Democrats Don't Need Gore
I am not one of the many people wanting Al Gore in the election. I love Gore and do think Gore would be a terrific President. I have considered crying when I think of how much better things would be if he had been allowed to serve as President. But he ran a bad campaign in 2000 and he is easy to smear because there is so much disinformation on global warming. That makes him more vulnerable than Obama, Edwards and maybe even Clinton (she has issues, but people underestimate the woman voting factor). So I want Al Gore to stay on the sidelines.Plus, if Gore runs, people like Sheryl Crow will be all over the TV. Crow is why people don't like celebrity campaigners. In my opinion, she is overall annoying and talks about global warming in too extreme of terms. On her recent Stop Global Warming College Tour, Crow spoke of requiring limits on toilet paper to one sheet per use. Maybe Crow should just make her own sacrifices from her extravagant touring requirements.
I bet eliminating toilet paper would have a great impact, but people don't want to hear that. Extreme positions are a huge turnoff. Remember, Bush brought us war without sacrifice (except for the disposable 3000 troops). Most people don't want their lives dramatically changed. Plus, I don't think it is that complicated. Everyone knows that improving raising fuel efficiency standards on cars will have the biggest impact. Any leader should just focus on that. And that is what Barack Obama's plan is.
Related: Newer Rasmussen Poll - Obama 32%, Clinton 32%, Edwards 17%.
By Chuck - 4/26/2007
31 Comments:
to clarify: i am okay with extreme positions, when needed, but i just know that too many Americans are about thinking big. so we have to focus on small steps.
even on health care, any big changes will probably take time.
I saw his movie.
I like Gore.
I hope Obama is smart enough to never get within 50 yards of him, though.
I think your instincts about how Gore should stay out are right. I am surprised to hear you say it.
Barack Obama is all we need.
I agree. I think Gore's time has passed and we don't need him in the race for the Presidency. However, I don't think he hurts us and he needs to be out there to respond to right wingers constantly attacking him.
I've got "Barack is all we need" to The Beatles "love is all you need" running through my head.
i wish there was an independent political person who ment anything would run
Could you please enumerate your specific reasons for supporting Obama?
Didn't I just give one. I like his plan for energy consumption.
And I have given other examples over the past several months. And I am sure I will re-mention my thoughts over the next several months.
You can also search through the archives.
T-dawg, he's got "it"
T-Dawg, there is a decent chance that Chuck Hagel may run as an independent. Look for him to announce later this summer one way or the other. He would be a legit candidate.
Jeff, who are you supporting for President?
One thing you are discounting, Chuck, is the fact that the GOP will throw everything but the kitchen sink at whomever the Dem nominee is.
Ya think they won't use racism to campaign against Obama? They've already started.
Trying to choose a candidate based on how you think the right will campaign against that person is backward thinking. It's how we got Kerry. Look, he's a war hero, and Bush is a chickenhawk, is what everyone thought. Look what happened!
The GOP is scared to death of the whole range of environmental issues, whether it be global warming, conservation, etc. Whoever the candidate is needs to be Greener than Kermit. I'm not saying it has to be Gore, but whoever it is, environmental issues have to be very important in the campaign. To that extent, the Dems need Gore... not necessarily on the ticket, but advancing the global warming issue. It helps us win in 08.
That and the fact that all of their candidates really, really suck.
I'm waiting.
I hate Obama on Health, but like him otherwise.
I like rudy, but I'm afraid he could be the 2nd coming of bush; a big government conservative.
Obama v. rudy would be a tough decision for me, but I would certainly vote obama over McCain. He is a giant douche.
And Hillary is a turd sandwhich. If it comes to those two, I'm voting LP in 2008.
Until your party decides to stop trying to dictate my health, I will be on the lookout for a good moderate republican.
I think OhDave just explained how to get a really electable candidate for a nation of OhDaves.
Jeff, I can't tell if that's a slam or not!
exactly
I continued to be fascinated by people spreading their legs for any candidate in the Spring of 2007, with a hundred miles of history to go before the election.
This unconditional love for Obama is precisely the
fairy dust mindset that has plagued democrats since I was a boy. I get the Obama "it" factor.... but only to the extent that I understand Bush's charisma. But sadly, grits ain't groceries and charisma ain't leadership as we have witnessed on a daily basis. Unfortunately campaign promises have precious little to with displaying leadership qualities.
As much as I hate reality shows, I say put all of these fuckers on an island and see who can build alliances, see who can keep a promise, see who can problem solve without sending teenagers to their deaths, or accusing their rivals of being pussies and traitors.
Cheney can be the show's Colonel Kurtz, sitting in the shadows, squeezing a wet rag over his big fat bald head saying, " Drop the bomb. Exterminate them all."
"PBR Street Gang this is Almighty, over.."
BTW
Obama certainly sounded better in the debate tonight.
Hillary cannot speak, and shouldn't even be invited to the next debate. And don't invite Gavel either, he is delusional.
If this comes down to obama and hillary she will be shredded.
Kyle, Hagel is trailing in his own State's GOP primary. He is a non-factor. That's despite having a better conservative voting rating than any of the current candidates.
Dave, I am not worried about the GOP dirty tactics. of course they will use them, but i think that ship has sailed. and the race thing will not work on a grand scale. the people it would affect will not vote for any democrat.
further, and you are right about being backward thinking. but Gore's 2000 campaign was literally ran in the exact way your lament - backward looking, playing off of what Bush was doing. He seems different now, but i think he has had his chance.
but it is more about Obama. he does have "it"
glad you could list them "chuck"
whyis it every time I ask people to enumerate (here is the definiton of enumerate chuck-you seemed to not grasp it earlier 1 : to ascertain the number of : COUNT 2 : to specify one after another) I can't get a simple answer. Look all I want is an "I like him because of x...Y...z... "
seriously it is not a complex or trick question I really am curious why everybody is hard on over heels for this guy.
because this is my (our) site, not yours. hence, i am not going to let someone that is hostile to me and point of view dictate how i conduct myself on my (our) site.
I watched about a 1 min 30 seconds of said debate during a commercial durring my name is earl. It was some qustion about Wal Mart to Hilary. the election is like 2 years away and i dont want to listen to 90 min of administration bashing. If i did want to i would turn on the first 10 min of the network nightly news.
So instead i went to the Nuthouse with d and it was better.
My order of who won based on based on what I read on message boards when i got home and what d told me: Biden won(objective internet board consensus), and Richardson did bad, maybe he waas focused on his Kansas City A's game tomorrow. everyone else did nothing good or bad.
jeff, If you think the democrats will actually implement a health care plan, then you have more confidence in them than I do. It's a talking point because it's a liberal value - to make sure everyone is insured. Most Americans want health insurance, but they don't want to pay for it and the insurance lobby will make sure it never happens.
Things may change between now and the election, but there is nothing wrong with supporting a candidate now. I supported Edwards in 2004 and then had to suck it up and support Kerry.
I don't really understand how asking the reasons you support a candidate is hostile. Nor was the question addressed solely to you(chuck). I have no idea what "it" is, I also don't know why peope are supporting him, hence why I asked for reasons.
never said there was anything wrong with supporting a candidate either, again just want to know why he is so liked.
you were on target about people like S. Crow and the fact that Americans dont want to be inconvienced. It has become the standard amongst our politicans. We are not willing to sacrifice and until we do the oil dependence will continue to destroy us and the world.
You people crack me up, so pious, oh those dirty Republicans and their terrible campaign tactics. That's why this blog stinks....if you had any brains you would realize BOTH parties and candidates are all alike. Why was Howard Dean criticizing Rudi Giuliani's PERSONAL problems on Wolf Blitzer? Because he saw the recent Quinnpac poll that for the first time shows REPUBLICAN Rudi AND McCain beating Hillary AND Obama in OHIO!!!! And Pennsylvania, and Florida. Beginning of a trend???
Anyone notice the ABC report of how the Democrats ran on a pay to play....and now they are holding lavish fundraisers themselves?
Why is it the Democrats in Ohio are now AGAINST any changes to redistricting methods in Ohio, maybe because now THEY might be controlling the process????
It's all about controlling the purse strings for your friends.
Summit County Council passes a Project Labor Agreement for all county construction projects, they do it in an emergency measure, so there is no debate, no public comment, what are they afraid of?
Nothing but a payoff to their union contributors. At the taxpayer expense.
Howard Dean criticizes Giuliani...... is that as
good as it gets from the Republican faithful ?
Soyou see some sort of moral equivilency between
a Howard Dean comment and the actions of most corrupt administration in the history of this country?
That's some weak shit man.
If you are saying corrupt in terms of breaking the laws and and enriching themselves by illegal means I disagree. The people of this administration for the most part are already well off and well connected within the system and using that system to "legally" enrich themselves. Once you reach a certain position you are tapped into the system and the benefits follow. Dem/Rep it does not matter.
If you are defining corrupt in moral terms, that is in the eye of the beholder.
Point in case. You have to start somewhere. Jeffeerson starts with money in the fridge a Cheney or Kennedy doesnt need to to put money in the fridge. Who is more corrupt?
The one who rationalizes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people simply to enrich his former company and test out his sophomoric views of foreign policy is the most corrupt.
Most anyone else by comparison is just a common thief.
Post a Comment
<< Home