Comments on: Gore – 2008 run?

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:35:40 +0000

Wombat: Thanks for your thoughtful response. Sidenote: I take it from the name you are an Aussie? I truly hope that the Dems do not think Gore is their best shot. He’s a truly awful candidate, IMO – who’s credibility has been shot by a multitude of things that won’t go over with mainstream middle of the roaders … mainly, his angryman routine, which cost Howard Dean the nomination (again IMO) in the long run last year.

Jack: Jack – Warner sounds like our version of John Edwards. Slick talker and smooth as heck. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Edwards ran again in ‘08.

By: Jack Deth

Jack Deth — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 05:50:38 +0000

Jack: Who do you think they will pick as the nominee?

The big money MoonBats seem to like either Evan Bayh or VA. Governor Mark Warner.

Both, in my opinion are one evolutinary step above Pond Scum. Yet both are young and slick.

Most of my friends in VA who thought they would like Warner, now despise him.
I warned them early on that Warner was just a younger, smoother Clinton-Clone. His buddy, Kaine isn’t faring too well against Kilgore, either.

Bayh has his family name to fall back on.
Hasn’t done anything of substance to establish where he stands on anything; and has room to slip farther Left than Hillary, Kerry or Gore.

Jack.

By: The Wombat

The Wombat — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:32:54 +0000

No way Hillary’s getting the 2008 nomination for the Dems. I was at a Democratic fundraiser recently, and the comments about Hillary ranged from disappointed to vitriolic in disgust. She’s already lost the core of the party. They were already angry at her for supporting the Iraq War Resolution back in 2002, and her support of that awful bankruptcy bill (the original version at least) didn’t help things. But they might have forgiven her the Iraq misstep if she’s changed her tune. Instead, not only is she not changing from her support of the Iraq War– she’s intensifying it. Now she wants to send in something like 5 new divisions into Iraq, plus spread the war out, attacking Iran or maybe the Assad regime. This has, oh, maybe around 0.7% support among Democratic voters.

WTF is she thinking? Not just the Dems but the whole country is jumping off this disastrous Iraq bandwagon, but she’s still trying to show off her hawk feathers. It’s frankly too late to change course on this now, b/c then she’d look either insincere, an idiot for her earlier position, or some combination of both. She has too much vested in the pro-war position. The grass-roots members of the Dem party are irate beyond description at Hillary now and they won’t support her– even at a *Democratic fundraiser* some were talking 3rd party if e.g. Dean tried to talk her up too much.

These days I don’t know who the Dem favorite is. Mark Warner from Virginia has a nice shot– appealing in many ways. He is pro-Iraq War but not vocally so. Probably won’t hurt him too much, but won’t help him either. Barbara Boxer might be quite the candidate– don’t write her off. Wes Clark may be near the top of the list now. Although he isn’t very experienced, he’s a tough-talking general who was nonetheless smart enough to oppose the Iraq War early on. He has quite a bit of support.

Actually, I think you picked the subject right Sister, because I suspect that the Dems’ best candidate right now may very well be Al Gore. Like Clark, Gore was against Iraq from the start, but much more forcefully and eloquently. Gore is a much more vibrant speaker and writer than he was just five years ago– he really excites the crowds. He’s spoken out firmly against the conditions and policies that led to the torture scandals at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram. Plus he is the green candidate, and thus already has an enormous block of the Democratic Party already supporting him– not to mention the country in general. It’s hard to say for sure at this early point, but for 2008, Al Gore may be the Dems’ best choice.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:49:02 +0000

Bob: I can tell you just from the convos I’ve had with some liberals that quite a few of ‘em don’t care for Hillary, but she’s a Clinton and as you say they fear and tolerate her. I really don’t see her making it past the primaries in ‘08, assuming she runs.

Jack: Who do you think they will pick as the nominee?

Lorica: I just literally LOL’d at your comments – especially the last paragraph. Would be a hoot if that happened

Mega: Now THAT would be interesting – a Gore vs. Hillary in the race for the nomination. I commented on this a few weeks ago: Al has inside info on Hillary through his days as VP to Bill and Hillary no doubt has inside info on Al thanks to her days as co-prez with Bill – could be fun to watch that one!

By: megapotamus

megapotamus — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:28:51 +0000

Al, I can only say… Run! Run, you fool! Don’t forget that the Clintonoids, all of ‘em, are not old by the standards of statesmen. They are not through with us yet by a long chalk. Al and JFK Jr on the same chopping block, attempting to prevent the Rise of Hilary will present the aspect of a 7-10 split to Her Highness and she will mow them down in a most brutal fashion. They might actually insult Gore enough to get his pulse pulsing again. Could he have Clinton skeletons to release? You better bet he does. He just MIGHT have the sense to uncork them if under enough duress. And he’s the only guy on the public stage that could actually make Kerry look attractive as an alternative. Go for it, Al.

By: Lorica

Lorica — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:17:14 +0000

This is exactly what I have been waiting for. Especially if Al gets Barak Obama to say yes to the Veep side of the ticket. Get that info out early and it will be hard for Hillary to get the base under her. I still believe that Al will lose it in the end. Hillary’s wrath will be totally focused on Al, so watch your back Bub. You know she will have spies in the Al Gore Camp. But I think Al will have a friend in Howard Dean too. That will be a plus for him. Well as much of a plus as Ho Ho can be.

Now just for pure speculation, wouldn’t it be nice if Rudy would run against Hillary for NY Senate?? Rudy would win that race, Hillary then loses the nomenation to Al, she is out and back to the double wide, otherwise known as the Clinton Presidential Library. Ohhhh happy days …. well for all those not in Arkansas, sorry guys.

By: Jack Deth

Jack Deth — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:04:04 +0000

Democrats have historically never backed losers in political races.

If they want to re-cycle Gore or Kerry, they’re burning Other People’s Money (Their Favorite Pasttime) and starting a race with one leg buried in the ground.

A large chunk of the Dem’s Walking Around Money comes from MoveOn and DU. Both despise Kerry and Gore slightly less than Hillary, and have no idea who Barack Obama is and what he stands for.

My guess is that the Old Line Dems will run Hillary, but she won’t make it through the Primaries.

Jack.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:03:49 +0000

Just finished reading a piece on Drudge about Dick Morris’ book on Hillary vs. Condi saying only Condi Rice can stop Hillary. But that presuposes that Hillary won’t get stomped by her own party. I really don’t think the Democratic party likes her as much as they fear and tolerate her. If they can sideline her this time, she stuck at senator because she will be too old in 2012. And remember the story about how she and Bill only half heartedly support Kerry so she wouldn’t have to face an incumbent democrat. I think a lot of people won’t forget that.