by appealing only to progressives then you are kidding yourself. We need a big tent to win, and insulting the folks in that tent doesn't help. Sorry.
I'm a progressive myself, but I learned that being a "purist" doesn't win elections. I supported Senator Eugene McCarthy with all my heart, thinking he would make a great President (and I believe he would have) but we couldn't even make it to the nomination. And when we ran Hubert Humphrey instead we shot him down because he was LBJ's VP and we ended up with Nixon and Watergate. Some accomplishment that was!
So can we learn something from history, or are we doomed to repaeat the failures of the past? It's all up to us.
Pete
I don't think that Bill mentioned the DNC it was the DLC Democrat Leadership Council. They are not the same.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell
OK maybe I confused the DNC with the DLC
But I didn't confuse the DINO. And Bill Clinton is considerd by many of us as a DINO.
Bill Clinton distanced
Bill Clinton distanced himself from the DLC during his second term, and rightfully so. If you go to the DLC website, you will NOT see Bill Clinton's name or picture listed as one of their "poster children." It is not about being a "purist" -- it is about standing up for American principles and values.
The DLC neoliberals are no different from the PNAC neoconservatives, which is what makes them so insidious. They both feed from the same corporate troughs, and serve the same masters. They both advocate a "New American Century" of economic and military world dominance.
I, and many other members of Democrats.com, would not under any circumstances vote for a DLC-er -- never. We are actively advocating their replacement in an effort to regain control of our Party. At the same time, patriotic Republicans are trying to rid themselves of neoconservatives, and regain control of their Party.
When you have the time, I suggest that you research the world-wide Third Way movement (see Tony Blair, Will Marshall, and Al From), which is the "parent" organization of the DLC. They are indeed anti-Constitutional "bogeymen."
The bottom line is, that corporate influence has inflitrated both political Parties, and Middle American Constitutional values are under attack. The fight is not between traditional Republicans and Democrats, but between American patriots and multi-national corporate fascists.
The greater the divide between traditional Conservatives and traditional Liberals, the better it serves the "neos" purposes.
Welcome to the forums
Welcome to the forums Portuguese Pete.
The objection to the DLCers is not about any single issue like gun control or abortion. It is much bigger than that. It is about who is the master that these people serve. It is about democrat principles and those who believe in plutocracy rather than democracy. It is not about bickering among our selves it is about the philosophy of governance that democrats believe in, it is about an ever widening difference in world view.
I can claim to be anything, if it is popular and will get me elected. That doesn't make me what I claim, my actions do. A DINO is a democrat in name only.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell
I get it
I get the whole DLC thing. But the reality of national politics is that you can ally yourself with a larger group of people that you don't necessarily believe in everything they do or relegate yourself to a smaller more comfortable group of people who think alike. Whereas the latter group is certainly more desireable if we are talking going out for beer, the former group is what will get us into the power game.
The choices are not pretty, but would you rather the DLC types, the Clintons, the Kerrys, etc, just join the Repubs? Maybe that will make some of us feel better, but we will always be on the losing end of a national election.
Remember the Inconvenient Truth? Well here's an inconvenient truth: we need as many allies as we can get in order to win elections. That may not be popular with this crowd, but that's the unvarnished truth whether you like it or not.
I, for one, am fed up with Repubs winning elections based on fear and ignorance and will do anything to prevent them from winning again. And if I have to hold hands with a DINO to do it, so be it. I'm not proud. I'm sick of being on the outside looking in. I actually was invited to the White House when Clinton was President. Never got another invite again. I want us to win so we can then pressure the person we voted in office to do the things we care about. Fat chance getting a Repub to listen.
Yes
again agree with some of what you say but what you aren't realizing is that when we elect the DINOs who are really just serving the same masters as the Repugs we are not really helping ourselves because these people will block any kind of change or reform. When Clinton was first elected do you remember how many of these people voted against him and derailed his first term? Even though the had a (D) by their name and state they were fighting against our President and our agenda so they did us not one bit of good. It was they that got our party branded spineless because they wouldn't vote with Clinton on so many things. The main thing Clinton did that annoyed me was NAFTA which still haunts us to this day, but I never considered him DINO. And the main point is look at what the result of their control of our party during the 90s was, complete and total defeat and failure that we just managed to overcome this year due to the massive efforts or our "looney liberals" in the party.
Neoliberals no better than neoCONS
In fact Neoconism was based on neoliberalism ... anything that smacks of corporatism and warmongering is not remotely "ok"... the Grassroots and Netroots eventually get what we the PEOPLE want > power in numbers, not money!
Hillary
as much as I would like to see a female in the white house...Hillary is not the one. Too many CORPORATE sponsers. Al Gore would at least clean up the environment (or go down trying) After all, as the planet deteriorates..more war follows.
Barbara Boxer would be a
Barbara Boxer would be a more appropriate choice though.
Bill, there's more than one problem with Hillary
She also refuses to have any convictions about any pressing issue. She waits, watches, wafts, wobbles, then when it's clear what is popular, she almost supports it. It's not just that she acts too tentatively on what she believes, it's more like she isn't sure of what she believes.
Too true Steve...
Too true Steve...
Are you kidding
You can't be serious nominating Obama? The guy is a fraud...And not that I would support McCain or anything-I can't stand either party to be honest-but Obama, Clinton, Gore; would force those of us who consider ourselves truly progressive to vote for a viable third party candidate.
Puleez...
I know, I know, when a person chooses the lesser of two evils, they still choose evil... but would you really consider voting a third party for your own sense of conscience, thus enabling another Republican administration to screw up foreign policy and stack the courts for another generation???? Do you like have the Constitution trampled?? Have these last 6 years seeing our country messed up with respect to every signifcant measure not been as awful for you as for the rest of us?
Look- I know very little about Obama. To a certain degree, it bothers me that he may not have earned his stripes to jump ahead of other contenders in the queue ... on the other hand, unlike GWB, who a vast portion of the country gave credence to despite a resume full of failures... Obama has been the smart kid in class his whole life... just for that, I have more faith in his ability to execute while in office...
There are specific things about the democratic candidates that I do and don't like... and I am leery of the DLC agenda... but keep this in mind...
Unlike the super-rich effetes (e.g., GWB) that can glide through failure after failure because they have so much big money to back them up... most of the dems do not... so they have to be more careful and more toward the middle until their position is secure. Real contenders have to be super careful because they have a lot to lose and a lot to gain.
Whatever gripes people had about Clinton/ Gore... too centrist, not centrist enough... the country was in excellent shape, legally, financially and in world standing when the adminstration expired. While Hilary or Obama may not be a first choice... I think both are capable of doing a very good job if they take office.
Third party candidates can demonstrate "pure" progressive thinking because really... they have little to lose and not much to gain... their candidacies are moral campaigns to highlight issues... not to really take the helm and change the country.
As a result, I hope you would choose to work within the DNC system to get the change you seek, rather than breaking the system... breaking from the DNC and trying to break it only makes the GOP stronger...
just the thought of that gives me chills.
Please feel free to elaborate on your assessment of Obama being a fraud... I would be interested in knowing as much about the democratic primary candidates well advance of the primary... but I cannot countenance a flippant character assassination and threat to go 3d party... that does nothing to enlighten the members of this site...
I too would like to see credible evidence of Obama
"being a fraud". Character assassinations are easy to make, something
else to prove.
Obama is very smart and articulate. He has great public appeal.
Now the question is, does he have the cajones to take on the tough issues
and the big guys?
Yes
To be blunt, yes, currently there is little to no difference between either the Republican Party and Democratic Parties...Clinton killed just as many Iraqi children with sanctions then Bush 1 ever could dream of.
And for Obama being a fraud do a general research of his family, his statements regarding "surgical strikes against Iran", etc...Research is currently being done by Paul Street on this matter, and I hope, that Street will have a book published on him.