Hillary's negitives are a lot higher than Gore's. Also, you can't underestimate the anti-establishment vote, especially on the Democratic side. To most of the party, the Clintons represent the beltway establishment, which the netroots and their allies consider mealy mouthed wimpy losers. I'm not saying that Hillary cannot overcome all of that and get the nomination, but Gore or whoever the strongest "non-Hillary" is will get a lot of support. The anyone but Hillary vote will matter.

Originally Posted by Truth '61

Hillary's negitives are a lot higher than Gore's. Also, you can't underestimate the anti-establishment vote, especially on the Democratic side. To most of the party, the Clintons represent the beltway establishment, which the netroots and their allies consider mealy mouthed wimpy losers. I'm not saying that Hillary cannot overcome all of that and get the nomination, but Gore or whoever the strongest "non-Hillary" is will get a lot of support. The anyone but Hillary vote will matter.

In that sense, Gore's endorsement of Dean in '04 will come in handy.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Truth '61

Hillary's negitives are a lot higher than Gore's. Also, you can't underestimate the anti-establishment vote, especially on the Democratic side. To most of the party, the Clintons represent the beltway establishment, which the netroots and their allies consider mealy mouthed wimpy losers. I'm not saying that Hillary cannot overcome all of that and get the nomination, but Gore or whoever the strongest "non-Hillary" is will get a lot of support. The anyone but Hillary vote will matter.

In that sense, Gore's endorsement of Dean in '04 will come in handy.

So, Dean, the chair of the DNC, is the anti-establishment candidate? What a topsy-turvy world we live in.

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Truth '61

Hillary's negitives are a lot higher than Gore's. Also, you can't underestimate the anti-establishment vote, especially on the Democratic side. To most of the party, the Clintons represent the beltway establishment, which the netroots and their allies consider mealy mouthed wimpy losers. I'm not saying that Hillary cannot overcome all of that and get the nomination, but Gore or whoever the strongest "non-Hillary" is will get a lot of support. The anyone but Hillary vote will matter.

In that sense, Gore's endorsement of Dean in '04 will come in handy.

So, Dean, the chair of the DNC, is the anti-establishment candidate? What a topsy-turvy world we live in.

The netroot Democrats are in a place politically that the Goldwater Republicans could understand. They are committed to what they believe in and know that in our single member district system, only the two establishment parties have a chance at winning. That makes the mission clear, join the party that is closest to ones beliefs and reform it first so that America may be reformed later. Anyone who followed the Dean campaign in the left leaning blogs last year saw a political purification ritual not unlike what the Goldwater nomination did for the GOP in '64. Any establishment Democrat like Hillary is going to have to convince the netroots that she understands them. The willingness of the Dean and other volenteers to unify behind Kerry showed a lot of pragmatism and a willingness to be team players (what else would you expect out of a movement that's mostly X'ers and millies?) that could bode well for the future if the party establishment is willing to work effectivily with the netroots through the blogs.This year's midterm could tell a lot, if the netroots continue to show a willingness to work hard and apply their internet savvy in fundraising and organizing, it could be the beginning of a new coalition that may be able to have long term (i.e. the X'ers and millies, like all generations, are going to be voting in larger numbers as they get older) impact on America and the world.

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Truth '61

Hillary's negitives are a lot higher than Gore's. Also, you can't underestimate the anti-establishment vote, especially on the Democratic side. To most of the party, the Clintons represent the beltway establishment, which the netroots and their allies consider mealy mouthed wimpy losers. I'm not saying that Hillary cannot overcome all of that and get the nomination, but Gore or whoever the strongest "non-Hillary" is will get a lot of support. The anyone but Hillary vote will matter.

In that sense, Gore's endorsement of Dean in '04 will come in handy.

So, Dean, the chair of the DNC, is the anti-establishment candidate? What a topsy-turvy world we live in.

The netroot Democrats are in a place politically that the Goldwater Republicans could understand. They are committed to what they believe in and know that in our single member district system, only the two establishment parties have a chance at winning. That makes the mission clear, join the party that is closest to ones beliefs and reform it first so that America and the world may be reformed later. Anyone who followed the Dean campaign for DNC chair last year in the left leaning blogs saw a political purification ritual not unlike what the Goldwater nomination did for the GOP in '64.
Any establishment Democrat like Hillary is going to have to convince the netroots that she understands them. The willingness of the Dean and other volenteers to unify behind Kerry showed a lot of pragmatism and a willingness to be team players (what else would you expect out of a movement that's mostly X'ers and millies?) that could bode well for the future if the party establishment is willing to work effectivily with the netroots through the blogs.This year's midterm could tell a lot, if the netroots continue to show a willingness to work hard and apply their internet savvy in fundraising and organizing, it could be the beginning of a new coalition that may be able to have long term (i.e. the X'ers and millies, like all generations, are going to be voting in larger numbers as they get older) impact on America and the world. Not unlike what the Goldwaterites like Reagan eventually had.

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Truth '61

Hillary's negitives are a lot higher than Gore's. Also, you can't underestimate the anti-establishment vote, especially on the Democratic side. To most of the party, the Clintons represent the beltway establishment, which the netroots and their allies consider mealy mouthed wimpy losers. I'm not saying that Hillary cannot overcome all of that and get the nomination, but Gore or whoever the strongest "non-Hillary" is will get a lot of support. The anyone but Hillary vote will matter.

In that sense, Gore's endorsement of Dean in '04 will come in handy.

So, Dean, the chair of the DNC, is the anti-establishment candidate? What a topsy-turvy world we live in.

The "establishment" was very upset that Dean got the position. They only found solace in that he couldn't run for office from that spot (at least not very easily). And at the time of Gore's endorsement, he was without a doubt the Anti-Kerry among the Dem's.

May you live in interesting times. :shock:

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

The point is that isolationism is "acceptable" in ways that pacifism is not - at least to millions of voters in the swing states the Democrats need to recapture if they are to have any hope of being relevant in this turning.

It's all a matter of how the message (in this case, get out of the Middle East) is packaged.

It would be an even stronger message...if it was part of a package deal that included taking control of our borders.

That, and stopping the outscourcing of jobs, and opposing so-called "free trade" generally.

Think of it as a redux of the "Don't Tread On Me" mantra.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

The point is that isolationism is "acceptable" in ways that pacifism is not - at least to millions of voters in the swing states the Democrats need to recapture if they are to have any hope of being relevant in this turning.

It's all a matter of how the message (in this case, get out of the Middle East) is packaged.

It would be an even stronger message...if it was part of a package deal that included taking control of our borders.

That, and stopping the outscourcing of jobs, and opposing so-called "free trade" generally.

Think of it as a redux of the "Don't Tread On Me" mantra.

This is touching on something that could be a big part of the 4t, namely the power struggle between the global elete and the common people.
Seemingly all of the major public policy changes of the 3t were orented towards enriching the elete. NAFTA was drafted in a way that it enocuraged massive immigration, legal and illegal, from Mexico, which has lead to a depressing of wages in blue collar jobs like construction and landscaping and now opposition to tightening the border is branded as "racism." Any opposition to what is passed off as free trade is called protectionism and the "race" card is also being played over opposition to foreign control of America's ports and other security related infastructure.
At the same time that all of this is going on, our politicans are still wedded to large corporate contributions and our judicial system has declared the act of giving private money to politicans for campaigns as "protected speech." All of this is likely to collide in the next few years. The crony capitalist system that others on these threads have written of as being a problem is only going to get worse as the 4t is upon us. Some have talked about the danger of the entrenched eletes fighting history and this is likely to happen for they will not submit to the rule of law willingly, they will have to be brought to heel. Indeed, one of the tests of the 4t may be bringing the eletes under control or else facing a world of global feudalism. This could well be one of the dividing lines of the 4t much like fighting global facisism and ending slavery in America were in the prior two 4t's.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Truth '61

Hillary's negitives are a lot higher than Gore's. Also, you can't underestimate the anti-establishment vote, especially on the Democratic side. To most of the party, the Clintons represent the beltway establishment, which the netroots and their allies consider mealy mouthed wimpy losers. I'm not saying that Hillary cannot overcome all of that and get the nomination, but Gore or whoever the strongest "non-Hillary" is will get a lot of support. The anyone but Hillary vote will matter.

In that sense, Gore's endorsement of Dean in '04 will come in handy.

So, Dean, the chair of the DNC, is the anti-establishment candidate? What a topsy-turvy world we live in.

The "establishment" was very upset that Dean got the position. They only found solace in that he couldn't run for office from that spot (at least not very easily). And at the time of Gore's endorsement, he was without a doubt the Anti-Kerry among the Dem's.

May you live in interesting times. :shock:

Yes, they are interesting times. Demographics is desteny, the netroots will be the establishment in a few years. The current Democratic elete has a choice to make, they can cooperate with the people that will be running the party in a few years or they can stay in bed with Bush and the corporate elete and lose their chance to make a difference in the 4t. It's that simple but they will have to make a choice, they won't be able to play the middle ground forever. This choice will likely determine if the Democrats can form a majority coalition in the wake of the implosion of the corrupt GOP establishment that is going on right now, or not. If the Democratic establishment choses to continue business as usual, the chance to address 4t issues like the global climate change, the depletion of fossel fuels and corruption of our political system through large corporate contributions will likely be lost. There is a high likelihood that resource depletion and the inability to successfully reform during the 4t could lead to the type of global feudalism I mentioned above and this cycle will be remembered badly by history much like the civil war cycle is remembered badly.

Originally Posted by Truth '61

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Truth '61

Hillary's negitives are a lot higher than Gore's. Also, you can't underestimate the anti-establishment vote, especially on the Democratic side. To most of the party, the Clintons represent the beltway establishment, which the netroots and their allies consider mealy mouthed wimpy losers. I'm not saying that Hillary cannot overcome all of that and get the nomination, but Gore or whoever the strongest "non-Hillary" is will get a lot of support. The anyone but Hillary vote will matter.

In that sense, Gore's endorsement of Dean in '04 will come in handy.

So, Dean, the chair of the DNC, is the anti-establishment candidate? What a topsy-turvy world we live in.

The "establishment" was very upset that Dean got the position. They only found solace in that he couldn't run for office from that spot (at least not very easily). And at the time of Gore's endorsement, he was without a doubt the Anti-Kerry among the Dem's.

May you live in interesting times. :shock:

Yes, they are interesting times. Demographics is desteny, the netroots will be the establishment in a few years. The current Democratic elete has a choice to make, they can cooperate with the people that will be running the party in a few years or they can stay in bed with Bush and the corporate elete and lose their chance to make a difference in the 4t. It's that simple but they will have to make a choice, they won't be able to play the middle ground forever. This choice will likely determine if the Democrats can form a majority coalition in the wake of the implosion of the corrupt GOP establishment that is going on right now, or not. If the Democratic establishment choses to continue business as usual, the chance to address 4t issues like the global climate change, the depletion of fossel fuels and corruption of our political system through large corporate contributions will likely be lost. There is a high likelihood that resource depletion and the inability to successfully reform during the 4t could lead to the type of global feudalism I mentioned above and this cycle will be remembered badly by history much like the civil war cycle is remembered badly.

That generally makes sense to me.

Gore as a potential Grey Champion, if not (yet) a 2008 presidential candidate:

A Campaign Gore Can't Lose

Gore insists his presidential aspirations are behind him. "I think there are other ways to serve," he told me. No doubt. But on paper, he is the near-perfect Democratic candidate for 2008. Among other things, he won the popular vote in 2000. He opposed going to war in Iraq, but he supported the Persian Gulf War -- right both times. He is smart, experienced and, despite the false caricatures, a man versed in the new technologies -- especially the Internet. He is much more a person of the 21st century than most of the other potential candidates. Trouble is, a campaign is not a film. Gore could be a great president. First, though, he has to be a good candidate.

In the meantime, he is a man on a mission. Wherever he goes -- and he travels incessantly -- he finds time and an audience to deliver his (free) lecture on global warming. It and the film leave no doubt of the peril we face, nor do they leave any doubt that Gore, at last, is a man at home in his role. He is master teacher, pedagogue, know-it-all, smarter than most of us, better informed and, having tried and failed to gain the presidency, he has raised his sights to save the world. We simply cannot afford for Al Gore to lose again.

Gore, like Richard Cohen, is a symbol of the 1990s and will not be rehabilitated, ala Nixon, in 2008.

The globally warmed over, Gore-infatuated Cohen reminds me of how this Washington Post columnist was so smitten with the Clinton Administration's war on Saddam Hussein that he determined that Saddam was a "rat," and in Cohen's estimation, "It would be best to exterminate him."

Well, that was 1998, and Cohen's long since decided, like all those liberals who were convinced Saddam was a "imminent threat" back in the 1990s, that the real threat to world peace ain't global terrorists it's President Bush. And this is the 2000s, when the #2 threat to the world ain't global terrorists it's global warming.

No kidding, Cohen actually saw the "Arctic and Antarctic ice caps melting" thanks to Al Gore. Gosh, them's some powerful eyeballs, man.

In light of 9/11, the Clinton Gore team playing cat and mouse games with Saddam and bin Laden back in the nineties wasn't silly stuff. But this Gore-gushing Cohen certainly is today. Too bad they all didn't take the real threat seriously back then, or now, as they do their silly little climate game today.

Gore and Cohen are standing on a smoldering ash-heap of history and they don't even know it. You can take the gray, but you'll have to leave the champ to somebody else with a little less 1990s silliness attached to their name.

Originally Posted by As is his wont, Devil's Advocate

Gore, like Richard Cohen, is a symbol of the 1990s and will not be rehabilitated, ala Nixon, in 2008.

I may also hold this opinion, but I call it opinion, not fact.

Originally Posted by Continuing in the same vein, DA

The globally warmed over, Gore-infatuated Cohen reminds me of how this Washington Post columnist was so smitten with the Clinton Administration's war on Saddam Hussein that he determined that Saddam was a "rat," and in Cohen's estimation, "It would be best to exterminate him."

Why is Cohen the center of this discussion ... about Gore? :?

Originally Posted by Adding yet more drivel, Satan's Mouthpiece

Well, that was 1998, and Cohen's long since decided, like all those liberals who were convinced Saddam was a "imminent threat" back in the 1990s, that the real threat to world peace ain't global terrorists it's President Bush. And this is the 2000s, when the #2 threat to the world ain't global terrorists it's global warming.

No kidding, Cohen actually saw the "Arctic and Antarctic ice caps melting" thanks to Al Gore. Gosh, them's some powerful eyeballs, man.

I doubt you have a cite for the "imminent threat" quote, though what a columnist thinks about policy has little bearing on the position of Al Gore: the subject of this discussion.

Originally Posted by Finishing that thought, Marc

In light of 9/11, the Clinton Gore team playing cat and mouse games with Saddam and bin Laden back in the nineties wasn't silly stuff. But this Gore-gushing Cohen certainly is today. Too bad they all didn't take the real threat seriously back then, or now, as they do their silly little climate game today.

So how is the weather in Ohio? Enjoying the tornadoes, or were all those a bit further south? Don't worry, there's always next year.

Originally Posted by Triumphantly, the Lamb of God

Gore and Cohen are standing on a smoldering ash-heap of history and they don't even know it. You can take the gray, but you'll have to leave the champ to somebody else with a little less 1990s silliness attached to their name.

If they occupy the ash heap, are you and the Bushies consigned to the dung heap? :P

I must have struck a nerve with the Bushies. Clearly Gore is a threat to them. :wink: :wink: :lol: :lol:

- -

Actually I recalled a BBC NEWS report as I read Cohen's glowing review of Gore's latest propaganda movie on global warming. Well, that and the former Greenpeace co-founder's column in Sunday's Washington Post.

Conclusion: Gore's ridiculously on the wrong side of history. I would be thus thrilled to see this guy get the Democrat nomination in 2008. Hillary, however, would be a lot more fun than the tree-hugger Gore, I confess. Well, maybe it's a toss up. :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Actually I recalled a BBC NEWS report as I read Cohen's glowing review of Gore's latest propaganda movie on global warming.

Wow! An article from November 2000, featuring a lot of unamed "sceptics" making vague statements. Awesome. :o

Well, that and the former Greenpeace co-founder's column in Sunday's Washington Post.

Um, I think his embrace of nuclear power is in response to global warming.

Conclusion: Gore's ridiculously on the wrong side of history. I would be thus thrilled to see this guy get the Democrat nomination in 2008. Hillary, however, would be a lot more fun than the tree-hugger Gore, I confess. Well, maybe it's a toss up. :wink:

You have failed to make your case based on the evidence you've presented.

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

You can take the gray, but you'll have to leave the champ to somebody else with a little less 1990s silliness attached to their name.

The 1990s fuckin' ruled, lovefool. Get with it. The 00s = suck. And yes, Bush comes part and parcel with that suckage.

I totally second this. I think most Americans would as well, regardless of political leanings.

--

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You have failed to make your case based on the evidence you've presented.

Gee, imagine that. un :?

In light of terrorist insurgency and the axis of evil getting the Bomb, the Bush Cheney team playing cat and mouse games with Musharraf and Zarqawi back in the early 2000's wasn't silly stuff.

You can take the gray, but you'll have to leave the champ to somebody else with a little less 2000's silliness attached to their name.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

In light of terrorist insurgency and the axis of evil getting the Bomb, the Bush Cheney team playing cat and mouse games with Musharraf and Zarqawi back in the early 2000's wasn't silly stuff.

You can take the gray, but you'll have to leave the champ to somebody else with a little less 2000's silliness attached to their name.

Gee, this Joe Lieberman get tough angle is nice and all, but it hasn't flown and will not fly even if the Kifflie Sheehans go hog-wild for it. How long can you all keep a serious anti-terrorism face, before you burst out laughing at the seams? Hmm, about 10 seconds, I'd say.

Bush sucks because he dares call a terrorist evil. Liberals deem Bush more that worthy of intense "sensitivity training." They wish him dead for being so insensitive: "Let us now bow our heads, little children, and pray Ms. Allah will bring this madman Bush to his gawd-awful senses." 8)

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Gee, this Joe Lieberman get tough angle is nice and all, but it hasn't flown and will not fly even if the Kifflie Sheehans go hog-wild for it. How long can you all keep a serious anti-terrorism face, before you burst out laughing at the seams? Hmm, about 10 seconds, I'd say.

I couldn't even make it past "Joe Lieberman get tough angle." :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I couldn't even make it past "Joe Lieberman get tough angle." :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I rest my case, your Honor.

The floor is yours, Counselor Alexander.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You have failed to make your case based on the evidence you've presented.

"My reasoning: because too many people, both Republican and Democrat, deeply fear what you and I do... that another Clinton Presidency will merely continue the same-ol'-same-ol' 3T thinking, more fiddling while Rome burns."

My case is often made by those who despise the very ground I walk. 8)