Skip to main content

Check this out:
When Vice President Gore and a few hundred of his most loyal supporters gather in Nashville this weekend, Gore's staff wants you to know, none of the events will have anything to do with his presidential ambitions.

Things are changing. This campaign is really heating up since, as we all know:
Having a political action committee has become standard operating procedure for a politician considering a presidential run. Would-be presidents since Ronald Reagan have used PACs as financial and political launching pads that allow them to raise and spend freely without having it count against the strict limits that kick in once they formally enter the presidential race.
But wait, there's more!
Asked about his $5,000 contribution, New York businessman John Catsimatides said, "It was to help the vice president become president some day." Another giver called the PAC "the first step in a two-year-plus journey" and noted that donors to Gore's presidential campaign would be limited to $1,000 contributions, compared with $5,000 to the PAC. "If you want to try to be sure he's the nominee, this is the best way there is," this contributor said.
Wait a sec--did that read $1,000 instead of $2,100? This part of the article might be helpful in explaining what is going on here:
The events are for supporters of Gore's fledgling political action committee, Leadership '98, which has been raising money and, in the process, helping Gore solidify his national fund-raising network and win the favor of candidates who receive contributions from the Gore PAC.
In 1998, Al Gore knew he was running for President. That is why he started his Leadership PAC. Over at Open Secrets, you can see that around 200 politicians, many of whom are retired, have Leadership PACs. Here are some of the names you will see on that list: Wesley Clark, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Mark Warner. If you dig a little further into fundraising, you will also discover that Tom Vilsack has his Heartland PAC, and John Edwards has his One America Committee. It will also come as no surprise to anyone here that Governor Bill Richardson is actively raising money, and has loads of campaign staff (and lots of other staff too).

What you will not find anywhere is Gore PAC. It has been shut down. This is because Al Gore is currently not taking steps to run for President in 2008, as he himself has said on multiple occasions. However, to dedicated netroots activists, that should not be a serious problem. In 2003, two Democrats were drafted into the race by the netroots: Dennis Kucinich and Wesley Clark. In fact, these draft movements helped them make up for a lot of lost time. Clark raised $3M in about two weeks in late September, largely because the Draft Clark movement had spent so much time building up a list of people who had pledged to donate upon his entry into the race. Kucinich began his campaign with an email list of around 25,000 people, thanks to a petition that was circulated by his supporters in the month before he joined the race. While neither was ultimately successful, both of these candidates went on to make significant impacts on the 2004 Democratic primary, largely thanks to their strong netroots support--support that started with strong Draft movements.

Over the past few months, I have seen "Gore in '08!" after "Gore in '08!" diary run up the recommended list at Dailykos. Naturally, as someone obsessed with the netroots, I figured there was a strong Draft movement behind all of this. So, I went to fec.gov to see how such movements were progressing. Here is what I found:

2005-2006 fundraising:
The People, Not the Powerful 08: $0

Patriots for Al Gore: $389 raised, cash on hand $38

Over the last five fundraising quarters, the two federal PACs associated with Drafting Al Gore for President in 2008 have raised a combined $389. And zero cents. That is about half of what I have personally donated to the combined netroots page this cycle.

I bring this up not to chastise people for supporting Al Gore in 2008. I won't be supporting Al Gore in 2008, but I'm not going to chastise people who do so. That is their right as Democrats, and Al Gore is a pretty darn good man for the job. However, I am writing this diary to chastise the many people on Dailykos, MyDD and elsewhere in the blogosphere who are to utterly adamant about supporting Al Gore in 2008, even drafting Al Gore in 2008, and who are clearly doing absolutely nothing to make it happen. Exhibit A is the person who started The People, Not the Powerful 08 PAC and didn't even bother to donate to it him or herself. Few things could better demonstrate an utter lack of seriousness about your ambitions than not even donating to your own PAC. This reminds me of my post-Alito Edjamacation article all over again. What is the nature of netroots activism here? How can there be so many people in the netroots, which I have repeatedly trumpeted as the core of the progressive activist base, saying they support Al Gore but doing absolutely nothing else except saying it? From what I have seen among Gore supporters online, they are not delusional about Gore's chances to run in 2008, and are well aware that they will probably have to draft him into this race. And yet they are doing nothing to make the draft a reality.

What is going on here? Is there anything behind this Gore "movement" besides howling at the moon? Why is there so little action? Gore '08 after Gore '08 diary goes up on Dailykos, and yet most of the websites I find on this page haven't been updated in the last month. Gore '08 after Gore '08 diary goes up on Dailykos, and yet there are no substantial Gore groups over at MySpace. There is no email list of any size. There is no fundraising. There certainly is no staff, even on a volunteer level. Basically, there is nothing. All there seem to be are diaries on Dailykos.

I don't want to hear excuses about everyone waiting until after the 2006 elections, because I have seen far more expansive unofficial online movements for Warner, Clinton and Feingold (and Clinton is at what, 2% in the Dailykos straw polls?). Speaking of straw polls, I don't want to hear that excuse either. The lack of an activist element in the Draft Gore "movement" is not the fault of any poll. The straw poll, like all polls, measures support. It does not create it. If there really are loads of people looking to Draft Gore for 2008, and I believe that there are, then it shouldn't be hard for even an incompetent activist element to start putting a far more noticeable and effective movement. I especially do not want to hear excuses about "A-list" bloggers keeping such a movement from happening. Not only did A-list bloggers not stop anyone in 2003, five years ago there weren't any A-list bloggers. They built their own position through exactly the sort of blood, sweat and tears that the Draft Gore movement is utterly lacking.

I am writing this post because what I am finding in the Draft (fixed) Gore movement is all too reminiscent of a disturbing trend I am noticing among the netroots: inaction. What has always made the netroots powerful is its burning activist core. However, I worry that may be changing. Like I complained in my Edjamacation post, on Alito there was virtually no action until it was too late. As we can see in the Draft Gore thing, there are tons of words, but very little action. And getting people to sign up for the fifty-state canvass next weekend is like pulling teeth on a donkey. Howling at the moon? Yes. Action? Not so much these days.

Over the last month, I have been the main blogosphere proponent that the Democratic leadership is not doing enough to excite progressive activists for 2006. I have managed to bring this message directly to some of the highest levels of power within the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. I have told this theory to the head of every major progressive news outlet, to every major blogger, to extremely high level House and Senate aides, and even to Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer themselves (yeah, I really did). Now, however, I am wondering if I made a mistake. Gore clearly excites the base, and yet jack shit is being done to support him here in terms of real activism. No one is stopping anyone from making this thing happen, and yet no one is making it happen.

I don't care if you support Al Gore in 2008 or not. I do care if you are only willing to say that you support him, and then do nothing else. Various "whether he wants to or not" diaries have been huge in these parts, but where are the people making plans in case of the quite likely "he doesn't want to" contingency? I want the netroots to always be a place where people take action, and of people who will do so on their own initiative if necessary. I very much worry that we are losing that edge. If we do lose that activist edge, then everything we stand for, all of the reforms we want to see enacted, all of the broad prosperity, practical government, free expression, common good, and better future we all hope for will become a much more distant dream (the parts in italics are my ten word elevator pitch, BTW).

Draft Gore in 2008, but only do it if you mean it. Back up you words with real action. Don't whine to me about how I or some other leadership element is keeping you down or preventing this from happening. Give over your persecution and get to it. The Draft Clark movement wasn't damaged in the slightest because Markos didn't include Clark in his Cattle Calls until a week after Clark officially announced. Instead, the people behind that movement, who included my brilliant comrade Matt Stoller, did something. Hell, they did a lot of something. They were the white-hot burning core of a new wave of progressive activists who shook the very throne of power in DC. They were a perfect example of why people pay attention to blogs now, and why what we do here does in fact matter. Actions like those are why it is now possible for Ned Lamont to make a serious run at Joe Lieberman. They were netroots activists. Are you?

Originally posted to Chris Bowers on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:02 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  OK, Chris (13+ / 0-)

      Gore can raise a lot of money on his own. My guess is that he'd have pledges worth millions within a day, and probably upto 100 million for the primary campaign, if and when he steps into the race.

      Our fledgeling movement aims to be people-driven and we want to focus on a different aspect. Convincing him to run, and then helping him win in other critical ways, such as working to raise his favorables (LTEs, meetups and other local networking, etc) and lower his unfavorables (LTEs and letter to offending authors and editors, advertiser product boycotts, etc) , and, most importantly, to defend him against the rightwing noise machine negative attacks.

      I and other team members would like to invite those intersted to join us at the Gore Portal/Gore Draft 2008. Registration link.

      Interesting post though.

      •  We currently (4+ / 0-)

        have close to 100 team members including several well known Kossacks.

        •  I just joined, thanks! (0+ / 0-)

          This is tooooo exciting. I am a huge Gore fan but I didn't know where to go with it other than to talk to everyone I know about it and get some seeds sown.

          Thank you for this diary! I'm signed up!

        •  From DraftWesleyClark.com Founder (11+ / 0-)

          For what it's worth, a few pieces of advice from my own experience starting up DraftWesleyClark.com in early 2003, and slaving away on that for 6 months...

          1. Kudos to you and anyone who starts up a draft movement for a candidate they like -- this is what real democracy is all about;
          1. Genuine drafts are very, very, very hard work.  There's a myth out there among many that the draft Clark movement was a spontaneous outpouring of citizens all joining together at once from out of nowhere, as if it were some kind of Frank Capra movie.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  People joined the movement because they found the General to be a very compelling figure.  But it was incredibly hard work to get out the message that a draft existed, and even to get out the message that General Clark existed in those early days, when his name recognition was very low.  In short, "if you build it, they will come -- but only if you work like hell to let them know you are there."  And by "work like hell," I mean 15 hour days for months.  
          1. Perceived seriousness counts, big time:  Chris is right to point out the importance of raising money as a sign that a draft is serious.  I'd tweak that slightly, however, and suggest that the "perceived seriousness" is more important than actual money.  In our case, for example, we did not directly raise $$ for Clark, but rather asked for pledges of money.  Even though it wasn't actual money, as the total climbed to $1million, $2million, etc., it was a very solid sign of seriouness.
          1. PR, aka, "perceived seriousness, book deux."  The draft Clark movement didn't succeed because 50 thousand people signed up online -- it succeeded because 50 million people saw it on CNN, ABC, CBS, in the NY Times, etc.  That's what made it a national movement, and that's what got a lot more people aware of Clark as a compelling figure.   Whatever you do, make sure that you are making it "buzz-worthy."   If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it -- who cares if it makes a sound?  And if a draft movement goes uncovered by the press, well... you get the idea.

          There's my two (well four) cents.  Hope you don't mind this advice from a friend.  I greatly admire anyone who takes the initiative on this kind of thing, but we learned a ton from successes and mistakes, and I am hoping we can share those lessons with others.

          FYI, I am happy to share advice with anyone starting up a draft effort for a good person (and Al Gore sure as hell qualifies on that front).  

          •  And...don't get discourage (but no whine either) (4+ / 0-)

            Final thought -- did I mention how hard it is to do a real draft?   ;)

            But on that note, many people will try to discourage you from doing it, tell you it is impossible, etc.   I can't count how many people told us that in 2003.   Sure, we didn't elect a president, but we did get the General to first place in the Dem primary polls (in Sept 2003), raised millions in real dollars (i.e., pledges actualized once the race began), etc.   There is no reason you can't make this happen.  To steal a line from my second-favorite candidate of 2004, "you have the power."   ;)

            But on the flip side, Chris is absolutely 100% right when he says, "Don't whine to me about how I or some other leadership element is keeping you down or preventing this from happening."

            Blaming the media, the DNC, the established powers, the Trilateral commission, WHATEVER, is a load of defeatist crap, and BS excuses.  (not saying you're doing this Neuvo, just a general message).  

            Are there impediments to grassroots democracy?  Of course.  But most of the time when I hear people mention them, they're just a work avoidance device....

            •  Hi Hlinko (0+ / 0-)

              thanks for the incredibly good advice. It will go a long way in helping us with this effort.

              The only thing that I ask of netroots polls is this: please post an addition poll with a large number of potential candidates every month, and expand the list by popular demand.

              Here is a such a list for starters: Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, John Conyers, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Al Gore, Mike Gravel, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Reed (Sen. RI), Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, Kathleen Sebelius, Mark Warner.

              This approach would give the netroots community an opportunity to explore and discuss a wider range of potential candidates, and make the process more fair, open, responsive, and accessible, both to the politicians and the community.

              From my mydd diary.

              •  My pleasure, Neuvo (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NeuvoLiberal

                Gore is a good man, and it's great to see folks like you working to build a movement.  

                Feel free to email me at john AT ExtremeCampaigns.com if you want to chat.  A few quick specifics thoughts you might want to consider:

                1. Consider doing a pledge drive, like we did with Clark. If you can do one of those Dean baseball bat/thermometer things, even better.  The pledge drive was phenomental for getting the media to accept us as serious -- and it had actual value, in building up a list of committed donors.  And given Gore's high name recognition, and a recent burst of renewed enthusiasm, you might really be able to rack up some nice numbers.   Also, the media absolutely LOVES following numbers (just think of the horse race poll coverage during the election).  If you can start racking up in the hundreds of thousands, you will get their attention.  
                1. Definitely include yourself as part of the story, and have the leaders of the effort on the site, in press releases, etc.   It may be a grassroots movement, but the media absolutely, positively wants stories from "real people" who are leading it.  A lot of people on the netroots front feel guilty about promoting themselves, since they place such a premium on the community -- and that is laudible.  But the media wants real people as the personification of it, and that means the leaders.  In short, when it comes to media coverage -- you are your best asset.  :)
          •  Wow, awesome (0+ / 0-)

            Thanks for stopping by. This is excatly what I am talking about. Good to hear from you.

          •  Just tell me where to send the money!! (0+ / 0-)

            Hlinko, I appreciate your post and Mr. Bowers's very much--I have no volunteer time left to give right now but I WANT, as in CAN'T WAIT, to give my money to the effort to re-elect our rightful President, Al Gore.

            •  Make a pledge to Gore (0+ / 0-)

              Thanks Superba - Love the "RE-elect" line...  ;)

              If you can't wait, I say... don't wait!  My suggestion, send NeuvoLiberal an email (neuvoliberal AT yahoo DOT com)with the following:

              1) Your name
              1. How much you pledge (what you WOULD give to a Gore candidacy, if he ran)
              1. Your contact info

              Make the amount as high as you can.  $4,200 is the limit (you can donate $2,100 for the primary, and $2,100 for the general).  Remember, the higher the total amount pledged, the more interesting this effort becomes for the media.  BUT only pledge what you realistically would give, if he ran.

    •  Read Daily Howler to get an (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bosdcla14

      idea of what would happen were Al Gore make another run. Remember the Broadcast and Print Media is the enemy of all things decent and good, like us Democrats ;)

      This space intentionally left bank.

      by usedmeat on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:19:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gore has changed. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lezlie, dharmafarmer

        And the traditional media have changed (maybe not structurally, but to some extent), more people are fed up with the traditional media, and alternative media have sprung up. When Gore ran the first time, there was no Daily Kos for us to get past the traditional media filter.

        Must read: MLKJ's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." It will surprise you.

        by AlanF on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:37:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are delusional (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jdavidson2, TrueBlueDem, JTA

          There are about a million Americans who have a fixed unflattering profile of Al Gore in their heads for every one who has ever heard of dKos.

          He's a great guy.  Maybe even a brilliant man.  But he didn't have the whole package together when he needed to and timing is everything.

          If the Dems want to win they need to give America a new face and some new rhetoric.  

          Biden, Hilary, Gore, Kerry etc. need not apply.

          If you want something other than the obvious to happen - you've got to do something other than the obvious...Douglas Adams

          by trillian on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 07:50:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A few hours face time will fix all of that (5+ / 0-)

            1.

            Security speech gives Gore poll boost

              FLEMINGTON, N.J., Jan. 19 (UPI) -- Former Vice President Al Gore's speech blasting President Bush has boosted his popularity.

              Gore's speech in Washington on Jan. 15 made him more unpopular with Republicans, but it led to sharp rises in his popularity ratings with Democrats and Independents, according to the poll, which was conducted by HCD Research. The poll was conducted Jan. 17-18, among 822 respondents, HCD Research said.

              Gore's favorable ratings among Democrats increased from 64 percent to 77 percent among those who viewed it. Favorable ratings among Independents increased from 25 percent to 36 percent

            1. Gore's MLK-Day speech video
            1. Unseen Al Gore video

            Please see my comment from yesterday on how favorables and unfavorables break down. Gore's unfavorables are about 45% (and Bush won in 2004 with unfavorables near 50%), which isn't a bad place to start.

          •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Luam

            Gore would make a great president but he is a terrible candidate.  All of these old school, D.C. insiders, namely Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Gore and Feingold, are the same old, same old.  They've been around forever, have long voting records that the GOP can slice, dice and distort and are too polarizing.

            If the democrats seriously want to win the presidency, they must nominate a governor from a moderate state who can (1) run against Washington D.C., not someone who have been there for decades, (2) will make the GOP have to spend its resources trying to hang on to the south and west and (3) does not have a truck load of baggage.  They are not going to do that with a repackaged candidate from the past.
             

            •  Gore has the least real baggage BTW (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lezlie, dharmafarmer

              The stuff like "he invented the internet" is debunked in a couple of minutes.

              •  I agree with that (0+ / 0-)

                statement.  Does anyone know how to delete comments, as I did not mean to post my comment 4 times.  I kept getting a message that the post failed.

              •  problem (0+ / 0-)

                The problem is, that was true in 2000.  I read some great articles by Robert Parry over at www.consortiumnews.com back before the election.  He very clearly laid out the chain of what happened with those mis-perceptions about the Internet, Love Canal, Love Story, etc.

                Which leads to two points.  The first is, since they were very easily debunkable in 2000, and they really could not be debunked in the public mind at that time, I'm not sure they are any more debunkable now.

                The second point is .... if you read Robert Parry's articles (pretty sure they are archived on that site), organizations like the NYT and WaPo were key players in creating those mis-perceptions.  Its been awhile since I read them, but I believe the chain went something like this....

                -- Gore makes a reasonable statement on the Internet.
                -- The NYT or the WaPo misquotes him, twisting the comment around.
                -- The Republican National Committee releases a press release that twists the misquote around even further.
                -- The NYT and the WaPo then pick up the RNC wording of the twisted misquote and from that point forward use that twisted misquote.

                So, what makes you think the media will be any fairer to Al Gore this time around?  Remember, this is the same NYT that killed stories on NSA spying and Bush wearing a wire during the debates prior to the 2004 election.  And that was one of the main participants in spreading the lies that led to the Iraq war.  So, why would you think they'd be different in 2008?

                "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not support a speedy end to the war in Iraq." -votersforpeace.org

                by COBear on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 09:28:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's the RWNM jinx: the fix is US (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AlanF, lezlie

                  Thanks for the Parry citation.

                  In 2000, there were no people-driven mechanisms available to fight back the spins and smears.

                  The primary difference in 2008 will be us. The blogosphere and the netroots. The biased segments of the media can't get away with spinning as easily any more.

                  If someone posts an inaccurate article or takes a negative jab, we can expose it, debunk it, let the authors and the editors know about, if they have a blog go and whip them up into taking corrective measures about it. See seeds of such efforts here, and here  .

                  If they still don't budge, contact the advertisers where those spins and smears appear, and ask them to take action, and tell them that their products will be boycotted unless they stop sponsoring smear campaigns. As they say, follow the money, and that trail leads one precisely to the advertisers (and subscribers in part too). That's where a people-driven movement can work, whereas a campaign can't do much other than issue a couple of statements.

                  BTW, all of this would be needed for any serious Dem contender, sooner or later.

                  RWNM unravelled in its full glory in 2000 (Rove's magic). We need to solve the jinx of RWNM once and for all, regardless of the candidate, but with Gore, we know ahead of time most of their trash, instead of being shocked out of our wits by a surprise late season attack as in the case of swiftboating of Kerry in 2004.

                •  point is, (0+ / 0-)

                  they will attempt to do that to any credible progressive candidate, since any candidate like that is a threat to elite power. Question is, are you content w/the way the elites have been running this country for the last 30 years w/a thin veneer of democracy, or do you think it's time for the real thing?

            •  Gore v. 'DC Insiders'? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AlanF, Pirate Smile

              Gore grew up in a DC hotel!  Rep., Sen., V-P - it don't get much more inside.  And that's a GOOD thing.  I want someone who knows what's going on inside DC, not some nutjob from Texas.

              I've been hearing this crap about needing someone who isn't identified with Washington for too long.  If I need my Bimmer fixed, I want a mechanic.  The gardener may be a wonderful man, but he doesn't speak engineeringese.

              I just don't believe that knowing what you need to know for the job is a DISqualification.

              You'll :: never hear :: surf music :: again :::::::::::::::::

              by moltar on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 11:08:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Missing the Point (0+ / 0-)

                You're missing the point.  I said Gore would make a great president BUT that he is a terrible candidate.  In other words, because of his D.C. insider status and over exposure, he will not win against a republican.  If a governor is elected, he or she can consult with D.C. insiders, even Gore.

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            Gore would make a great president but he is a terrible candidate.  All of these old school, D.C. insiders, namely Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Gore and Feingold, are the same old, same old.  They've been around forever, have long voting records that the GOP can slice, dice and distort and are too polarizing.

            If the democrats seriously want to win the presidency, they must nominate a governor from a moderate state who can (1) run against Washington D.C., not someone who have been there for decades, (2) will make the GOP have to spend its resources trying to hang on to the south and west and (3) does not have a truck load of baggage.  They are not going to do that with a repackaged candidate from the past.
             

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            Gore would make a great president but he is a terrible candidate.  All of these old school, D.C. insiders, namely Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Gore and Feingold, are the same old, same old.  They've been around forever, have long voting records that the GOP can slice, dice and distort and are too polarizing.

            If the democrats seriously want to win the presidency, they must nominate a governor from a moderate state who can (1) run against Washington D.C., not someone who have been there for decades, (2) will make the GOP have to spend its resources trying to hang on to the south and west and (3) does not have a truck load of baggage.  They are not going to do that with a repackaged candidate from the past.
             

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            Gore would make a great president but he is a terrible candidate.  All of these old school, D.C. insiders, namely Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Gore and Feingold, are the same old, same old.  They've been around forever, have long voting records that the GOP can slice, dice and distort and are too polarizing.

            If the democrats seriously want to win the presidency, they must nominate a governor from a moderate state who can (1) run against Washington D.C., not someone who have been there for decades, (2) will make the GOP have to spend its resources trying to hang on to the south and west and (3) does not have a truck load of baggage.  They are not going to do that with a repackaged candidate from the past.

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            Gore would make a great president but he is a terrible candidate.  All of these old school, D.C. insiders, namely Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Gore and Feingold, are the same old, same old.  They've been around forever, have long voting records that the GOP can slice, dice and distort and are too polarizing.

            If the democrats seriously want to win the presidency, they must nominate a governor from a moderate state who can (1) run against Washington D.C., not someone who have been there for decades, (2) will make the GOP have to spend its resources trying to hang on to the south and west and (3) does not have a truck load of baggage.  They are not going to do that with a repackaged candidate from the past.

      •  Yes, you're right (10+ / 0-)

        We should cower before the press because we're too fucking stupid to figure out a way to overcome their lies and laziness, so we must pick a candidate with:

        A:  No flaws

        B:  No good qualities the repukes will attack and that the press might pick up on

        C:  No positions anyone can pin down and no positions in the past that might conflict with positions he or she, now that things have changed, might take.

        D:  No personality, good or bad.  

        Basically, we have to whip someone up from thin air who is amazing charismatic and takes the press by storm so they never say anything bad.

        You're right.  Who needs a guy with experience and intellect and heart and a love for this country and an appreciation for the future if the press might frow stuff at him.  Let's cower some more.

        Wah wah.

      •  re: Daily Howler (6+ / 0-)

        Somerby is right about what would happen if Gore made another run... but I don't think that should prevent another run. The GOP and the MSM will slime any Dem candidate - and I'd rather see Gore take them on again. If the pundits want to chuckle over Love Canal while kids are getting blown to pieces in Iraq it will only look petty and foolish.

        •  got it (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AlanF, lezlie, dannyinla

          You got the key part.  The Democrats are working today in a hostile media environment.  They will slime any Democratic candidate.

          The key for the Democrats is to rework how they work in this hostile environment.  I don't think the Dems got this yet.  Kerry didn't seem to get it in 2004 at least.

          To me, the key is to get on message and stick there.  Over a long time.  And the only way to do that is to pick the things you really believe in and then stick to that.  Then count on the fact that over time you are consistently talking about stuff you believe in and that will get through any media slant.  Sen. Wellstone and Sen. Feingold have both been successful in that in my opinion.

          But what the Dems can't do is change their message with every poll and every strategy meeting.  And the Gore campaign was bad about that in 2000.  

          So, can Gore get through to people between now and Nov 2008 with a message that is what he really believes on the issues ... and also convince people that this time what you are hearing from Al Gore is what he really believes?

          "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not support a speedy end to the war in Iraq." -votersforpeace.org

          by COBear on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 09:34:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, (0+ / 0-)
      but I still remember Tipper and the PMRC.  I'd rather recruit Jello Biafra for president.
  •  When Gore announces... (23+ / 0-)

    the money will flow in.  Grassroots activists with shallow pockets must wait to place their donations effectively.  Money given to someone who hasn't announced yet -- and may never announce -- is money that is lost to the frontrunner Dem.  Think of those who backed Kucinich.  He was a good man, but didn't really present a strong challenge to the GOP machine.  We are the party of the working people, who increasingly have only a diminishing amount to donate.

    Personally, I am a Gore supporter.  If he announces, he'll get whatever I can afford to send.  And I believe 'his' new movie is the step toward announcement.

    MD

  •  A Thought Provoking Post (5+ / 0-)

    An interesting post.

    I first started really thinking on the Gore thing last fall, and slowly put together the DraftGore2008 links page which you linked to (and which I think has now been slashdotted-- er, dailykos'ed)...

    You are right, Chris -- currently, the "Draft Gore Movement" is pretty scattered. But I think thats part of the beauty of it; it's NOT one group of core supporters pushing their agenda. It's a whole lot of simultaneous supporters, across the nation.

    Case in point, look at my links page (if it ever works again) -- there's a lot of sites on there. Sure, most of them aren't updated much. But just look at the shear number of people that took the time to put up a simple website, expressing their appreciation.

    And the websites that ARE updated regularly, are pretty good at keeping track of Al.

    As far as the mailing lists -- sure, most of those email groups are dead. But you can bet that they'll perk up once Al really starts to dip his toes into the water.

    But your main point is correct: we could use more centralized action. I'll take this moment to say that Grassroots for Gore seems the best "focal point" for organizing a netroots coalition.

    But what should we do? Is organizing a campaign to get "pledges" really worth it? Starting a PAC could result in a "real" PR campaign, but that's a pretty big task.

    (With the dispersed Gore effort, it appears difficult for any one activist to gain critical mass.)

    Furthermore, the natural PR and buzz is about to really take off, with "An Inconvenient Truth" coming out. Yes, a more organized Draft Gore movement could gain some traction here. But either way, the unorganized draft gore movement will continue growing.

  •  donations by foreign nationals? (0+ / 0-)

    What are the rules for donations by foreign nationals? Can they donate money to US candidates?

  •  Possible? Or not possible? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    astronautagogo, imabluemerkin

    Actions like those are why it is not possible for Ned Lamont to make a serious run at Joe Lieberman.

    Chris -- did you mean "possible" or "not possible"?

  •  I'm totally for Gore (9+ / 0-)

    over any other candidate, but Gore has not announced he's running. I will put what little money I have and make other efforts to support a race by Gore, he just has to say the word.

    Once he announces he will run, I think you will see not just grassroots support, but major support around the nation.

    "The election's over. We won. It's all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting." Rep. Peter King (R-NY) at WH function, 2003

    by kathika on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:51:53 AM PDT

    •  'Once he announces he will run' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueDem

      As I have been saying repeatedly, that is too late. He isn't taking steps on his own to run. You guys are going to have to do more if you want this to happen.

      •  Key difference is being missed here (5+ / 0-)

        Chris is talking about drafting Gore, not supporting him.  

        Many people insist they will support him if he runs.  Fine, but that is not drafting him. If they don't want to draft him, that's fine too.

        The problem that Chris perceives is that many people who say they are working to draft Gore are not doing the things you need to do if you want to draft a candidate. But I don't think it's a problem (unless you seriously want Gore to run), because I don't think most of these folks are really trying to draft him. It just sounds like a cool thing to be doing, so they say they are, when they are not.

        •  When did... (0+ / 0-)

          the Kucinich and Clark drafts start? I think it was a lot closer than this and they certainly don't have nearly the name recognition or base support that Al Gore currently has. Quit pretending that drafts force people to run against their own will. All a draft can do is make someone consider running who hasn't thought about it, or convince someone to run who has doubts about it.

          The only people Jesus didn't tolerate were self-righteous hypocrites.

          by Jawis on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 04:15:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pretending? (0+ / 0-)

            Where id I say...or even imply...that a draft forces someone to run against their own will?

            •  It was part... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dharmafarmer

              of Chris's definition in the diary when he talked about "whether he wants to or not". He discussed the "he does not want to" option as if it draft movements could actually force a candidate to do such a thing. Your post refers back to Chris talking about drafting and you have been in complete agreement with Chris throughout the thread.

              Both of your arguments are hinged on that idea that draft movement force people to run. Otherwise the whole thing doesn't make sense.

              If we all agree that Gore won't run if he doesn't want to then the draft movement can't do anythng about it. If Gore does want to run a draft movement must only convey the level of support he has. Financial support should rightly be going to actual candidates in 2006 at this point, and it's inconceivable that a Gore campaign would be strapped for cash anyway, so what more do you want?

              The only people Jesus didn't tolerate were self-righteous hypocrites.

              by Jawis on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:02:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  oh jeesh....lol (0+ / 0-)

          "it sounds like the cool thing to be doing"  

          Neither your nor Chris is the law when it comes to politics by the way, but you do make a good comedy team.

      •  Are you trying to fire us up Chris? (0+ / 0-)

        Is it really your plan to help us?

  •  Pulling teeth (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, TrueBlueDem

    Interesting post.
    Concerning Gore, personally I would never vote for a guy who has to be dragged by his heels into the race.  If he doesn't have the passion for it to be building his foundation right now and is insted just waiting (as some anonymous aides have suggested in a couple articles) to see if people will keep trying to draft him, then he will never get my vote.  I won't vote for someone who is indecisive about if he want to lead the country.

    The theme of this post seems to be shit or get off the pot.

    I belong to the LMTFA wing of the Democratic Party.

    by Sam Loomis on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:59:22 AM PDT

    •  That's interesting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rick Oliver

      do you have nay links to the articles where his aides have made such suggesstions?

    •  Gore is reluctant (7+ / 0-)

      because he went through the nastiest election in our history in 2000, and "lost" because of 5 people on the SCOTUS. I can really understand why he wouldn't want to go through another campaign, but I think he may do it again because the country truly needs him. This is a man who feels obligated to do the right thing. Look how he helped 2 plane loads of people out of New Orleans. What other politician did what he did?

      "The election's over. We won. It's all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting." Rep. Peter King (R-NY) at WH function, 2003

      by kathika on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 02:32:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the point (0+ / 0-)

        We don't need a martyr in the presidency who only ran for the office because he felt obligated to do the right thing.

        If he was that put off by Election 2000, he shouldn't be running again, either.

        Gore is just fine doing what he's doing, and not running for president. Apparently he knows it. Good for him.

        •  who's your candidate? (0+ / 0-)

          come on free spirit, tell us.

        •  I'll take someone who feels a moral obligation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sychotic1

          over the alternatives who (with the exception of Feingold) seem to be lacking all morals.....

          Now, flame away.

          "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -Governor George W Bush (R-TX)

          by espresso on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 07:48:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course... (0+ / 0-)

            ...but that's not what is needed in a presidential candidate.

            •  Of course it is! (0+ / 0-)

              Look, Gore ran several times for president.  You don't think he wants the job? It's the process that turned him off, and he is by far the best qualified for the job!

              "The election's over. We won. It's all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting." Rep. Peter King (R-NY) at WH function, 2003

              by kathika on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:11:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm no position to know what Gore wants (0+ / 0-)

                But people do evolve and move on.  When I look at Al Gore, I think, here is a guy who, given his family history, probably never gave much, if any, serious thought to a life outside of politics.  I'm guessomg that the past 6 years have been the first opportunity he's ever had to seriously explore other choices.  He seems to have found a number of things to do that satisfy and excite him.

                He reminds me a bit of Carter, who seemed to come much more into his own after he left politics.

                I have also wondered how much thought Kerry ever gave to the fundamental question of whether he wanted to be president...or if, as a Democratic senator from Massachusettes with the initials JFK, he was inclined to accept it as a given.  I've also wondered how much Ted Kennedy might have pushed his protege into it, as sort of a vicarious presidency for himself...the one that got away.

                Finally, I also wonder if, when it comes down to the deciding point, Hillary Clinton may finally give the question hard thought...she's had an incredible career already in her own right and probably can continue to serve in senate for as long as she wants.  Does she really want to dive back into the big political pressure cooker?

                There is a point in most everyone's life when they realize, OK, I've done that. It's enough. I'm ready to move on now. Whether Gore is at that point? I can't say.

      •  Perhaps it's better for Gore to wait patiently (11+ / 0-)

        I don't have any pipeline into Gore's heart or thinking, but if I were in his position, I'd be waiting awhile before revealing my intentions. And that includes not starting a PAC before this November's election.

        I do believe that Gore is the Democrat most Republicans fear for 2008. The moment he announces, the Swift-Boating will start. Right now, the heat and negative attention is all concentrated on Hillary Clinton. Let her be the stalking horse.

        As far as the money is concerned, I am in the same situation as one of the posters above. I have very limited funds and donated too early in 2004 to Clark. I can't donate as if I'm placing bets at a roulette table.

        I am confident, though, that if Gore decides to run, he will have no trouble raising money--especially if he remains as passionate and straight-talking as his recent speeches have shown him to be. It's the Al Gore of 2005 and 2006, not the Gore of 2000, that I support.

    •  I totally agree and then some! n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  his aids didn't say that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      espresso

      some people have speculated that he would only run if he thought he could get enough support.  How is that different than any other person who runs for office?  

    •  I would (0+ / 0-)

      Personally, I wish I could draft someone who didn't want the job, that was FORCED to take the job...at least there was a better than average chance that they aren't in it for the power trip.

      There are bagels in the fridge

      by Sychotic1 on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 10:43:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gore is not Clark or Kucinich (19+ / 0-)

    Clark had never entered electoral politics before.  Kucinich was always a longshot, and needed to have some assurance that he'd get to help shape the discussion in the primaries before jumping in.

    Al Gore is Al Gore.  Do any of us think that his decision to run or not will be based on the dollar amounts in those two accounts?

    If Al Gore wants to run, he'll run.  If he doesn't, I doubt we'll be able to draft him.  But either way, let's not pretend that this is a neophyte Wes Clark, or a dark horse Kucinich.  This is Al Gore.  And Al Gore just doesn't play the game like that.

    Florida Democrats: Learn how to WIN at the polls! www.victoryfordems.com

    by JR on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 02:01:34 AM PDT

    •  You could be right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, Rick Oliver

      And if you are, I don't think there is any chance he will run.

      Sam Loomis suggested above that he has hinted he is waiting for a draft movement. I haen't seen thsoe articles, but I imagine they would be revealing.

      •  He's obviously right. (0+ / 0-)

        No one will force Al Gore to run if he doesn't want to. I think Gore is keeping that option open though because he hasn't stated unequivically that will not run for elected office again. The "draft" movement can show the level of support that he has waiting for him.
         

        The only people Jesus didn't tolerate were self-righteous hypocrites.

        by Jawis on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 04:19:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have no money (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jawis, itstime

    to donate right now, but I'm completely behind a Gore run.  When/if he announces, I'm sure I'll be able to send him a donation.  Right now I don't feel so bad talking him up and not sending money.  I don't feel bad in the least.  Your post is silly.  There's no reason to think that extremely early money is all that essential.  Did it help Joementum?  Would Kerry have won the nomination without his own money?  Did Dean have early money?  Gore will run or not, but I'm hoping it's not based on my donations to PACs I've never heard of.

    Bayh-partisan: it's the new joementum

    by gogol999 on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 02:25:11 AM PDT

    •  Yes, Dean did (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sj, AlanF

      Dean set up a PAC and started raising two years in advance of his run.

      Kerry may be a case in point. He couldn't draw enough financial support to win the nomination, so he had to use his own money. Turned out the the candidate who couldn't win enough support to win the nomination couldn't draw enough support to win the election, either.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joesig

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

    •  Do you have a source for this? (0+ / 0-)

      "then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida"

      Do you have a source for this statement?

      •  Here is an article (0+ / 0-)

        From the San Francisco Chronicle

        It was also in Fahrenheit 911

        •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

          I know aobut F 9/11, but it was just a documentary and "documentaries are supposed to be biased."

          I have never been able to find a list of the CBC members who tried to stop the certification of the Florida vote. It doesn't look like the Chronicle article provides this, either, but at least it has more than one or two names.

          Fortunately for the spineless Democrats in Congress, their brothers and sisters here in NC redrew our congressional districts in 2001 for the express purpose of electing Mel Watt to Congress. He was promptly named the new head of the CBC and, when Tubb-Jones and Boxer petitioned to stop the certification of Ohio, he voted against it.  He is also one of the few Democratic congressmen who has failed to cosponsor HR 550. So...now there are no more pesky CBC leaders around to bother the Democratic senators any more.  How comfortable for them.

        •  Bush was Bush even back then (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Virt

          At his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Bush said, "I'm honored. I guess I better go and write an inaugural speech." He added, "I want to be the president of everybody, whether they supported me or not."

          Note how his remarks can be read as humble -- or lazy, inarticulate, and imperial.

          This scene in the House was one of America's saddest moments, and, oddly, one of its most obscure. If it hadn't been in Fahrenheit 9/11 it never would have come to my attention (since I wasn't particularly politically aware at the time). It really makes me wonder who pulls the strings in our country. Not one Senator could be found to address the concerns of a group of people -- blacks -- whose rights had been trampled for centuries. Or all those who were upset about the evidence of fraud. Or members of the U.S. House. Or all those rolled into one, for crying out loud.

          Must read: MLKJ's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." It will surprise you.

          by AlanF on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 12:05:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I am almost certain CBC talked to Gore (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sj, dharmafarmer, itstime

      ahead of time about it, and he must have let them know that since he'd already conceded, it wouldn't be fitting for him to do anything contrary to that concession.

      Gore fought and fought until 12/12/2000, and gave up because most of us on the liberal side were sitting and watching the drama from the sidelines and on the tube (I wasn't well, so that was my only option), when the other side started pounding the streets.

      His actions post withdrawal/"concession" speech were what were required of him in the interests of propreity and honoring of the fact that he'd already withdrawn.

    •  'Gracious to a fault?' (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sj, sukeyna, dharmafarmer, Virt, slksfca

      In 2000, Al Gore did the honorable thing. He knew the deck was stacked against him and acted like a man while the Bushies revealed themselves as the grasping thugs they are. I think he did what he did to avoid making a constitutional crisis even worse.

      As far as the Congressional Black Caucus is concerned, he did his parliamentary duty as President of the Senate. He upheld his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He was in an impossible position. Was he supposed to allow disruption in the Senate on a matter that would be portrayed as acting on his own behalf?

      If we are a nation of laws, not men--as I'm sure Gore would contend--you suck it up even when the law is against you. We know now beyond doubt that what happened in 2000 was skirting the law at best and downright illegal at worst. But in a nation of laws an accusation must be backed by proof and there was no time left. Nor was there the political will or forces in place to change the outcome.

      Subsequent events have shown us the dire consequences of honor in 2000. But how could Gore, or anybody, have known? And even if we'd known, there was damn little that could practically have been done.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox, GN1927

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

  •  Give it up Chris (0+ / 0-)

    I have watched this phenomenon closely for several years now. They are living a fantasy built of words and websites; it is where they are comfortable, and where they want to stay.  Leave them be, and just get on with it.

  •  My comments are more general. You asked. (9+ / 0-)

    My main issue is free trade and stopping the destruction of the middle class.  I don't know where Gore stands on this, but I think he, like Warner and Clinton, are supporters of free trade.  I personally like Feingold, but I could like with Gore - probably.  My issue is with this comment.

    Over the last month, I have been the main blogosphere proponent that the Democratic leadership is not doing enough to excite progressive activists for 2006. I have managed to bring this message directly so some of the highest levels of power within the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. I have told this theory to the head of every major progressive news outlet, to every major blogger, to extremely high level House and Senate aides, and even to Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer themselves (yeah, I really did). Now, however, I am wondering if I made a mistake. Gore clearly excites the base, and yet jack shit is being done to support him here in terms of real activism.

    First the easy part about jack shit and nothing being done.  I agree with this statement.  Call to action diaries get zippo attention around here.  Why?  Don't know, could be second part of your comment about exciting the base.  

    For me, the Dems are done.  After two years on this blog and being a huge supporter of Howard Dean, I no longer lay claim to being liberal or Democrat.  I am an independent with right AND left leanings and some blends.  I am NOT a centrist and will challenge anyone to a duel who says I am.  I have been voting for the lesser of evils for almost 30 years.  This means that 99% of my votes ended up in the D column.  Dean came along, and he got me off my ass and I became an activist.  Then the Dems killed Dean and continued to dis him.  The Dems hate their base. ME!  They think we are lefty pinko commies who need to be on Ridlin.  They have turned into Republican lites (Warner and Clinton), and all they care about is keeping their own jobs.  To that end, they will say, do and vote for anything.  There are some exceptions:  Conyers, Feingold, Sanders (I) - but not many.  Excited by the Dems???  Hell no.  I want publicly funded elections and corruption taken out of the system.  I want the working and middle class to be the base of the Democratic Party like it use to be before Johnson.  I want single payer health care.  I want the environment and our country's assets protected from abuse and PRIVATIZATION.  I want national security with means being able to clothe, fuel, and finance ourselves. I want money spent on science instead of bombs, and I want investment in THIS country's future.  Where are the Dems on all of these???  SILENT!   Tell me the Dems care about any of this stuff, and I'll tell you that actions speak louder than words.  

    Excited???  Hell no.  We'll just get another self serving politician who will triangulate away more of this country's values to get and keep power.  I will then be told to be grateful - cause it could have been worse. Pugs scare people with gays and terrorists.  Dems scare people with Bush and fundies.  None of it is funny anymore. I have three young grandsons, and I want to know what future is going to be left for them.

    When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' - Theodore Roosevelt

    by dkmich on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 02:44:00 AM PDT

    •  I hear you dkmich (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dkmich, ignorant bystander, Jawis

      I feel very much the same way even if we don't agree on everything, we do agree that the nonsense has to stop.  I still think that the country is better off in the hands of democrats, how ever there are some who actively work to undermine the work of the grassroots, who are  in it only for their own power and money, who can lose their elections and it won't cause me a bit of lost sleep.  

      I am tired of getting questionaires which are really fund raisers with questions designed to make me think the party cares about healthcare etc...and the boldest suggestion is "do you think the country should make sure all americans have "AFFORDABLE" health insurance?  

      Huh?  That boat has sailed folks, there is no such thing as affordable health insurance for many americans.  We need single payer universal healthcare.  The majority of americans think so.

      •  Just wanted to say hello. (0+ / 0-)

        Haven't run into you in a bit.   Hope you are well.  I read a great piece by Sirota on trade in relationship to where the Dems stand on trade.  It included everyone of interest but Gore.   I thought about putting it into a diary and then thought eh, why bother.  Sirota really speaks my mind.  

        When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' - Theodore Roosevelt

        by dkmich on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 03:44:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  dkmich, I don't have children or g-kids, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dkmich

      Thank God (I wouldn't want them to be in the world we have now) but other than that, your post certainly speaks for me.

      I have discovered a rare species: Democraticus vertebrus var. Feingoldii

      by zett on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:05:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gore is terrible on trade (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, dkmich

      As a vice-president and presidential candidate, he fully embraced the neolib free-trade dogma, including supporting NAFTA, WTO, and PNTR for China. This places him solidly to the right of the American public on trade. The Democrats will not win the swing states we need in the Midwest if we don't put forth an economic populist like Feingold or maybe Edwards. This is the way to win over the more socially conservative voters in the South and Midwest.

      •  If we get rid of the Neo-liberalism (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dkmich

        It'd be easy to see states like Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and West Virginia easily come back to the democratic fold, but we've got to stop nominated Neo-liberals!

      •  The Clinton/Gore Economy worked (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dkmich

        Fair and balanced trade with labor and environmental protections is good, as it grows the economy. and that's what Gore also wanted when he called for reviewing all trade deals in 2000.

        •  If NAFTA worked (and I don't think it did), (0+ / 0-)

          why are we losing our jobs and why is Mexico not prospering.  It was suppose to life both our boats.  Another example of bad free trade is China.  They manipulate the money, won't allow us to sell their, and overwhelm us with their stuff.  Bush laid down the law - not.   Why?   China freakin owns us.  Michigan is a manufacturing state - bigger than Ohio.   We are losing our asses, have been since BEFORE NAFTA, and so what?  People tell Michigan to adopt the SW strategy, which means low wage jobs.  I ask again, what future for my grandsons???  Low wage jobs.

          When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' - Theodore Roosevelt

          by dkmich on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 03:41:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  response (0+ / 0-)

            I'll post a diary on this topic. I'll alert you to it.

            Don't misunderstand me. I am NOT a proponent of unregulated free trade, but rather would like to promote fair and balanced trade. At the moment, in the early phases of global marketplace, I doubt if many people, I suspect including many active economists, fully understand what constitutes "fair and balanced", given the drastically varying standards of living across nations, and the dynamic and complex nature of trading.

            More after my diary post.

            •  Thanks, I would like to know something (0+ / 0-)

              positive about it - and then I would like to see it done!  

              When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' - Theodore Roosevelt

              by dkmich on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 03:25:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  That takes care of him for me. (0+ / 0-)

         I think I'm solidly behind Feingold; but he's too good, and I'm positive he'll never make it through. Looks like another vote for the lesser of evils is coming up.

        When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' - Theodore Roosevelt

        by dkmich on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 03:45:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Consider Edwards (0+ / 0-)

      May want to note that he headlined a Raise the Minimum Wage rally in DC with Kennedy and Sanders -- good company.  If you want to regulate international trade, he seems to be the way to go.

      Democrats are the party of those who are working, those who have finished working, and those who want to work. -- Elizabeth Edwards

      by philgoblue on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 08:19:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sirota- Feingold followed by Edwards (0+ / 0-)

        as the staunchest opponents of free trade.

        When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' - Theodore Roosevelt

        by dkmich on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 03:42:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Gore's concession speech still sticks in my craw (0+ / 0-)

    He went overboard and was gracious to a fault. And then he wouldn't let the congressional Black leaders speak about the theft in Florida.

    Ok, I like what he has been saying for the last year but when it counted, when it really counted, he wasn't there. Somehow, he is going to have to convince me and a lot of other people that he is willing to fight like a pissed off airedale terrier, consequences be damned. Then, I could support him.

    •  Virt..about that speech (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sj, bronte17, stevej, sukeyna, Virt

      Being a true Southern Gentleman, raised to be fair, Gore truly hoped that by being gracious, the pain caused by the recount would fade, and that the country could move forward. What else could he do? And nobody really knew how bad was bad back then..I sensed it, but there was no proof.

      During that gaveling, no Senator would stand up for him in protest, which was needed for an effective countermove. And Gore had little party support during the two months previous-even the head of the DNC and now the current Governor of Pennsylvania kept urging him to concede. Also the Senate was at fifty-fifty, and had made a deal with Republicans to share power, and so his fellow Senators had decided not to rock the vote.

      Gore has been busy. He taught school at Vanderbilt, started his own network, became a Director with Apple computers...what the hell go to Gore 2008 or the Gore Portal for more information

      A Dean Democrat-because I could have been an evacuee.

      by CarolDuhart on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 03:03:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What you say makes sense...it's just (0+ / 0-)

        that there were so many warning signs of just how corrupt Bush was and how he was going to govern. My problem with Gore and the Democrats was and is that their graciousness was perceived as weakness by Bush and Rove. It emboldened them even more.

        That said, I am prepared to support Gore on the basis that he, Feingold and Clark seem the only truly good potential candidates we have. I would just like to know that he would never make the same mistake again. You can't appease people like Bush, Rove and Cheney.

        By the way, I again apologize for all of the multiple posts. I guess it was just a hickup but everytime I hit post. It said failed and the post button came up again. I won't do that again.

  •  Draft Gore: A Call To Action (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Oliver, NeuvoLiberal, nomad23

    From what I have seen among Gore supporters online, they are not delusional about Gore's chances to run in 2008, and are well aware that they will probably have to draft him into this race. And yet they are doing nothing to make the draft a reality.

    Let's make something happen. Sign-up at the Gore Portal. Join the movement to Draft Gore in 2008.



    Gore
    Portal

    Gore
    Draft 2008

    Over the weekend I am going to start working on a strategic plan to get this done. I will post a diary here and at The Gore Portal when I am finished. Lets make a plan and get this done. The world depends on it.

  •  so which candidate are you (4+ / 5-)

    blogging for?  

    I stopped reading half way down because you have nothing new to say.  So stop being a patronizing jerk Chris.  No one but your men chorus is going to be impressed.

    •  Come on (5+ / 0-)

      This is ridiculous. Chris simply offered a clear, impartial analysis of what will be needed to even put the idea in Gore's mind that he should run again. And even if you don't like it, there is a lot of good talk spoken on the Internet, but there isn't much action.

    •  I think you're out of line (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sj, AlanF, KansasNate, Rick Oliver

      accusing Chris of shilling for another candidate by posting this. It seems to me that he's trying to motivate a prototypical Democratic netroots movement, not suppress it. He's pointed out all the factors that seem to line up to make a Draft Gore movement an ideal net cause, and wondering why the actual followthrough seems to be lagging in terms of actual dollars.

      I do think that Gore (my first choice candidate) would himself be more motivated to run if he saw that there was a thriving and promising draft movement already in place. Waiting for him to announce after the midterms might already be too late; Nixon, the best precedent, only secured the 1968 election because he'd build up so many party favors stumping in the 1966 midterms.

      If it is true that Gore needs to commit by the end of summer 2006, I think it might be salutary to look at what Draft Gore 2004 was doing several months before their own effective deadline for action (the 2004 convention). They had already raised money from people like me to commission two private polls of their own, to prime interest in a prospective Gore candidacy. Chris is saying that based on the numbers, the current draft movement doesn't even seem to be matching the previous unsuccessful movement.

      I think that's a perfectly legitimate point to make, and quite helpful, in that he has just motivated me personally to donate to Draft Gore immediately. (Well, in a couple of weeks, anyway, once my first paycheck from my new job arrives.) Otherwise I'd probably be lackadaisically posting comments on dKos and waiting for the bandwagon to magically materialize before realizing I ought to contribute.

  •  Midterms. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, AlanF, hhex65, gmhowell, Cake or Death

    I don't know how you blow off the 2006 midterms with only a sentence. The drafting of Clark and Kucinich happened after the 2002 elections, so I don't understand how creating an unfunded structure that is ready for funds when they become available is not enough. The netroots is made up of regular people who need to prioritize their giving. Donating to winning in 2006 makes a hell of a lot more sense right now than donating to a potential candidate in 2008.

    You also mention that the unofficial web work for Clinton, Feingold, and Warner is more expansive, but unofficial work is a lot easier for an official candidate. That only makes sense too.

    I think that the draft Gore movement has made a great deal of progress this far out, but your kick in the pants is appreciated.

    The only people Jesus didn't tolerate were self-righteous hypocrites.

    by Jawis on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 04:04:13 AM PDT

  •  This is interesting (11+ / 0-)

    Chris,
    This was an interesting thread of maybe three separate discussions.   Thank you.

    On the one hand you seem to be criticizing the people who say they desperately want Gore to run for not doing anything to make it happen and simultaneously implying that Gore won't be able to make a successful challenge for the nomination unless he has a traditional structure in place.

    The Gore supporters seem to respond as if you were personally attacking their devotion to Gore and sabotoging Gore's chances, rather then challenging them to do more to make their dreams a reality.

    I am somewhat in between.   I am waiting for Gore to decide.   He is not my first choice at the moment (I support Russ Feingold) but I believe that if Gore announces his candidacy by January, 2007 he will quickly raise the money and energy that he needs and turn it into a two person race.

    There was an interesting article in American Prospect http://www.prospect.org/...
    recently that introduced me to the concept of disintermediation and explains how a Gore candidacy would look different from anything we have seen to date.

    Personally - I don't think Gore needs a "draft movement"  or a PAC with 100,000 to be convinced that he has a chance to win,  he needs to decide that he wants to put himself back into the arena.  
    When and if he does, he will be the beneficiary of an enormous and well deserved groundswell of support from the net roots and the anti war movement.

  •  OUR PAC IS NOT A DRAFT ORGANIZATION (5+ / 0-)

    Mr. Bowers,

    As Chaiperson of Patriots for Al Gore, I will say, that if you had taken the time to then go to our website you would have seen that we are not a draft organization (take a look at my signature to see that our group calls for him to be RESTORED to the term stolen from him. That is NOT a draft and we are NOT raising any funds in ANY way for ANY sort of draft or political campaign at all.) We have nothing to do with the Honorable Al Gore other than supporting his endeavors, nor do we have anything to do with a draft of any kind. Therefore, money raised for any draft according to this diary is then ZERO, so you need to change that. And believe me, if I were running any kind of a draft for this man you would see action, because I could do it better and I know it.

    However, I believe it is now more important as Mr. Gore does to fight this climate crisis which encompasses so much and work for change from out here, since it is obvious the system we have is totally corrupted, and the majority of Americans in this country are either  too ignorant, brainwashed, lazy, indifferent, or just plain scared to do anything about it.

    And I actually agree with you in part regarding draft movements, having been a part of one for Gore in 2004 that also went nowhere. There was no platform regarding issues, no discussion of issues, no cohesion. Just back and forth BS ego competitions, backbiting, and did I mention BS? I don't even know how much money was raised there and what even happened to it once that movement folded. So I tend to stay away from them, especially since it is easy to infiltrate them with people who try to sabotage the true goals.

    I also think there are some people using Al Gore because of this movie, thinking some diaries on Daily Kos will convince him to run so they don't have to do any real work. I think a draft is a waste of precious time we could all now be using to kick that bastard Bush and his gang of thugs out NOW. I think AL Gore is smart enough to know what he wants to do and no draft is going to have any influence over his decision, because he listens to his family and sees the importance of the mission he is on now.

    So I must correct you on your false assumption that our PAC has anything to do with any draft movement, and would ever have anything to do with sites like algore08 that ostracize Gore supporters with sincere intentions because they want NO competition. Therefore, it is actually ironic that you would think my group part of any other Gore site since the People Not The Powerful PAC which is run by Algore08 banned me from their site because they didn't like my honesty, our convicrion in continuing to support Al Gore in 2004 before the window of opportunity closed, and that there was another group actually dedicated to supporting Al Gore and not looking to score political points.

    We are not, and I repeat NOT a political hack group looking to be in the papers. We are not here to kiss Mr. Gore's ass like I see here and elsewhere by the usual suspects every single day. We are sincere in our efforts, and that three hundred dollars you saw there when you looked went to feed hungry Americans and people in the Sudan, plus other efforts which you can find described in our annual report which is also located on our website.

    It is then a shame that you deemed it necessary to falsely lump our PAC in with a group of people who have really done nothing to further any social cause, or even the issue that Al Gore is now speaking so passionately about. I hope you read this and then consider updating this diary.

    •  From Our Site (3+ / 0-)

      http://www.patriotsforgore.com:

      We are in no way an extension of or in any way related to the now defunct Draft Gore movement, or any other movement designed to draft Al Gore for the Presidency.

      We believe Al Gore won the Presidency of 2000 by both popular and electoral vote as the evidence shows, and therefore believe a draft was never necessary. We are therefore here to advocate for justice for this grievous usurpation against the American people and our Democratic process, and for the social issues that are important to our future.

      We also aim to present facts and truth and hopefully relay useful information through this page and our forum that can be used for positive change. We aren't into bells and whistles, we are into information and truth. All monies we collect go towards sincere efforts to bring you that information and advocate for that change. I hope we relay that message adequately at this site, and we thank you for your interest and your participation in the ongoing struggle for justice. This truly is a fight for our soul as a nation.

      Thank you,

      Jan Moore
      Chairperson

    •  yes, Jan is the only real Gore supporter (0+ / 0-)

      in the universe.  Only she knows his heart and his real intentions.  and she goes around giving me zero's because I am one of the usual suspects..... you know, those who didn't sign onto her draft Gore web site in 2004, but still have the nerve to want him to run for office now.  

      •  You called the diarist a jerk (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rick Oliver

        Yet you never have any substance to your arguments.  Also, I didn't have a draft Gore site in 2004. Try actually reading what I typed above because I don't intend to explain it to you again. Not after the insults you hurled at me previously by calling me mentally unbalanced and stating that no one wants to read my diaries here. How childish can you get? As I relayed above, I was a member of one that I LEFT because of the BS of nothing really being done (and actually, the same BS you shovel out here) and because it wasn't actually what I believed in, which was why I started PFG. So thanks for making my point.

      •  I nominate you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Steve M
        I suspect every Tom Dick and Harry are now going to try to launch the official draft Gore 08 site and start begging for money to get it off the ground. I won't contribute to ANY draft Gore sites until there is an official recognition of legitimacy to it, one that's run by someone we respect, who has no overriding self interest, nor any ties to any Republican efforts in any aspect of their lives past present or future.  I want to know the money contributed is not going to be stolen, diverted, misspent, mismanaged, or otherwise not directly spent on Al Gore's 08 campaign. I want to know that should thirty Draft Gore PACs suddenly rise out of the netroots, all of their efforts will be coordinated and combined once the draft is successful, rather than dissolved with the founders running off with the bank. I want to know the Gore PACs are not acts of subterfuge by GOP in an attempt to siphon off all our money and divert it to their slimy ends.

        Until such a vetted PAC is up and running, and endorsed by someone in a leadership capacity in the blogosphere, all anybody's getting out of me is a pledge.

        And since I know your intentions regarding Gore beyond all doubt, I nominate you to head up the official PAC.

        •  Thank You So Much... (0+ / 0-)

          And your concerns regarding this are really mine as well, even though I really do not support a draft, because the evidence shows he won in 2000. However, since as you claimed it is inevitable we will see some springing up of groups trying to claim themselves as "official" I too wish to see the same things you do (including FULL disclosure) even though I don't agree with it, because I do respect Al Gore very much, and anything we do in his name reflects on him.

          That is why I have been working to see him restored to the office stolen from him and us, albeit, not getting very far...but that will not deter me. Granted to many it sounds impossible, but to us it is justice and certainly more Constitutional than the means used to deprive him of the office. Actually, out here he has served us more Presidentially than we could ever have hoped for.  

          So in all honesty, I don't know if I could be the head of a national draft for Al Gore if it were to draft him into the same system that stole it from him. I have a real problem with that frankly. I am also very disillusioned currently with the leadership on both sides, and I would suspect that would be an impediment to running an effective movement. But I am grateful for your vote of confidence in me, and yes, my intentions regarding him are true and sincere. Perhaps that is then really why I now trust his judgement regarding his future, and see what he is doing as being more important than a campaign for President at this time. For actually, his campaign now is a campaign for our survival. However, should by some miracle this corrupt system come crashing down in the next year by our hand, I would then be more than enthusiastic to see him in the office he has already earned. Thank again.  

  •  Can we just concentrate on '06 first (11+ / 0-)

    Without drawing the ire of the diarist for being 'inactive'?
    Personally I think it would be nice to make a few gains in '06, whoever you support for President in '08.

    We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (620 - 560 BC)

    by AWhitneyBrown on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 05:15:55 AM PDT

    •  Chris says you can't say that. (8+ / 0-)

      Sorry.

      Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

      by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:24:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In that case, (6+ / 0-)

        I'm chastened, and withdraw the suggestion.

        We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (620 - 560 BC)

        by AWhitneyBrown on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:30:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  By the way your blog (4+ / 0-)

        Is great. I worked with Don Novello back in the 80's and he was one of the finest people I ever met. He has a truly unique mind. And also a great deal of dignity and class. A first class fellow...

        We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (620 - 560 BC)

        by AWhitneyBrown on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:32:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you. (5+ / 0-)

          I love the subversiveness of the Lazlo letters.  For many years, I gave speeches to corporations and business groups that were put-ons.  I would pose as a consultant, a new sales manager, an expert on some relevant topic.  And, basically, these companies and groups paid me to make fun of them.

          One character I used consistently was a classic business  self-help guy (Tony Robbins-type) who had authored a book titled, "Doing the Most with What Little you Have."

          In big groups, the audience would catch on almost in waves... The first group "getting it" about 10 minutes in, while those more like Bush finally realizing they were being played after about 20 minutes.

          Subversiveness can be lucrative, too.

          Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

          by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 07:27:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What a great gig that must have been. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bob Johnson, sockpuppet, Rick Oliver

            And a dying art form. I didn't know this about you.  I started in show business as a juggler back in the '70's and got to see the very last remnants of a type of burlesque or vaudeville rooted form of entertainment called 'smokers'. Chamber of Commerce or Lion's Club type of dinners, men only. One of the best acts I saw was a guy who pretended to be one of the waiters and would gradually just create total havoc in the room. It was hilarious.
            I have heard of some entertainers who do what you did and it just sounds like a lot of fun. Ever read the 'Autobiography of Mark Twain'? In it he describes a joke he told on his lecture tour. A very long, very bad joke that everyone had already heard. It always bombed really badly, and he would shuffle around and look embarrassed, then a little while later he would work up to it again. Sometimes he would actually tell the joke 5 times in the course of an hour before people got it. He describes the exact crowd reaction you do, the audience getting it in 'waves'...

            We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (620 - 560 BC)

            by AWhitneyBrown on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 09:58:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm an old improv guy. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vivacia, peeder, sockpuppet

              My business partner (advertising and marketing) and I met in improv class many moons ago (20 years).

              I did a lot of kick-off meetings for Fortune 1000 companies where I would pose as a consultant who was being brought in to "shake things up" (read: crack the whip).  It was a hoot.  My formula was "Physical Fitness + Mental Fitness = Fiscal Fitness."  And I would tell the assembled group that we were starting a company-wide expercise program which would involve arriving at 6:00 a.m. each morning for 30 minutes of calisthenics followed by a mile run.

              People would be looking around the room like, "What the fuck...?"

              And it would just get more ridiculous from there.

              I would be very intense, almost manic.  People would be scared.  I'd tell a story about my own father and how he was drinking and smoking two packs of cigarettes a day and was letting his once-successful insurance business fail.  Then I would say...

              I put him on a stricy workout regimen which consisted of an hour of calisthenics and weight training each morning, followed by a two mile-run...

              [PAUSE, WIPE WELLING TEAR FROM EYE]

              And when he passed away three months later... He was in the best shape of his life.

              The smart people would be dying.  The less-cynical/more-gullible would be looking at those laughing with a look of shock like, "How can you be laughing at this?  The guy's father died!"

              It was loads of fun.  But I got sick of travelling all the time after my daugter was born. So I started the advertising business with my improv friend who was working for a big agency.

              Fun stuff.  I miss performing.

              Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

              by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 10:22:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Did you get paid for that? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sockpuppet

            "For many years, I gave speeches to corporations and business groups that were put-ons. "

  •  I posted my response to this diary (5+ / 0-)
  •  Please Don't Draft Gore (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueDem

    He's already shown that he is not an effective campaigner.  His last campaign was full of poor decisions, missteps and mismanagement, and I see no reason to expect anything different the next time.  If the best the Dems can offer this country is a rewarmed candidate from eight years ago, then we're in deep doo-doo.  

  •  Good, now I don't feel so bad. (14+ / 0-)

    My nascent Draft Alec Baldwin for President `08 movement is even with the Gore effort at this point.

    I'm all about that elusive "electability."

    And, like the DLC with six potential candidates in the race (Clinton, Warner, Biden, Bayh, Richardson, Vilsack), I am hedging my bets with Chris Rock in `08, Angelina Jolie for President, and (what the hell) Bob Johnson - President `08.

    I had an Armando for President `08 blog for a while, but it quickly filled up with comments like, "Please, not that asshole," so I took it down.

    Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

    by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:23:22 AM PDT

  •  You are wrong: It is not the money (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1

    In the past two weeks I have had long discussions with friends about why Gore is the right man for President, posted comments on discussion boards, and put a Gore 2008 bumper sticker on my car. Right now I do not have money to give to any PACs or other campaigns. Does that mean I am doing nothing?

    It is sad that you define everything from the point of view of money. How about being right on what matters? The money will follow and flow when Gore runs.

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

    by Better Days on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:43:45 AM PDT

    •  Effective Action (0+ / 0-)

      I have always been skeptical of the idea that you can win an election by throwing money at it.  But neither do I think you can win an election by having long discussions with friends, posting comments on discussion boards, putting a bumpersticker on your car, or by nominating a candidate who is "right on what matters" (to you).

      Anyone with campaign management experience will tell you that many factors determine the outcome of an election, but the one over which you potentially have the most control...and is most likely to bear fruit...is local organizing efforts. Unfortunately, the success of local organizing rests almost entirely on having enough local volunteers to organize, and Democratic campaigns almost never never have enough dedicated volunteers to pull off a successful GOTV effort. Someone has said that, when you run as a Democrat, you run alone...meaning that few Democrats are going to be out there helping you on the ground.

      At this point, virtually every Democrat who wants the Democrats to win a majority in Congress this fall, a particular Democrat to win the nomination in 2008, or the Democratic nominee to win the White House in 2008 should be involved in local organizing, because it all starts there. That is Dean's 50-state strategy; it is not just throwing money at the state parties. And you cannot sit back and wait until the candidate has announced or been nominated and expect your efforts to have much impact.

      It is my sense that the majority of those who post at DKos are not involved in local organizing. And if the Democrats here aren't doing this, who is? Other than the Republicans, I mean.

  •  Excellent post, Chris (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for letting people know about the seriousness of these things.

    There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. -5.25, -4.67

    by wolverinethad on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:47:13 AM PDT

  •  FEC requirements (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlanF, sockpuppet, retired, NeuvoLiberal

    You can't set up a Draft Gore movement and start taking donations willy nilly without knowledge of FEC requirements.  Does the progressive movement have a "user's manual" that just explains those basics so that your run of the mill activist can set one of these things up without getting fined by the FEC?

    If so, how would I get my hands on this "user's manual"?

    Oh when the frogs. . Come marching in. . Oh when the FROGS COME MARCH-ING IN!

    by pontificator on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 06:53:28 AM PDT

    •  From the obvious source (0+ / 0-)

      The FEC has guides for candidates and PACs posted on its website.  They also have their phone number posted so you can call and ask them any questions you might have about complying with their regulations.

      Wow...this post really snapped me back to 2003-04.  How many discussions were there about FEC regulations on how many blogs and listservs, and how long did they drag on without it ever occurring to anyone to simply consult the FEC? Why? And what does this say about how Democrats see themselves in relation to their own government? I still don't understand it, but my gut instinct tells it's not a good thing.

  •  When, exactly (0+ / 0-)
    Can Gore be expected to announce officially?
  •  Computers encourage you to sit on your ass (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kindertotenlieder

    ...and do nothing.

    I agree with that. The early Gore people (me, too) will need strong leadership to get anything done, and leadership is hard work.

    I don't think it will happen. Hillary is on track to becoming the first woman to win a major party nomination, and, I have to admit, it's about goddamn time. If she can find some GOP women who feel the same way, she'll be living in the White House again. Her situation is like JFK's: the people who voted for him because he was Irish Catholic outnumbered (slightly) the people who voted against him for the same reason.

    Gore is probably the only one who could stop Hillary or even slow her down. The "Netroots" mouseketeers will run their mouths, as the diarist says, but do nothing.

    •  Sad but probably true. However... (0+ / 0-)

      ...that applies to the netroots mouseketeers and to some other groups within the netroots. There are also serious, dedicated, and knowledgeable activists among the netroots. Just not enough who support Gore (or any of several other candidates who are popular hereabouts), I'm afraid.

  •  Robert Kennedy Jr is In (10+ / 0-)

    I saw Robert Kennedy Jr speak last night, he was fantastic.  He took questions and I had the chance to ask, "Could a Presidential candidate run on the environment?  Will one"  He answered that he believes it is possible and that if one spoke about the environment in terms of values, it could be very powerful.  He didn't speak to Gore directly.

    However, during the book signing (as I was getting my Dad a birthday present), I asked him directly, "Will Al Gore run and would you support him."  He said (more or less), "I don't know, but we're all hoping and doing our best to convince him."

    -Ben

    Duke University, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Class of 2007. -2.63, -4.56 and proud of it!

    by RangerKeeper on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 07:22:26 AM PDT

  •  Great diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chris Bowers, sockpuppet, Rick Oliver

    I just signed up for the canvass next weekend.

    Ultimately, we really need to be nagged.

    Relentless! Most folk'll never eat a skunk, but then again some folk'll.

    by ablington on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 07:33:28 AM PDT

  •  Damn straight (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Oliver

    You go!

    Thanks for a great diary. Off to do something now myself.

    It's the "anti-fear-propaganda" solution: positive news: HeroicStories, free

    by AllisonInSeattle on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 07:38:49 AM PDT

  •  I hope that this is a typo (0+ / 0-)

    in this sentence:

    I am writing this post because what I am finding in the Daft Gore movement is all too reminiscent of a disturbing trend I am noticing among the netroots: inaction.

    "What noble cause did they die for, Mr. President?"

    by BlueInARedState on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 07:57:48 AM PDT

  •  Don't forget Kerry's online activists (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Patriot for Kerry

    Hey, interesting diary, but you only mentioned John Kerry's PAC, without mentioning his 5 million strong e-mail list and his very devoted online activists/websites, while talking up Warner, Clinton, and Feingold.  I know that I and almost every online Kerry supporter I know have given to his PAC, and will run to defend him in an instant (like I'm doing right now).

    Here are just a few of those websites off the top of my head:

    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/

    http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/

    http://ifk-johnkerry.blogspot.com/

    http://www.welovejohnkerry.blogspot.com/

    And that's not to mention the huge amount of his supporters on Democratic Underground and elsewhere.

    Not trying to take away from Gore defenders who no doubt will respond to this diary, but I don't see why Kerry is always shortchanged when it comes to the real support he enjoys in the netroots community.

    •  personally (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, tkmattson
      Hidden by:
      A Patriot for Kerry

      I'd like to forget I ever heard Kerry's name.

      And I wouldn't mind getting my $$$ back from his fake We Will Fight For You / Until Every Vote is Counted / Legal Defense Fund either.

      Freedom & dignity spring from within the human heart... & inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated. -Wes Clark

      by velvetdays on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 08:39:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, you're entitled to your opinion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Patriot for Kerry

        But your reason "not wanting to hear Kerry's name" is really quite silly.  Kerry lost the popular vote and was down 120,000 votes in Ohio.  Precisely, how was he supposed to contest an election that the entire world not to mention the MSM of this country viewed as legitimate?  He would have not only been viewed as a sore loser, and hurt the Democratic Party, he also would have been viewed as anti-democratic, unwilling to accept the results of an election only but the far left rumblings on the internet have questioned.

        Look no further than Berlusconi, and how much of an ass he looks like refusing to concede an election he most certainly lost.

        Gore was correct to fight in 2000, because he a) had won the popular vote and b) was down only a few hundred votes which really had a chance of being reversed.  Kerry enjoyed neither advantage, and did the right thing to concede.  He still has a lawsuit pending in Ohio so he is fighting that every vote count.  But you're not asking for that -- you're asking for him to scream fraud without a scrap of real evidence to back him up.  I don't see the point in that.

        I'm not sure how Gore would fair today, but I did see a recent poll that had the election been held today, Kerry would have defeated Bush 49 - 39.  This is because the lies that were told to the American people by the administration and a willing corrupted media were still believed in 2004.  People now know the truth, which vindicates both Kerry and Gore.

        Good God, you're not going to hear me bash your guy, why can't you afford me the same courtesy.  It's not 2007 yet.  Wait until then, and see how many candidates will run on not conceding even when they're down that many votes.

      •  I guess you don't know about the Ohio lawsuit (0+ / 0-)

        That he's still involved in, then?  That you don't want to support anymore?

        Wow, a basher without the facts.  That NEVER happens... </sarcasm>

    •  That 5,000,000 strong email list.... (0+ / 0-)

      ....was compiled from all the other sources available at the time, mostly from other Democratic candidates after the '04 primaries were over.  Although that would more than likely be frowned upon now, nobody really batted an eye at the time.  In reality, whatever candidate won the nomination would have walked away with that list.  I think it's still be passed around now.  All I know is, I keep getting things from Hillary, and I never ever signed up for that.

      •  Um, well not exactly (0+ / 0-)

        People signed up on Kerry's email list because they wanted to receive his emails.  Obviously, many supporters of other candidates joined his email list after he was the nominee, which isn't that unusually.  But they all signed up themselves.  Anyone who doesn't want them is free to unsubscribe at any time.

        And re: the Hillary list:  if you've EVER signed a petition from Hillary's PAC, you automatically end up on her email list.  It happened to me when I signed the "Count Every Vote" petition from January 2005 to support the Boxer-Kerry-Clinton Count Every Vote Act.  I then started getting Hillary emails and unsubscribed.  

  •  Gore/Feingold (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sockpuppet, Rick Oliver, NeuvoLiberal

    That's our winning ticket. If only our party "leaders" weren't so afraid to be true to our own platform, we'd win.

    When good people of conscience give up the fight for justice all is lost. Therefore you must not give up.

    by EmilyD on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 08:40:22 AM PDT

  •  Daft Gore? (5+ / 0-)

    Great diary on the necessity for action to back up rhetoric, and some pointers to some of the necessary steps to make a "draft" movement successful, and different approaches taken by different draft movements in 2004.

    Speaking of which, though I'm already donating nearly 5% of my admittedly small income to Democracy Bonds, I need to get off my butt and sign up to help in the 50-State Canvass.  I did whatever I could to help Dr. Dean become the new chair of the DNC, and now it's incumbent on me to help make sure he's successful in his vision of restoring the party and democracy in this country. Thanks for the kick in the pants about that. I would encourage everyone to particpiate in both these efforts.

    As far as candidates for 2008, I don't have a preference other than it not be Hilary. I don't want dueling dynasties of Bushes and Clintons in the Presidency, and I think there are much better candidates than Hilary. Al Gore would be great.

    Regarding the title of this comment: You might want to correct the typo in the lead sentence in one of the later paragraphs -- "I am writing this post because what I am finding in the Daft Gore movement is all too reminiscent of a disturbing trend I am noticing among the netroots: inaction."

    I'd reiterate Chris's call to action on the 50-state canvass, and would encourage those who would draft Al Gore to take seriously their effort. As the "Draft Clark" movement showed, you can do it with a commitment to fund, rather than having to lay out precious  financial resources that you want to allocate to 2006 candidates. But it does need to be visible.

    "I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America." - George W. Bush, Mis-Leader

    by DavidW in SF on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 08:41:18 AM PDT

  •  Draft Gore only if I don't mean it?? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bosdcla14

    I don't mean it.  Where do I  sign up to not sign up?

    He transmuted pure political gold, 8 years of peace and incredible prosperity, into a devastating loss by actually running away from the peace and prosperity.  Why would I want him on the ticket again?

    (Okay, I agree that he didn't really lose, but he turned gold into the trash of a race so devastatingly close that the other side could steal it.)

    •  Crap (0+ / 0-)

      You'd think  with the preview function, I'd notice my typos.  My headline should have read "Draft Gore only if I mean it?"  not "if I don't mean it".  Got ahead of myself.

    •  blah blah. been heard, been debunked (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, dannyinla

      Here is one solid gold rebuttal: Gore was not a weak candidate in 2000

      •  Thanks for the link (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal

        I missed that diary first time around.

      •  'debunked'? (0+ / 0-)

        what a funny word for such a silly little piece as that you link to.

        The central idea in that piece is that Gore was perceived as part of the unpopular, scandal-plagued Clinton administration facing an electorate that wanted change, but Gore overcame it, somewhat the way Bush Sr. overcame a scandal-plagued Reagan administration.

        That's preposterous.

        In fact, here is a wiki-quote that tells the real story: "he [Clinton] ended his Presidential career with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President in the post-Eisenhower era. [1]"

        Or here is another quote, from pollingreport.com:
        "In a late October 2000 Gallup Poll, 57% of the respondents approved of the job Clinton was doing as president. By comparison, in a mid-October 1960 Gallup Poll, Dwight Eisenhower received a 58% positive job approval rating, and in a mid-October 1988 Gallup Poll, 51% gave Ronald Reagan a positive job rating. Voter News Service exit polls taken at polling places on Election Day 2000 indicated Clinton’s positive job performance rating nationally among actual voters was also 57%."

        So by the Gallup numbers, Gore ran 7% behind Clinton's solid popularity numbers.  By contrast, Bush Sr. ran about 3% AHEAD of Reagan's numbers.  Gore underperformed his administration while Bush Sr. outperformed a mildly popular president's numbers to carry his election.

        Your story is simply ridiculous.  Gore was not a popular person as vice president.  Ever.  That's why he was behind so far at a time that President Clinton was very popular.  He sucked as a candidate.

        I'm not blasting Democrats.

        •  What were Clinton's personal favorables like? (0+ / 0-)

          No one said Clinton's job approval weren't high. But his favorables were in the 45-55 range (mostly at the lower end) during 1999 and 2000.

          More importantly, his personal favorables (i.e. "do you like him as a person") were absolute trash following the scandal and impeachment. Most were about 30%. It these number and a general "Clinton fatigue" that Rove spun in to "restoring honor and integrity" meme, which people bought.

          Pure and simple.

          •  Also, Gore' job approval was generally high (0+ / 0-)

            in the 55-60 range throughout the campaign season, and his favorables (personal favorables weren't polled in what i have seen; that was a Clinton special, it seems) were also in the same range.

            So, the only folly in this picture were Clinton's favorables and the nadir were his personal favorables.

            Your theory built on Clinton's JA is moot, because Clinton wasn't running for office, but he defiled it sexual excursions. American made Gore pay for Clinton's Blow job.

            Case closed.
            •  Ya, right! (0+ / 0-)

              They preferred Clinton's policies, but voted against the person who wanted to continue those policies, because they didn't like Clinton as a person, even though they did like Gore as a person.

              That's beyond refutation it's so ridiculous.  The  election was not a referendum on Clinton's blowjob.  People were voting on Gore.  Al Gore.  The guy who was widely considered wooden way back in the mid-90's.  At a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity, they voted against Al Gore, because he refused to connect to that peace and prosperity.

              •  response (0+ / 0-)

                First of all, this wooden BS was a meme created by Rove and perpetrated by the MSM.

                Secondly, haven't you heard of "Restoring honor and integrity" startegy and and "Clinton fatigue" meme?

                It's acknowledged by most political observers that CLinton's scandal cost Gore heavily.

                --------

                Please see this 3/99 WaPo poll:

                >>
                Clinton Job approval: 64/34/3
                Al Gore Job approval: 60/26/13
                >>

                i.e. both Clinton and Gore had high job approvals.

                >>
                Clinton Favorables/unfavs: 30/67/4
                Al Gore Favorables/unfavs: 54/33/14
                >>

                But Clinton had terrible favorable ratings, while Gore had decent ones (given 14% "no opinion"s).

                >>
                Bush Favs/unfavs: 54/14/32
                >>

                Bush's favorables were similar to Gore's, but he had more "no opinions".

                >>
                Bush v. Gore: Bush 54%, Gore 41%
                >>

                Yet, Bush was beating by 13% in this poll.

                Conclusion: Clinton's scandal/impeachment negatives stuck to Gore.

  •  Gore helped found the DLC (2+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    bosdcla14, wu ming
    Hidden by:
    vcmvo2, NeuvoLiberal

    Gore helped found the DLC. And he picked Lieberman as a running mate. Has he disavowed all his Republican-lite positions?

    •  Gore was a centrist (0+ / 0-)

      Not in the modern 'wingnut Republican in moderate Democrat, antiabortion is groovy' clothing. He was a real centrist with moderate views.

      Lieberman is indefensible. A less weasally running mate alone would have prevented the 2000 debacle.

    •  Clinton also co-founded the DLC (0+ / 0-)
      1. DLC was initially founded on fiscal grounds, not war-hawking as it it turned after the 2000 election.
      1. Lieberman also turned a war-hawk after the election. Gore opposed the Iraq war, and endorsed the anti-war progressive Howard Dean.

      You get a troll rating for "Republican-lite". Because that's a bullshit smear.

      •  you abused the troll rating (0+ / 0-)

        I came to the conclusion that Gore was "Republican-lite" because he

        1. co-founded the DLC
        2. supports the death penalty
        3. chose Lieberman as a running mate
        4. championed a conservative trade agenda, including NAFTA, WTO, and PNTR for China

        You are free to disagree with my position, but your troll rating was uncalled for and an abuse of this site.

        •  No I didn't (0+ / 0-)

          that was a mean spirited post. I came to the conclusion that that you're an asshole for that ridiculous term, and troll rate you for that.

          Since you seem to be into repetition, you will get the same back, with some bold highlighting thrown in for special effects.

          1.  DLC was initially founded, also by Bill Clinton on fiscal grounds, not war-hawking as it it turned after the 2000 election.
          1. I support the death penalty for people that kill other people repeatedly and not out of insanity of self-defense. Three deliberate killings in two separate incidents would justify the capital punishment for me. Most Americans support a position similar to that. If you're a fringe liberal that wants to abolish death penalty for Hilter and his brethren of the day, you're free be in that fringe.
          1. Lieberman also turned a war-hawk after the election. Gore opposed the Iraq war, and endorsed the anti-war progressive Howard Dean.
          1. Clinton/Gore economy created 22 million net new jobs (regardless of NAFTA), turned record deficits into surpluses, registered lowest unemployment in 30 years, paid off huge chunks of national debt, to name a few things.
          •  I understand (0+ / 0-)

            I understand. You became frustrated at your inability to make a cogent argument, so you resorted to a troll rating. Pathetic, but not unexpected. In this most recent post your argument is especially weak.

            To refresh your memory, my original post that you troll rated asked if Gore had disavowed all of his Republican-lite positions, my obvious implicating being that he has advocated Republican-lite positions. The record of his Republican-lite positions is quite clear and well-documented, as you are surely aware (thus the source of your frustration). As to your points . . .

            1. Does the fact that Clinton founded the DLC affect whether the DLC advocated Republican-lite positions? Is it impossible to have a Republican-lite fiscal position? You know the answer to both these questions is no, whether or not you want to admit it.
            2. Does the fact that you support the death penalty affect whether it is a Republican-lite position? As for my anti-death position, I'm happily in the "fringe" majority that chooses alternatives to the death penalty when given the option.
            3. Saying that Lieberman became a war-hawk after the election is like saying Bush became a war-hawk after the election. There was no war for them to be hawkish on before the election. He held many Republican-lite economic positions before the election. And yes, it is true that Gore held a progressive position on the war. How that disputes the claim that some of his other positions were "Republican-lite" I don't know.
            4. I don't see how the number of jobs that were created while Clinton/Gore were in office affects whether Clinton/Gore trade policies were "Republican-lite".

            I don't expect you to muster a logical response to this post, so you'll probably troll rate it out of frustration. But I'll take my chances.

            •  my objection (0+ / 0-)

              is to your labeling, which may or may not be well intentioned, but be that as it may, my only response to it is using a reverse label: only a "whiny fringe liberal (WFL)" would find Gore Republican-lite.

              Since the ergonomics of typing and proof-reading in a tiny window on my computer screen do not suit me well, and have only a limited amount of time to spend on this thread of discussion, I am leaving my statement below without serious proof reading. Please try to decipher the intended sentences and ask for clarification if necessary.

              But, i did so by the virtue of my hand being wrung by your insistence of the usage of labels. I personally don't believe in labels and ideologies. As far as I am concerned, I am believe in people being given inalienable freedoms of many kinds, as long as they are exercise in respect of the same rights of other individuals (and other inhabitants of the planet/universe), and I believe in sound policy made with the interests of all constituents in mind ("common good" if you want to slap a label), drawing upon scientific and logical methodology, and applying "common sense" where appropriate. I understand that this description is not free of ambiguities and it also employs labels, but in the interests of time, I will leave it at that.

              Turning to the Al Gore and your list of objections to his candidacy, I find your objections to be non-constructive, whiny, and motivated by the desire to score hits against Gore than to judge whether he'd make a good President. with the exception of your opposition to the death penalty.

              On that last point, it is understandable that your position is different from that of Al Gore and of mine. I am personally open to changing any and all of my positions provided someone makes a rigorous and persuasive argument as to why a shift in my position and thinking is warranted. Thanks for the link you provided. BTW, I am a die-hard believer in the power of redemption, as well as an eternal optimist in what good may come. But, if a person is hell bent on killing other people, in the interests of protecting other lives, there should be a cut off point for extending such grace.

              I am willing to consider the life in prison option for application after the threshold has been exceeded, but we need to keep in mind that it costs over $50K per person, per year, to keep that person in prison. Since this must footed by the tax payers, I therefore am willing to listen to those that do not wish to work their asses off in order to maintainin the life sentence of a deviant individual. At a certain point, this dialogue may converge onto taking a vote of all constituents, and resolving the matter democratically. Case closed for me today on that.

              Finally here is a question for which I expect a Yes/No answer: if Hilter were caught alive, which sentence would you have prescribed: death penalty or life in prison?

              Returning to 2008, I find Al Gore to be the best qualfied individual to lead this nation from the state that he or she will find the nation at the time of assuming that power. If you think otherwise, you're free to hold your assessment.

              But unless you declare who in your opinion would be better qualified, further discussion is moot, since I have already responded to your objections. I am asking you to make that declaration for future discussion purposes, as I may or may not be able to find the time to make the argument here that Al Gore would be better qualified than your Candidate X in this thread.

              To summarize, you're free to consider Al Gore's record as "Repulican-lite", and if you do so, I will continue to consider and you a "whiny fringe liberal (WFL)".

              Thank you.

              ps: Since I expect your reply to be longer than mine, I may or may not be able to respond back to you in time, or if at all.

              pps: If someone polled Americans on this position: "I support the death penalty for people that kill other people repeatedly and not out of insanity or self-defense. Three deliberate killings in two separate incidents would justify the capital punishment for me, with genuine chances and opportunities given for redemption before reaching this point", my conjecture is that 75-85% would support it.

  •  An premature post (4+ / 0-)

    Speaking for Draftgore (www.draftgore.com), I can tell you that there is activity.  I can also tell you, however, that it is early.  We are several months away from the campaign season.

    The Draft Gore movement of 2004 got launched in January 2003 by publishing a full page ad in Gore's home town urging him to reconsider.  This got the Draft Gore movement coverage in newspapers across the country.

    Draftgore then went onto conduct national polls and to campaign at state democratic conventions and other national forums.  Our campaigning got us national tv, radio and print media coverage.  Other Draft Gore groups generated national coverage as well.

    Our cause then, as now, was to make the case for Gore so that the party would seriously examine the trajectory it was taking.  We argued then that Gore is the strongest, most electable candidate the Democratic party has.  We argued this based on polling evidence.  Throughout 2003 and 2004, Gore outpolled all democrats in ALL polls and did better in head-to-head matchups with Bush than any other democrat.  

    It is still early.  Gore's movie comes out in a month.  Get ready to saddle up.  

  •  stop the diary hijaack, and answer his question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pirate Smile

    After sleeping on this a few hours...

    First - this diary isn't about whether Gore is the candidate or not. This diary is about what the Draft Gore movement is or isn't doing.

    Second - what should we [the Draft Gore Movement] be doing????

    The fundamental problem is: there are SO MANY Gore supporters out there, that there is not single "Draft Gore" focal point. There are a half-dozen or so GOOD websites, but no single commanding entity.

    So if we were gonna all get together and do something, what would it be??

    PLEDGES - is this worth the effort? 10,000 pledges garned would amount to a trifle, compared to the waves of donations that will happen instantly once Gore steps in

    GRASSROOTS PAC - (by us, not by him. he'll surely have a PAC eventually, but not yet.) from my point of view, making a PAC seems like an awful lot of paperwork. what would be the goals?? to raise money?? again, I just don't see a single "Draft Gore" entity gaining the critical mass necessary to have a big effect; if anything, it would the PR the a Draft Gore PAC might bring. If anybody wants to start a PAC and raise $10,000 for PR purporses, go right ahead.

    MORE COORDINATED BLOGGING & BRANDING - this is something that COULD happen. but would require some cooperation between the many Gore supporters

    MORE COORDINATED PETITIONING - I think the Grassroots for Gore/Gore Portal petition stands in the 3000 range now, but there are other petitions out there too. Getting all the Gore sites to unite around this single petition could be a good step in the right direction, but would take some footwork.

    OTHER realistic ideas, to make the Gore Movement more effective and cohesive??

    •  I figure Gore knows what to do if he decides to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patriot for Al Gore, neecie100
      run in 2008.

      The decision is his.  

      I think it helps for him to know there are many grassroots and netroots supporters that want him to run.  

      I've also read that quite a few big wigs want him to run and are encouraging him to do so (see the post above re RFK Jr. saying they are hoping and trying to convince Gore to run as only one example).

      I figure he is focused on the movie and book which will be coming out soon.  He'll decide after that and/or the 2006 midterms if he is going to take the jump.

      If he jumps, the $$$ will come and so will the supporters.  He can build a structure quickly if he decides he wants to do it.  That is one of the key things many of the so-called experts say when stating how they think he is the one who could stop Hillary if he decides to do it AND that he can do it later then the others.

      I'm looking forward to the movie and focused on taking back control Congress.  

      He'll do it if he feels compelled to but not because people are trying to draft him.

      Am I part of the problem?  Maybe, but I don't really think so.

      •  exactly Pirate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pirate Smile

        I respect Gore too much to even try and force my will and opinion on him by "Drafting him". Not that I could if I wanted too. I want him to run, if he does, I will support him financially and otherwise, to the best of my ability.

        Destroying a Democracy is so easy, even a chimp can do it.

        by neecie100 on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 10:34:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Great ideas... (0+ / 0-)

      All very good...

      I think the beginning is there, you just have to get beyond personalities...

      You don't yet have a candidate so you need at least a unifiying figure to form a group, RFK Jr, I like that...maybe a Hollywood figure. A nominal Republican would be interesting. Or recruit "three wisemen" from the ranks of senior statesmen, people like Gary Hart, Warren Christopher or Fritz Mondale, to write the open letter and form a group...  

      But we have time...

      RGJ

  •  Be wary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia

    I LOVE Gore.  Earth in The Balance had a profound effect on me when I read it in high school in the 80s.  In '92, I thought the ticket was upside down - that Gore should have been president, Clinton VP.  

    Gore's post-2000 speeches are some of the most electrifying defenses of our nation's freedom and soul put forth since Lincoln and FDR.  He is a giant statesman.  His tenure as VP was distinguished.  And he was a brilliant Senator, who should be rightfully credited with helping create the internet.

    But here we get into some thorny issues with Gore.  Why the hell didn't he push back on some of these media smears?  Why does everyone I talk to about Gore snicker when they say, "he invented the internets!"?   This is an issue Gore could have boomeranged on Bush, by coming forth with the computer experts who created the internet, and explaining exactly what his role was in crafting the legislation that established ARPANET.  That Gore never bothered to do this shows a lack of judgment.

    The lack of judgment rears its hoary head again with Gore's selection of Lieberman as VP.  And again with his decision not to embrace Clinton and 8 years of peace and prosperity.  Gore ran away from Clinton in 2000 - one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century!  More popular than any president since Kennedy (acccording to Gallup polls).  

    I fear Gore's streak of poor judgement may be an indication of his potential as a president, when judgement is the primary job requirement.  It may be that Gore is a brilliant man, but unfit for the presidency, much like Carter was.  

    We must always inform our support of Gore with his decision to pick Lieberman.  About the only worse choice at the time would have been Zell "I challenge you to a duel" Miller.  Gore doesn't get my support for '08 until he comes clean about the Lieberman debacle, and acknowledges that it was a tragic mistake.

    -7.4, -5.9 | "Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government." -Thomas Jefferson

    by Subterranean on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 10:22:03 AM PDT

  •  Gore 2008? (0+ / 0-)

    two words: Hubert Humphrey

    I like Al but his presidential moment has passed. and frankly I think he's FAR more valuable to the party as an agent provocatuer on the sidelines anyway.

    •  Re: 'Two words: Hubert Humphrey' (0+ / 0-)

      [OK, this is an off-topic reply, but at least it's on topic relative to an off-topic post.]

      An alternative two words might be: Richard Nixon.

      Most Americans in the 60s believed Nixon's presidential moment had passed, but he pulled a complete come-from-behinder eight years later. Some obvious parallels:

      1. Nixon, like Gore, was vice president during a period of unparalleled economic growth.
      1. Nixon, like Gore, was seen by many as having been cheated out of a presidential election that they believed he had won.
      1. Nixon, like Gore, found his country trapped in a disastrous foreign occupation (predominantly) owned by the other party.
      1. Nixon, like Gore, was extremely intelligent. (A crook, an anti-Semite, and a paranoid nutbag – yes – but extremely intelligent, nonetheless.)

      Some obvious advantages to Gore over Nixon:

      1. Not a crook, anti-Semite, or paranoid nutbag
      1. Didn’t lose the California governor's race after losing the US presidential election
      1. Left the political stage with incredible class, instead of smugly saying, "You won't have Al Gore to kick around anymore."

      What I'm trying to say is: the Political-Comback-Of-A-Guy-From-Happier-Days-Who's-A-Hell-Of-A-Lot-Brighter-Than-The-Current-Dumbass -Who-Got-Us-Into-This-Foreign-Quagmire frame could be a positive one, if spun correctly.

      Just a thought.

      [Disclaimer: Please do not misinterpret this post as either equating the character and ethics of Al Gore to those of Richard Nixon or endorsing the notion that John Kennedy was not legitimately elected president in 1960.]

  •  Netroots (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gaspare

    Let's face it, the vast majority of the netroots are not activists but active keyboardists.

    Expecting any more is a sure fire way for disappointment.

  •  Draft Clark was Different (0+ / 0-)

    To my eternal dismay I can't say I was a part of the original Draft Clark movement but with my eternal gratitude I can say I thank them.

    That post on Kos is interesting for many reasons but I have a bone to pick with all Draft Warner Draft Gorer Draft Biden (!) Draft Hillary (?) Draft or Graft Kerry, pleasegodnoDraftEdwards- Draft Whoeverers.

    There will never really be another "draft" quite like General Clark's. Why?

    Well, it was a DRAFT. Clark had not held elective office Warner, Gore, Biden, Hillary- etc. all have. There's maybe, uh, some political aspiration there to begin with- as there should be. But don't say it is a DRAFT.

    Al Gore, friends, he cannot be DRAFTED. Could he be CONVINCED? Perhaps. I can't say I know much about it. But- given his history- please. Don't call it a DRAFT. The man was a sitting VP of the USA for eight years, and yes, we're all all too familiar with Florida 2000.

    I feel like I should say- "I like Gore" here. I like Al Gore. Always did. I thought Tipper was over the top with the PMRC, these days I'm much more worried about PNAC than the PMRC!!!!!

    I think one could feasibly DRAFT Donald Trump- who by the way- strongly supports Eliot Spitzer! Eliot Spitzer might have been DRAFTED to run for Governor- but after that (we hope!!! ), he will not be "draft material" in my book, having held elective office.

    By the way, Yeah, you go, The Donald!! Eliot ROCKS!!

    Part of what makes a draft a DRAFT is DRAFTING someone into public service who is otherwise engaged.

    Also, in Clark's case there was a military aspect- not only in his marvelous, unparalleled service. But also in that the country had been viciously attacked here at home. We were rush marketed a war against not states, but against abstractions.  --"WAR ON TERROR" -- under false pretenses, with suspicious motivations & even more suspicious "evidence."

    Questions loomed large in the public's mind about the health of our system checks & balances. And it seemed, and it still seems to me, that as in the earliest days of the Republic, an upstanding, strong, fairminded General with a gift for diplomacy was & is urgently needed to serve in the nation's highest elected office.

    Freedom & dignity spring from within the human heart... & inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated. -Wes Clark

    by velvetdays on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 11:44:53 AM PDT

  •  Why now? (0+ / 0-)

    I am not a wonk. Respectfully (to any who might care to respond), I do not understand the mechanics or issues involved in a draft campaign, and I found this diary more confusing than illuminating in that regard. There is apparently no formal framework for such a thing?

    To get to the point, I'm not clear on how much of the groundwork for a draft effort would or should involve money up front, which appears to be your primary gauge here.

    Your diary cites the Draft Kucinich and Draft Clark campaigns as successful examples to follow, but did either one even exist in 2002? When was the critical time for them to germinate, to build momentum, and how much money was actually required for those draft efforts? Also does a draft campaign really need a PAC or other organization that must register with the FEC? Perhaps those particular PAC efforts are unfunded because they are not associated with any serious organizing effort, or they are being readied for post-draft funds, or they are jokes or are simply irrelevant?

    With regard to primary or general election campaign funding, it seems to me that Gore has a potential funding and activist base that most candidates can only dream about, including deep pockets on both coasts and in the south and the probable support of Deaniacs and other net-savvy groups.

    However, with all due respect to netroots, big money and political machines, I think Gore is wise enough to play it cagey until he can gauge some real-world grass-roots and ballot box potential, and in fact some recent moves on his part are not inconsistent with such thinking. I also think he is well aware of his status as 800lb gorilla, and of his potential to cause great damage if he were to announce too soon and start the money, endorsements and media backlash going early enough to affect critical Congressional races.

    I know that isn't an excuse for his would-be drafters to sit on their hands, but perhaps the consistent demurring from Gore might be a reason why all but the most zealous are not doing more, can't do more,  yet. I don't think we can really know the draft Gore potential until the fall.

    I'm no wonk and I'm probably wrong on this (and perhaps all the above), but to my mind two more reasons to wait until after the midterm election before one commits any money to any presidential effort are: 1) many Congressional candidates need every dime we can spare NOW; and 2) the Republican Congress and Supreme Court still have time to throw a wrench into the presidential race under the guise of "finance reform"--I don't want even my few pennies to be legislated out of play.

  •  In the spirit in which it is offered... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal

    Wonderful post, seriously...

    And I am one of those "netroot" boosters you take so well to task...I write polemics and checks, small ones for now...but frequently...recently to DNC, BuzzFlash, DCCC, Hon. Zoe Lofgren, Santa Clara County Demo.Party, tell me where to send it and Al can have it all...not that he will need it...

    Your point about the "lack of activity" is well taken, based on your measures, not much going on except in this small corner of the Blogoshere. Except that the effect of what we do here is much larger than what can actually be seen, like an iceberg. It is enough for Al to know we are here, waiting...

    I am disturbed that the 50 state canvass might be having any difficulty, I will check on that... What Howard, the DNC, DSCC and DCCC are doing is much more important, right now, than any concerns about any potential candidate in 2008.

    What is significant in all this discussion, is a thread that runs through everything that I said and most of the positive responses, and that is the perception that Al Gore is a leader, not just a pol running for President.

    That he represents the kind of courageous leadership that will rise above petty politics and the 24hr news cycle and break through the fearful shell, and speak truth to power and the American People. That he is not just a candidate, but a leader who is ready, for a Nation that has come to him...

    Yes, the Al Gore Support Center page hasn't been updated since Jan, and no money was raised by the Gore Portal affiliated PAC...yet...he says, limbering up with the Bat...reaching for the credit card...

    But ya know what? When I finished watching the ML King Speech, I googled and they were right there, ready and waiting and they have forumns and newslinks, current stuff. I registered, indeed my "Gore 08" diary of yesterday was a third draft of an email I sent the GSC right after ML King Day...one that also appears at TPM, the Portal and on my own blog, this is how it gets going.

    Everyone of the vaunted "Dean" groups was independent of and not supported by DFA, we got no money and no real direction from them, we did it ourselves...

    So... I will accept your post for what it is...
    But don't be surprised when you are surprised...

    A groundswell is coming!

    RGJ
       

  •  Now Children...let's be nice... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal

    I come from the old Thumper's Moms School of Politics...

    If you can't say something nice, you shouldn't say anything at all...

    Chris seems like a sincere person, obviously informed and involved and our ally...

    Let us not forget why we are still activists...
    The problem is in Washington...2006 is the larger issue.

    Thank you Chris...

    In the spirit in which I offered, as well.

    RG Johnson
    San Jose CA

  •  Gore: 'No Means No' (0+ / 0-)

    Gore: "No means No"

    Al Gore Says 'No'Really Means 'No'. Despite topping some presidential preference polls and efforts by fans to get him to run again, former Veep Al Gore says he really doesn't want to. He's even got conservatives convinced. Grover Norquist, a strong Bush ally and president of Americans for Tax Reform, hosted Gore last week at a conservative meeting and tells us the 2000 presidential candidate "kept talking about himself as a recovering politician." Instead, he's channeling his passion into Issue No. 1: global warming. "This," says Norquist, "is what he says he's doing. He's not running for office."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    And all else aside, I believe him. And he shouldn't have to run again. And if our efforts to see him restored to that which he earned fail, we still know he is out here for us, and we are grateful for that. Personally, I think if you all put as much effort into actually helping him address the climate crisis, we might actually get more done rather than spinning our wheels.

    •  Grover Norquist says so...Okay... (0+ / 0-)

      Boy, that's enough for me...

      What a source...and of course if I was Gore and I was lookin' to shrink the Neo-Cons down to size so I could drown 'em in a bathtub...I would sure tell Grover, first...

      RGJ

      •  What an intelligent response (0+ / 0-)

        And yes, that title was meant as snark. Mr. Gore doesn't see the environment as a partisan issue. That was why he was giving his presentation to them in the first place, and actually I have another source from this event stating the same thing.

        I also didn't state you had to believe it or even give a damn. However, he has also said it before as recently as in the Washington Post (and many times before,) when he was quoted as stating that his presidential aspirations were behind him and that there were other ways to serve. HIS words, not mine. His appearance at Drew University two weeks ago was also done with specific instructions from his staff that no political future be discussed.

        He gets asked this damn President question everywhere he makes a presentation (by people who also have no freakin idea what he has even been doing out here all of this time and more than likely don't even give a damn about climate change,) which takes away from the immportance of the presentation. He spent many hours putting it together because he is dedicated to the issue, just to have people ask him if he running for President instead of asking about the topic, which must be infuriating and frustrating...but it is no different here. Seems so many have blinders on when it comes to really seeing what we are dealing with NOW.

        I'm then simply trying to impress that for NOW he sees the climate change crisis as the foremost issue because it really hinges on so many other issues. Too bad those of you who claim to support himso much can't lend a hand in that, but only want to continue to spin your wheels in a draft to have an excuse to not have to do anything else.

        But whatever. Should Bush push the nuclear button in Iran, I want to see you all here crying for a draft over finally taking action against the crooks and murderers you've allowed to defile our White House for the last six years for all of your talk. This also isn't about competing and who is the "biggest fan" of his (And that really sounds so high schoolish,) this is about being REAL about where this world is NOW, while you all twiddle your thumbs waiting for 2008 when that may not happen either. And here I thought this was a reality based community.

        •  While I agree with your premise... (0+ / 0-)

          I don't agree that Mr. Gore doesn't want to lead this nation.

          He just would rather speak to the issue he feels is at stake, right now. And I agree, we need to focus on the rapidly developing crisis of climate change, it is however but one of the more pressing issues that need to be addressed. Checkout the DCCC letter, send money...

          In fact...had Mr. Gore become Presient in 2000...most of those pressing issues would not even be on the table and we would have had the last 5 years to work on restructuring our economy and energy structure.

          Boy, what a bummer...everywhere I go all people wanna talk about is when will I become President...man...

          I believe that when the time arrives, and it hasn't arrived, you will see Al Gore step up to the plate, if for no other reasons than the ones you so eloquently stated.

          From which position could he most influence the future course of history, a warehouse in South San Francisco, traveling coach with his laptop and slides or from the White House with the bully pulpit and the networks at his beck and call...

          I would imagine that as the Leader of the Free World you could do a bit more than you could as a green political Willie Lomax...

          So...we agree, and we can agree to disagree on the signals, I see a wise strategist on a high stakes quest for a sustainable future, you see a traveling evangelist for the Earth, a recovering politician... No such thing, once bitten...  

          Maybe were both right...

          RGJ

          •  'Green Willie Lomax?' (0+ / 0-)

            That label just shows you don't appreciate what he is doing on this issue. I now know to really stay away from anyone on this site looking to run a draft for this man. All it is is political BS. And FYI, I see Mr. Gore AS MY PRESIDENT and have since 2000 because of the man he is, and have been doing so for the last 18 years. I can also then see that if he doesn't run he will be dropped here like a hot potato. His work is only important for as much as you and others can pump out of him to serve your own interests? Is that it?

            Inspiring change that could well save this planet for future generations is not just being a "green Willie Lomax", it is being a man of conscience, morality, and responsibility. TITLES may be all that matter to you and the political BS throwing ilk that frankly is boring me to death with their "run Al run" mantra to score points, but to me TRUE decency and caring displayed without the seeking of such a title shows me what kind of a man Mr. Gore is.  And I would take that over your version any damn day of the week.

pontificator, Lee, N in Seattle, fester, gina, davej, em dash, Angie in WA State, Austin in PA, buffalo soldier, MewZ, Best in Show, JR, coral, From the choir, dcarroll, Bill in Portland Maine, d bad, rawls, Phoenix Woman, Jaime Schulte, GernBlanzten, debcoop, Fran for Dean, teacherken, Fiat Lux, Sparhawk, AlanR, lipris, JustWinBaby, yerioy, tikkun, Delaware Dem, Hlinko, LisaDawn82, philgoblue, gaspare, killjoy, machopicasso, taliesin, RunawayRose, JTML, BooMan23, Lahdee, Emerson, wu ming, ssm, doginfollow, yatdave, LEP, ablington, djinniya, LeftCoastTimm, Raven Brooks, velvetdays, Luam, Poika, Bugsby, strengthANDwisdom, mystic liberal, bara, bronte17, Silverleaf, ProfessorX, lpackard, shipyardian, stevetat, ksh01, muledriver, roses, valleycat, FLPeach, dp3, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, ctsteve, FlyLeft, captainahab, Alna Dem, Pachacutec, wader, IM, webweaver, hhex65, sockpuppet, jakyra, draftchrisheinz, Chicago Lulu, TXsharon, mott street, besieged by bush, Stampy51, Zem, kathika, ranger31, never forget 2000, mrsnart, beachmom, lcrp, dkmich, outragedinSF, bwintx, Bluefish, AllisonInSeattle, Sam Loomis, mattes, lhuynh, Man Eegee, paisa, haypops, DarkSyde, westcott, jgruber, pat208, Jersey Joe, Nindid, vcmvo2, Fiction59 Fool On The Hill, red clay dem, Rick Oliver, coloradobl, nmariemy, PBen, RhetoricalRubberneck, NeuvoLiberal, curtadams, Karmafish, Donkey Rising, Buffalo Girl, ph not v, wgard, Sharon Jumper, power model, arenwin, sbdenmon, Brian B, schoolpsyc, salvador dalai llama, LaX WI, BlueInARedState, sfsalty, DemInLux, G Red, demondeac, Gopher Bob, J Chang, buhdydharma, Catesby, The Southern Dem, annaconda1, Angie Tran, b1oody8romance7, OffTheHill, Lashe, ChrisB, Alec Strickling, imabluemerkin, condoleaser, Shoeless Joe, van basten, mang glider, itstime, nomad23

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site