View Story | 123 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
The solution is to disenfranchise ALL of the voters thats the way.
BTW, all you Gore lovers now forget that in 2000 he put Lieberman on the ticket with him. Maybe you all forget that he ran to the "center", i.e., away from progressives.
I haven't forgotten. I do NOT want to be disenfranchised by Al Gore or anyone else thank you very much!
by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:05:01 PM PDT
First off, some people, including some here at this site, wrote in Gore on the primary ballot, so don't assume no one voted for the man.
But more importantly, ENOUGH with the Lieberman meme. 2000 Lieberman was much different than post-9/11 Lieberman. Don't confuse the two.
If Hillary and Obama beat each other up between now and August and both are deemed unelectable, would you rather nominate someone who has a slim chance to beat McCain and risk 100 years in Iraq or would you rather nominate a unity candidate that is tanned, rested, ready, and extremely popular to take on the Republicans?
I know which one I'd choose.
Netroots for Gore
by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:14:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I and many others saw in 2000 that Gore was moving to the center...but guess what...moving to the center is just another term for selling out.
And he put lieberman on the ticket because even in 2000 Liebermann was a centrist, i.e., a conservative. And the Clinton's/Gore with their Southern mindset believe they can't win without selling out to conservatives.
Thats what Gore did and thats why Gore lost.
by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:18:13 PM PDT
Could Gore have run a better campaign in 2000? Sure. But mind you, he won the popular vote and was robbed by the Supreme Court, which was of no fault of his own. And don't tell me he didn't fight, because he fought tooth and nail for a full recount. That's why Gore "lost".
I don't know why exactly he put Lieberman on the ticket, but it is VERY clear to me that your opinion of him is jaded from what he has become post 9/11.
Did you know that Gore is in favor of single-payer health care? Did you know that Gore is in favor of a carbon tax? Did you know that Gore is in favor of gay marriage? Did you know that Gore was the first to speak out against Iraq, before Obama? My guess is you didn't know any of that because you're so blinded by your hatred for the man and how he ran his campaign eight years ago. Oh, and by the way, neither Hillary nor Obama are in favor of single-payer, in favor of gay marriage or in favor or a carbon tax.
Take that centrism and shove it you know where.
by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM PDT
...if he had run a better campaign he could have won by a margin that couldn't have been overturned. There are many reasons why Gore "lost."
by cavebird on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:12 PM PDT
no need to isolate one -- let it all go.
What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.
by Marie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:34:35 PM PDT
It's kind of obvious that every close loss could've been averted with a "better" campaign. But Gore's choice of Lieberman wasn't so obviously bad back then, and Nader, Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy, Sandra whatshername, and Scalia helped fuck up the country and the world.
by amitxjoshi on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:54:42 PM PDT
Don't know why Dems in leadership today are so cockeyed that they believe the exact opposite message from the truth: Clinton was impeached, and Bush got elected promising to "restore integrity."
Why in God's name they aren't standing up to this NAZI and pointing out what kind of "integrity" he has brought us, I don't know.
It's plain as day that voters believed Bush's con job in 2000, and they believed it because they wanted to believe it, BECAUSE Clinton was impeached.
so, why doesn't THAT apply to this fascist we have in the White House who comes up with new ways to shit on the constitution and commit crimes nearly every day? Ask Pelosi. I don't know who is drugging her daily, but what a cocktail!
Quo Warranto?
by taraka das on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:20 PM PDT
to win the popular vote despite:
Please see.
Evan Bayh is a McCain/Lieberman clone.
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM PDT
So he can be honest now. I know he's a progressive but he didn't/doesn't trust the American people to vote for him based on his beliefs.
by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:43 PM PDT
much different than he was in 2000. Gore selected him because that was the payment to the DLC folks for getting him enough money to win the nomination.
Gore today is different -- devastating defeats have a way of being life changing. Not the the liberal Gore was alway part of him -- but as a SEN from TN that got redder and redder year after year and then VP under a neo-liberal, his liberal muscle wasn't much used for a long time. We'll never know how he would have performed as POTUS if he's won in '00, my guess a lot more like Clinton than his current fans would like to think. Perhaps he would have done better in a second term, but not much better. He can say what he says to today because he's not running for anything.
by Marie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:33:40 PM PDT
because Bill Bradley was really a threat in the primaries.
by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:35:44 PM PDT
"Lieberman today isn't much different than he was in 2000."
Well, Gore didn't endorse him in 2003 for a reason: Lieberman hawked the iraq war in 2002 which Gore valiantly opposed.
"Gore today is different"
I have news for you. It's not Gore that's different. It's the world around us your own perspective that may have changed.
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:53 PM PDT
"Fuck that... I and many others saw in 2000 that Gore was moving to the center...but guess what...moving to the center is just another term for selling out."
Gore's own platform was progressive. Lieberman also pledged to abide by Gore's platform.
"And he put lieberman on the ticket because even in 2000 Liebermann was a centrist, i.e., a conservative."
Gore opposed the war and endorsed Dean partly for that reason.
The Lieberman argument is not a good one to use whether you support Clinton or Obama (I support Obama, of course).
"And the Clinton's/Gore with their Southern mindset believe they can't win without selling out to conservatives. Thats what Gore did and thats why Gore lost."
Yes, when he represented conservative TN, Gore was more of a moderate. But, he's been a progressive Democrat since the 90s and the most significant politician on the environment. His vision on the internet was probably the reason why you are able to post these comments BTW.
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:16:57 PM PDT
Just a horrible politician...a bad politician is someone who doesn't say and fight for what he believes in.
Case in point...why wasn't he for single-payer health care in 2000 when he was running?
Look he's a progressive and a great guy but he should not be our President. Sorry no way never. He won't fight for what he believes...
Even now! Where is Al Gore?! Why doesn't he pull a Gary Hart and stop Clinton from tearing our party apart? Why? Because Al Gore is not a hero...he is not courageous. He had his chance and he failed miserably. So away with him.
Obama '08
by michlawa2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:50:51 PM PDT
support Gore in another election because I put my beliefs before my party, if my parties candidate and I have major differences in policy then I will not vote for him or her.
Free Tibet! 16 days of Shame.
by Calev on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:31:13 PM PDT
you're for universal health care but not single-payer? Or is it you're for civil unions but not gay marriage?
by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:55:35 PM PDT
that during his time as Vice President he helped bring in those things. Gore is all talk and no action, if he was we would have universal healthcare and same-sex marriage. I am an American and a Canadian, currently living in Canada. I do not like Gore because of the way he has medelled in Canadian affairs. I also do not like the fact that he has moved to the centre. I am very left wing, even in Canada where Same-Sex marriage and universial health care are things accepted by the majority of the nation.
by Calev on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:30:25 PM PDT
Oh, sorry, I was thinking of someone else.
You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god
by Clem Yeobright on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:18:01 AM PDT
Bill Clinton triangulated the hell out of us and moved us right.
It wasn't Al Gore. Gore was VP. He was in charge of making the government upgrade and become more efficient.
Gore wasn't the one signing or vetoing laws.
Clinton gave you the run to the right. Not Gore.
by bronte17 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:56:48 PM PDT
crook.
If Obama wins the race by winning on pledged delegates, he OUGHT and SHOULD be the nominee.
If crooked stuff is pulled by the Clinton campaign to deny Obama the nomination and/or she continues attacking Obama as she did in TX/OH, will we have a situation to deal with (and the Clinton campaign seems to be on exactly that trajectory) where Gore has the stature to try and resolve the matter in collaboration with other party leaders.
"BTW, all you Gore lovers now forget that in 2000 he put Lieberman on the ticket with him."
Gore dis-endorsed Lieberman in 2003 for a reason: Gore opposed the war and disapproved of Lieberman's war hawking.
"Maybe you all forget that he ran to the "center", i.e., away from progressives."
That's false. Gore's platform was progressive and his theme was populist.
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:11:38 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 123 comments