D'artagnan wrote:It's mind boggling (to me, at least) that anyone thinks of him as being other than a conservative Republican with the occasional independent streak.
ditto
~~~~~
Is the timing of Karenna Gore Schiff's new book, with its attendant publicity, whimsical? I'd suspect not.
People rode Gore before - saying how he didn't have leadership aura, and all that. I would support him, because he has good priorities and good ideas and good experience and I think the thievery of 2000 gave him backbone he was missing.
And say what you will - Obama ain't gonna head no ticket in '08.
I think McCain has shown himself to be a guy, who follows his ideas where ever they lead.
They wind him up in different camps pretty regularly.
It will be interesting to see where he shakes out.
Well, why not?
That's why I started this thread.
I'm not, by the way, saying he WILL -- I'm saying I'd sure like to see it happen and am wondering if it is feasible.
I personally like Gore (though a lot less than Obama) but I think he would be poison for the Dems, more so than Hillary even.
As in, if he got the nomination, I'd vote for him, but I wouldn't be lobbying for him to get the nomination.
Among other things, he has the same problem as Hillary as yet another round of the neverending Bush/Clinton story. Even though his last name isn't Clinton, that's who he's closely aligned with, and it would be a neverending rehash of all the stuff we've been rehashing for the past 14 years.
Onward, upward, new guy new name sounds good to me.
Have you guys ever thought a major actor would try to run? Clooney, ...Beatty... somebody?
Isn't Beatty like 150 years old?
I do kinda dig
this ... click for someday. He held it together pretty well.
Clooney would be interesting. I don't think for '08, though -- he'd have to do SOMETHING vaguely governmental before going for president.
I know you're right soz, but crazy stuff is going on in politics of late.
I'm afraid some media personality will make a serious bid. They've been trying to get Brokaw for a while.
Still have my money on Wes Clark in '08.
Why? Because he's a centrist who is strongly against the Iraq war. He's all the electable aspects of Hillary, without the hatred, he's got plenty of military experience. He talks plainly. He'll do well in IA and NH (bastard states!)
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Still have my money on Wes Clark in '08.
Why? Because he's a centrist who is strongly against the Iraq war. He's all the electable aspects of Hillary, without the hatred, he's got plenty of military experience. He talks plainly. He'll do well in IA and NH (bastard states!)
Cycloptichorn
I remember Wes Clark - I had high hopes for him, until I saw him speak a couple of times... "centrist" is a very optimistic way of describing the way he tried to straddle every frikkin issue...
He's STILL pickin splinters out of his ass.
LOL!!
Not enthusiastic about Wes.
The Wikipedia entry on Obama reminded me that it's not just his last name, he has a surreally bad middle name. Full name: Barack Hussein Obama. OOF!
Some good info, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Lash wrote:You know. It is not outside the realm of possibility that McCain could add on to a Dem ticket. I think he'd do better with them these days.
LOL you
really dont like the guy, huh?
I dont think there's anything more damning you could say about a politician than that he should run as a Democrat... ;-)
sozobe wrote:Said Obama: "I'm particularly pleased to be sharing this panel with my pen pal John McCain."
Hehheh ;-)
snood wrote:People rode Gore before - saying how he didn't have leadership aura, and all that.
Well, and they were right, weren't they?
I'm not hot about Wesley either, definitely not for '08 - but he'd have done better than Kerry last time...
nimh wrote:Lash wrote:You know. It is not outside the realm of possibility that McCain could add on to a Dem ticket. I think he'd do better with them these days.
LOL you
really dont like the guy, huh?
I dont think there's anything more damning you could say about a politician than that he should run as a Democrat... ;-)
sozobe wrote:Said Obama: "I'm particularly pleased to be sharing this panel with my pen pal John McCain."
Hehheh ;-)
snood wrote:People rode Gore before - saying how he didn't have leadership aura, and all that.
Well, and they were right, weren't they?
I believe he won that election, personality-points or nt. I believe that we wouldn't be in Iraq if he'd gotten to serve. I know that I don't care diddly squat about the "qualities" some think so important in a candidate. After all - the guy we got stuck with had 'aw-shucks' qualities that pegged the meters, and look what a piece of crap he is.
snood wrote:I know that he won the election, personality-points or nt. I know that we wouldn't be in Iraq if he'd gotten to serve. I know that I don't care diddly squat about the "qualities" some think so important in a candidate. After all - the guy we got stuck with had 'aw-shucks' qualities that pegged the meters.
I only care about 'em in as far as they're needed to get
elected. If getting elected requires aw-shucks qualities, then so be it. Gore didnt get elected, and theres little reason to think he'd play better with the public now than then.
Do you think the Dem's core will demand an actual liberal this time?
<hee, homage to the Dys>
I like Obama but I question whether he is ready for even a VP bid. He is certainly not ready for the top of the ticket. I am rather shocked that anyone would consider someone's name a negative. Someone that stupid would probably be voting Republican anyway.
I think even '12 is too early for Obama. He needs a lot more seasoning.
People react to things at a visceral level -- that's just how it goes. One would certainly hope the name wouldn't matter, but that doesn't mean it actually wouldn't.
Why do you think he doesn't have enough experience? In terms of the job he would do, or in terms of whether he could get elected?
Who do you think would be a better choice?
Yeah, people react to things on a visceral level, and that's just how it is, but damn.
Anyone worth spit cares more about what the person is really about and where they are on issues.
I was glad Clinton played well to cameras because I wanted him to be president. I am glad JFK looked better than Nixon on camera, because I think he was what the country needed at the time. But I will be damned to hell if I am going to start giving so much credence to appearances that who the person actually is takes second place.
