2008 - Choose Al Gore's Running Mate.

There are a lot of good reasons to push Al Gore into the '08 race. This diary is meant to check the pulse of the DKOS community about who we would like to see as Al Gore's running mate. Lots of choices - quick rundown and chance to vote after the break.

Hillary - Going to be running, and will have a loyal following (and a motivated opposition) if Al Gore beats her in the primary, having her as VP would capture her popularity, and probably wouldn't motivate the anti-Hillary faction nearly as much as if she were the presidential candidate. Also a good way to get Bill Clinton back in the White House on a regular basis. Those who are not ready for to vote for a woman president might have a much easier time voting for a woman VP.

General Wesley Clark - top notch security credentials, easily credible as a guy who could help Iraq be as small a disaster as possible. As VP the political inexperience seems less problematic, as everyone would assume foreign policy would be his focus.

John Kerry - may well be stuck in Iraq joke-land, but perhaps the wingers made such a big deal in part to dent his ambitions for 2008 (the wingers obviously wanted the distraction in the days before the '06 voting). I think he would have done fine, but suspect others are, as I am, unenthused.

Tom Vilsack - may well parlay Iowa connections to a strong primary start and enough recognition to be a VP contender. Strong education policy credentials, which is a good VP portfolio.

John Edwards - stellar speechmaking, and telegenic as hell. Not very strong on security, but great on issues of domestic policy - particularly fair trade, racial and class divisions - which are also great VP portfolio issues

Russ Feingold - Great integrity, strong anti-corruption credentials. Seen as so liberal that he'd shield Al Gore from that right wing critique.

Bill Richardson - Would help to bring the South West and Mountain states, and would be the first Hispanic in the office.

Barack Obama - Wildly popular recently, perhaps too young to be a realistic candidate for President, but brings so much energy to the ticket that he seems a top contender for VP

Mark Warner - could probably carry Virginia's 13 electoral votes. Popular governor. Credible and often discussed as running.

Somebody else - say who in comments, and make your case.

•  Lieberman, of course

  If you want to repeat the pathetic presidential candidacy of a washed-up has-been, why not go all the way and run the same running-mate again too?  It's insane to want to nominate Gore, but if you really want to make a mistake, you should get the details right and repeat it faithfully.

  by clyde on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:28:13 PM PDT

  •  What's insane about Gore?

    Could you warrant that please?  

    You say he is a "washed-up has-been" but I disagree.  His global warming movie and his candid outspoken-ness against Bush on issues like the Iraq War makes him fresh-news.  

    Nixon came back and won the presidency after losing to JFK in 1960.  Why couldn't Gore do it?  He didn't have any major flaws except people didn't find it exciting.  Gore has proven the last 8 years that he can be exciting, and I sincerely think Gore has learned his lesson.  He is now super-primed to run a presidential campaign.

    by Tetris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:34:51 PM PDT

    •  when Nixon won the presidency

      he actually took office.  Gore won the presidency and then failed to get inaugurated.  Now that's incompetence.  And of course, that the election was so close at all was because of how bad his campaign sucked.  But he also sucked as VP, so it all evens out.

      Nothing against Gore's movie.  He is much better at making movies than he was at politics, so he should stick with making movies and stay out of politics.

      by clyde on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:40:40 PM PDT

      •  er..

        he failed to get inaugurated because of the supreme court. we don't need to go through that again.

        and his movie (one, singular) is about persuading policy. which is ..  politics.

        by fivefouranonymous on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:44:38 PM PDT

        •  you are absolutely right that

          we don't need to do that again.  Repeating the same action and expecting to get a different result is the definition of insanity.  Nominating Gore again would be insane.

          by clyde on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:49:07 PM PDT

          •  Your argument is wrong.

            If everything in 2008 was exactly as it was in 2000, then yes nominating Gore again would be stupid or even insane.  

            But nominating Gore in 2008 is NOT repeating the same action as nominating Gore in 2000.  The only thing the same is the noun and the verb, but the story they appear in are completely different.

            by Tetris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:54:55 PM PDT

            •  I disagree: Everything changed after 9/11. n/t

              by ImpeachKingBushII on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:18:02 PM PDT

              •  Yes, the country was hijacked on a PNAC agenda!

                People are starting to wake up to that.  That's what changed.  

                Gore would be the perfect candidate to get us back on track of thsoe terrible fiscally responsible Clinton years(!) with the added populisst for the people touch to undo NAFTA, Telcom deregulation of the Media, Supine Court, CAFTA, Medicare poison pills, environmental damage, etc., etc., etc.!!!

                by FightTheFuture on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:54:28 AM PDT

                •  My diaries tell you how I feel about Herr Bushn/t

                  by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:09:48 AM PDT

                  •  Great! But, what does that have to do w/Gore

                    running again?  I had the impresson, by whom yuo responded to, that you did not agree with that.  Or were you just adding on to the concensus that things are different now and Gore running would not be repeating the same thing as 2000?

                    by FightTheFuture on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 10:20:05 AM PDT

                    •  Gore doesn't have to waste time defending...

                      ...or running away from Clinton's indiscretions or proving that he's his own man like 2000. We can judge Gore on Gore not on Clinton. I think this professor has learned a hell of a lot from the "class". The repubs have a lot more to worry about: the war, the deficit, the shredding of the Bill of Rights, War Crimes, and taking the side of Big Money, Big Oil, and Big Corporations, and throwing the American worker under the bus.
                       We Dems have a most advantageous position in '08 no matter who runs. This presidency is ours to lose.

                      by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:18:38 PM PDT

                      •  I agree, thanks for the clarification. That said

                        the repugs will be doing everything they can to float the meme of the Dems can't fix anything, they are messing up more, etc.  All the crap they have launched, especially with trade imbalances, deficit spending, and infecting our government and judiciary is hitting the fan and will be coming back to us.  

                        The Dems have a lot of education to do and I only see that happening if the progressive wing of the party gets its voice heard over the DLC/Lobbyists.  I would not be surprised if Lieberman lays low so the MSM can resurrect his hideous persona as the voice of "centrists Dems" once again.

                        By the time 2008 rolls around, it will matter who the Dems run as president.  I suspect some clear choices will be in the offing, and I hope and pray for us all that it is a more progressive candidate who speaks truth to power, like a Gore, and not some DLC Corporate whore trying to make some mark in history for their own vanity.

                        Frankly, unless the Dems also address the voting issues and chuck the machines, PERIOD. It may not matter anyway.

                        Interesting times.

                        by FightTheFuture on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:49:50 AM PDT

          •  translation

            you are supporting someone else you are declining to name.

            by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:02:59 PM PDT

            •  Might it start with an H...

              ...and end with a Clinton?

              by nehark on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:52:29 PM PDT

              •  I have not decline to name anyone

                see here.

                by clyde on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:10:55 AM PDT

                •  OK, I checked your link

                  and I simply do not think James Traficant is a viable candidate.

                  by Major Danby on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 03:03:28 AM PDT

                  •  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    Beam me up! out of the joint.......

                    by kestrel9000 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:46:59 AM PDT

                •  glad to see you're being realistic

                  pie in the sky isn't really a good debate tactic here.   thanks for playing.

                  by tlh lib on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 03:32:47 AM PDT

                  •  OK, then.....

                    is there somebody out there named Gonzola, or maybe Bachev, that we could get?
                    There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns.

                    by kestrel9000 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:29:28 AM PDT

                    •  Rumsfeld on Acid

                      Known Unknowns

                      A Mike Malloy Classic

                      gotta love that shit

                      by tlh lib on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:35:27 AM PDT

                  •  I am completely serious

                    about a draft Dean movement.  If we're talking about pie in the sky candidates, we can do even better: see here.

                    I just do not understand this personality cult around Gore.  This whole notion of "choosing his running mate" presupposes he is the nominee, which, suffice it to say, some of us think is a dumb idea.  Gore shouldn't have even been nominated in 2000, but he was more or less anointed by being the incumbent VP, and got only token opposition (from Bradley).

                    Really though, at this point in most recent election cycles where there were contested Dem presidential primaries, there were front-runners who all later faded and got knocked out by an unknown who came out of the woodwork.  Nobody had heard of Carter or Clinton two years before their election.  Dean emerged in pretty much the same way, though Kerry managed to climb back out of the shadow due to the other candidates' circular firing squad in Iowa.  Kerry of course went on to run yet another suicidal campaign in the Dukakis-Mondale-Gore tradition, losing the general election.

                    by clyde on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:17:09 AM PDT

          •  if you honestly think that the Al Gore

            who ran in 2000 is the same Al Gore of the past few years then you're not paying attention in the least bit.   of course, the "honestly" part is crucial to that statement.

            nominating gore in 2008 would not in the least bit be "repeating a failed action" as you are claiming.  in fact, what you are saying is not even in the same ballpark as reality.

            by tlh lib on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:55:27 PM PDT

            •  Absolutely. See the movie, people!

              People who haven't seen Gore's recent environmental movie, An Inconvenient Truth, need to bite their tongues before judging him.

              The movie itself was, for me, an inconvenient truth about Al Gore, whom I had tended to write off. I completely changed my opinion about him, and I am much more open to a 2008 candidacy. He just might be a winner -- give him a chance.

              But please, see the movie! (The global environment message it contains is killer, too!)

              by pat208 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:12:25 AM PDT

          •  Here.

            

            by nehark on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:56:21 PM PDT

            •  Hey!

              So THAT'S who stole my fucking garden gnome!

              by kestrel9000 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:32:10 AM PDT

      •  Response.

        Gore did run a bad campaign in 2000.

        That said, I think he has atoned for his sins.  Iraq!  I mean, the conventional wisdom in DC was "vote for Iraq... Bush is popular and you don't want to look weak on terror!"  Gore was one of the few who did not drink the kool aid.  That alone is enough for atonement.

        Add to that his credentials (senator and VP amongst others) and a very unpopular president Bush and I think we have a winning candidate who has integrity!

        by Tetris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:52:41 PM PDT

        •  Gore didn't run a bad campaign

          He trailed by double digits all of 1999 from Clinton scandal and fatigue.

          He got hit my media spins and smears in mid 1999 that kept continuing till election day.

          Beginning 2000, he started getting atacked by radical leftwingers (who took out their grudges against Clinton's DLC centrism on Gore) which culminated in the serious Nader factor later in the year.

          Gore entered the convention down by 16 points (in the CBS poll released then), and pulled out a popular vote victory on election day, and almost certainly an electoral college as well.

          By any objective measure, that's a good performance against strong odds.

          Please see the links in my comment below for tons of data supporting and corraborating this assessment.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:07:36 PM PDT

          •  Gore made Bush look like one of those kids...

            ...he was reading to in that classroom on 9/11. He decisively won the debates [my opinion] and this professor took the fraternity brother to school on many points. Gore wouldn't have us at war right now and be scaring the bejesus out of our friends and catalyzing our enemies to seek anti-Bush nuclear deterrents to his Pre-Emptive 1st Strike Doctrine. I don't see Gore EVER giving the rich massive tax cuts they never needed. He'll protect the working families, bring sanity to a healthcare system on life support and balance the budget. Remember, Clinton/Gore left Bush a hefty surplus before we put a blank check in his hand after 9/11. And finally I don't think Gore would have stomped on the Bill of Rights like Bush and his neo-cons have.
            If he runs he gets my support.

            by ImpeachKingBushII on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:28:45 PM PDT

            •  I agree with you on the debates

              Many people took to MSM's post-debate spins on of how the debates went, but I personally turned into a strong supporter of Gore precisely because of what he said and I saw in the debates.

              by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:41:49 PM PDT

          •  'the radical left'

            You state that he got attacked by radical leftwingers for his alleged DLC centrism, but the fact was, upto that point, he  didn't do much to prove otherwise.  He was a DLC Dem and ran as a centrist for most of his political career, so what were people to assume?

            I realize that it's sort of past the point of relevence in addressing, but I think there's a fair amount of spite and vitriol spewed at people who weren't exactly 'in the fold' as far as Gore in 2000. I think some people want to view things through the prism of the past 6 years and paint a revisionist history of the 2000 campaign, but the simple fact was Gore's campaign was not exactly exciting the base and he ran a very lackluster campaign.

            I think the biggest failure was simply not addressing people who were voting for Nader.  At no point did the Gore campaign ever really address their concerns to try to pull them into the fold.  Instead what you got was a lot of pouting about Nader 'stealing votes' which only reinforced the idea that the Democratic leadership took a large chunk of it's base for granted.  You have to earn peoples' votes and address them.  Insulting peoples' intelligence just doesn't cut it.  

            I'll go on the record though, and state that I'd fully support a Gore candidacy in 2008 based on his actions and words in the past 6 years.  I think we've gotten a better glimpse of Gore and where he really stands now that he doesn't have a bunch of consultants standing around him trying to primp him to what they think is 'electable'.  I think he's done enough to shed his DLC centrist image to garner a lot more respect from those who weren't enthused with his candidacy the first time around.

            by gavin on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:22:09 AM PDT

            •  I am afraid a lot of people fell for the spins

              of Nader and rightwing (sometimes those spins were the same, actually, and makes me suspect if Rove masterminded the whole leftwing attack as well).

              ((i am not proof-reading this comment because I am really exhausted))

              Some envioronmentalists (including some very prominent ones) actually went ahead and declared that Bush would be a better choice than Gore for environmental purposes. That's mind-boggling for any intelligent person to conclude, even as things stood in 2000.

              Others "radical leftists" kept harassing him at one campaign appearance after another on stupid, minute and ridiculous charges that bore little to no substance.

              This stuff kind of started with the Bradley campaign and then got passed onto the Nader campaign.

              I am afraid that many Nader supporters fell for the spins and failed to see the Real Al Gore, who cared about many of the same issues as much as he does now. As an example, I would like to suggest watching this ad on global warming Ad. Please see couple of related videos here.

              And please see my detailed comments on the Nader factor in 2000.

              You state that he got attacked by radical leftwingers for his alleged DLC centrism, but the fact was, upto that point, he  didn't do much to prove otherwise.  He was a DLC Dem and ran as a centrist for most of his political career, so what were people to assume?

              Gore ran on a populist platform "people, not the powerful". Themes from his convention and the ad above, the debates  (please check the second to see how passionate he was about the environment and global warming) all made perfect sense in a progressive and populist framework.

              Why weren't these sufficient. IMO, that's because people were clouded in their perception of him precisely because of the spins coming from Nader's campaign and the Bush campaign. You probably know that Republicans were running ads of Nader attackign Gore in OR and WA hammering away at Gore in places which were supposed to be easy states to win.

              2000 was a circus of an election, and unfortunately, many people were not diligent enough to separate fact from fiction (of there was too much of). Please see links below.

              Thanks.

              by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 03:07:07 AM PDT

            •  Gore did not...

              run as a DLC'er in '00 though. He ran a very populist campaign.

              I think the biggest failure was simply not addressing people who were voting for Nader.

              I somewhat agree but I'm not sure what else Gore could have done to woo their vote. Gore was an strong environmentalist since the 1980s and pushed hard for Kyoto as VP. Greens should have looked at his record and just knew he would be better on the environment than Bush.
              The Greens fell for the spin by Nader and the media that Gore=Bush and there would be no difference. I somewhat fell for it throughout the early primary, I supported Bradley and was pissed Gore beat Bradley. Then in the general I listened and liked what Nader was saying but I was in Michigan a swing state and ended up voting Gore. It was easy to fall for the Bore-Gush media onslaught and spin, but in the end I knew Gore was a hell of lot better than Bush and I cant imagine why anyone from close states like Florida, Ohio, New Mexico would pull the lever for Nader.

              by pharoah on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:39:26 AM PDT

      •  two clicks away from troll...

        ...or "concern troll" if that term means what I think it does.  

        The item about "incompetence", considering that Gore was faced with an unprecedented full-court press by the Bushies to steal an election by any means possible, was the clue.

        by G2geek on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:53:24 PM PDT

        •  unprecedented?

          Were you asleep during the Clinton impeachment?

          by clyde on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:54:30 PM PDT

          •  Oh come on.

            How was Gore supposed to run a campaign assuming that George Bush, Katherine Harris, the SCOTUS and who the hell else knows would conspire to prevent Gore from winning the election?  

            If Gore ran his campaign calculating that outcome I would think he was insane.

            by Tetris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:58:26 PM PDT

            •  no, he was insane to NOT expect that

              Clinton won not one but two elections, and both by double-digit margins, and the Republicans tried to steal that.  Gore had the same opportunity as the rest of us to see the criminality that he was up against.  It simply didn't register on him, because he didn't know the difference between politics and Sunday school.  

              Gore also saw Harris in action in the first nights after the election, and that didn't register either.  Jeffrey Toobin's book "Too Close to Call" is a pretty good summary of what happened and anyone remotely thinking of supporting Gore should certainly read it.  But for those of us who followed the contest minute by minute in real time, no retrospective like that can possibly reproduce the endless screams of agony from Gore's supporters every time he pulled another error.  And no it wasn't the SCOTUS, that came at the end of dozens of court cases which he lost almost all of, and even an important one that he "won" (got what he asked for) but he asked for the wrong thing.

              It just baffles me what anyone sees in the guy as a pres. candidate.  He's a nice guy and all, but it was like watching Ned Flanders vs. the Mafia.

              by clyde on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:07:14 PM PDT

          •  i was the one who coined the phrase

            Sexual McCarthyism.  (and I can prove it, though that would be a self-outing, which I'm not going to do)

            Aside from which, raising the Clinton impeachment is a red herring.  

            You still haven't operationalized your variables.  You're still making assertions and justifying them by restating them in slightly different language.

            How'bout tell us what's really on your mind?  

            by G2geek on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:10:49 PM PDT

            •  What, you're Alan Dershowitz? nt

              The Music Room.

              by madhaus on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:14:16 PM PDT

              •  he came after, not before.

                I planted the meme online and a short while later it started appearing in the media.  It came out in USA Today, Newsweek, and a few other places.  

                Dershowitz' book came out after all of that.

                In his book he attributes it to some conversation over dinner somewhere.  For all I know that may be correct, or he may have gotten it from the media.  It was after all an obvious meme, one that suggested itself.  But I was first, and I don't make assertions of that nature unless they're correct.

                I don't care about getting footnoted for it, I prefer to do political work "in the background," for the most part on the tech & intel side.  The point of my mentioning Sexual McCarthyism here was not to score points (and after all, the meme ultimately fell flat and Clinton was impeached), but to rebut an earlier comment that was just flat out silly.

                by G2geek on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 12:17:20 AM PDT

                •  I've done that myself

                  I'll use some clever phrase online and a couple of weeks later some big shot is using it in a column.

                  I hate that.

                  Weirdest of all was getting my own original joke sent to me by one of those "hey, I'm going to send this funny thing out to 1000 of my closest friends" type things.  Yeah, with my name scraped off it but enough DNA to prove I wrote it.

                  And as for silly comments, they're self-rebutting, no?

                  The Music Room.

                  by madhaus on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 12:36:43 AM PDT

                  •  you should be pleased,

                    it means you're making an impact.

                    by tovan on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 01:05:58 AM PDT

                  •  proves a point about the bigshots...

                    ...very often they are merely "borrowing" stuff they get elsewhere but without attribution, to make themselves look smart and clever.  It's a form of plagiarism.  Or perhaps in this era, theft of intellectual property.

                    OTOH, it satisfies me to see my memes in circulation even if I don't get credit for them.  "Sexual McCarthyism" was an obvious one; there are plenty of others afoot.  

                    Planting memes and watching them grow & spread is just plain fun regardless of credit or attribution or whatever.  

                    by G2geek on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 01:07:02 AM PDT

                    •  Well, that's true too

                      While it's nice to smile to yourself and think, yeah, that's mine, cool to see it everywhere, it's really annoying when people ask if you're quoting someone else who took it from you.

                      The Music Room.

                      by madhaus on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 01:24:04 AM PDT

                      •  yeah that's for sure

                        "Oh you got that from  so-and-so."
                        "No, so-and-so got that from me!"

                        Yeah, happens frequently.  As in the item that got this thread going.  

                        What's more annoyning by a country mile, is when you are trying to tell something to someone and they refuse to believe it's true because they haven't seen an example in their own lives.  Generically, "It's snowing and the snow storm is headed your way."  "No, the sky is sunny, you're just imaginging things..." and then the next day "Hoo-boy, just got in from shoveling a foot of snow off the walk...." but never an admission that you'd predicted it.  

                        For this we have tons of examples from the economy to the climate crisis.  Anyone here who's GenX will recognize the skepticism they first heard from their families about the difficulties of finding a decent job after college when the economy was in the toilet.  Anyone here will recognize the item about "fair and balanced" coverage of the climate crisis.  

                        Humans are like this: thinking that the future will be like the past and present only more so.  Are we ever in for a surprise in the next 20 years.

                        by G2geek on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:27:55 PM PDT

                  •  Same thing happened with me....

                    ...and "catch a buzz" in 1969. <sigh>

                    I'm still waiting for another gem of mine, "wig stand" (a superficial female devoted to her appearance) to take off.

                    On "butt wind", I think I was just part of a synchronicity, as opposed to being ripped off.

                    Watch out, though, for "ankle twister" (the female lead in an adventure pic), it's getting a bit of traction.

                    by labradog on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:31:28 AM PDT

                    •  No one will admit

                      that I came up with "Many are cold, but few are frozen."

                      The Music Room.

                      by madhaus on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:19:09 PM PDT

            •  operationalized?

              I don't know that word.  It seems to me that you're also going around in circles.

              As for what's on my mind, Gore sucks, there's not much more on my mind than that.  He chose Lieberman as VP because the two of them were soul mates.  He's since departed from Lieberman's views on various policy issues, and that's a good thing, but that's all debating society stuff, his basic personality is still the same as before, and not right for a presidential candidate.  I'll even say maybe Gore was a good Senator, deliberative and all that (Adlai Stevenson didn't get elected president either).  But we didn't need a deliberator running for president, we needed a gang buster, and he wasn't one.

              by clyde on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:18:12 PM PDT

              •  operationalizing: spelling-out the How

                For example in general research methodology, to operationalize a variable is to spell out in essence how it can be measured.  

                This is also an area that's fraught with potential for error.

                For example, you want to test a new medication, so you operationalize dosage as milligrams taken orally.  Oops.  What you should really do first is operationalize it in terms of detectable levels in the bloodstream, or at least try to measure a relationship between oral disage in milligrams and detectable levels in the bloodstream.

                Otherwise you run the risk of your research subjects taking their pills on full stomach, empty stomach, etc. randomly and thereby screwing up your dose/response curves.  The cleanest dose/response data would compare measurable levels in the bloodstream with medical outcomes.  Then searately you look at oral dosage vs. blood levels to make adjustments in the dosage per pill or the instructions the pharmacist should give patients to take the medicine correctly.  

                As applied to politics, operationalizing refers to spelling out the causal or other links that answer the "how" question.  We can say we want to increase voter turnout; we might operationalize that in terms of a strategy to move election day to the Monday after Veterans' day, provide same-day registration at the polling places, and so on.  Each of those can in turn be further operationalized.  At some point one gets down to a fine detail level, for example setting out the criteria for compiling the relevant track-records of Representative and Senators.

                And as it turns out, you've answered the question by saying that you have a gut feeling that "Gore sucks."  OK, that's a valid opinion, though most of us in this diary disagree.  

                by G2geek on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 12:31:30 AM PDT

                •  OK, I may try to write a diary

                  spelling out how Gore sucks.  Basically he respected the system too much, which in the context of the Clinton impeachment made it obvious that he was an absolute fool.  He never could understand how to break the fourth wall the way that Clinton and Dean and the Republicans did.  His pres. campaign was terrible (I think we agree on that) and his handling of the post-election contest was inept (I've given a few examples but you're best off reading the book I mentioned, then going into the various court filings if you're a masochist like I was during that period).  From his VP days, he still has the 1996 Telecommunications Act (handed control of the media over to Republicans), NAFTA, and the Clipper Chip to answer for.  And the clip from Fahrenheit 911 of his refusing to let the CBC contest the FL 2000 electoral vote in January 2001 should be watched 100 or so times by everyone here.  As a candidate, it's not just that he made errors (everyone does that), but his personality was completely inappropriate for what the job required.  He needed to be the kind of guy capable of ripping Bush's throat out with his teeth.  Dean comes across like that (I saw him in person several times) and even Kerry had his moments.  Gore never had it.

                  by clyde on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 01:05:15 AM PDT

                  •  that was then; now is now

                    But that was then and the 2000 campaign was then and now is now.

                    The Clipper Chip item did not thrill me at the time.  I was working on crypto back in the early 1980s, when the average person thought "cryptology" was the study of writings on the walls of Egyptian tombs.  I know one of the people who developed PGP and a bunch of the people who fought for it through hell & high water.  Many of them today support Gore, and none of them as far as I know holds a grudge against him for Clipper.

                    If you don't think the guy has changed, you haven't been looking. He's not going to run with another SoreLoserMan.  He's not going to kowtow to the consultants.  He's not going to back down if someone tries to steal the election.

                    And meanwhile, who are you supporting and what are they planning to do about the climate crisis in the next ten years?

                    BTW, go for the anti-Gore diary, I'll be more than happy to drop in and sound off if I see it before it scrolls.  

                    by G2geek on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:18:56 PM PDT

      •  How did...

        Gore suck as VP?

        by pharoah on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:27:08 AM PDT

  •  Gore insane versus???

    Hillary has 45% right away that won't vote for her.  Obama, kiss goodbye all of the south and a lot of moderate voters who are going to say "how much experience...?"  Then, you have Warner...but wait, he's dropped out.  Then you have Richardson who the Repugs would have a field day, with his "resume".  For those who forgot about that, he never was a minor league ballplayer.  Feingold...you might as well nominate Nancy Pelosi, as any comparisons would show her to be more conservative.  Then, you have Vilsack, who is reviled by many in the blogisphere.  Kerry?  I don't even need to start out on that one.  Clark?  I wonder?  Biden?  Joe "Visa" friggin Biden...no thank you!  Joe SoreLoserman?  If we don't call him that, the Repugs will and have all that footage of Fla in 2000!  God, can you see a phony "bi-partisan ticket" with Michael Bloomberg?  Now there's an ugly picture!  Edwards?  I wasn't thrilled by his debate performance with Cheney, as I felt he should have nailed Cheney to the barn door.  What does that lead us?  Gephart?  Daschle?  No, let's not go back there.

    Seems to me that Gore would be the best choice.

    by Russron on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:48:07 PM PDT

    •  Dang.

      Everybody's got some kind of baggage.

      Can't we come up with a nominee created by some kind of committee and produced in a factory like sausage?

      Then we might have someone who can kick the Rethugs back to the sorry dark evil planet they came from.

      Just where are we going to find the Dalai Lama's child successor, fed by goats, educated by consultants, but liberated by a lifetime in the trenches with ordinary folk?

      I don't the hell know.

      For the record, I'm on the fence about Gore and just about all the main contenders. But I sure think we shouldn't have rosy glasses, it helps to be realistic about all of them.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:00:07 AM PDT

      •  why are you going around uprating the

        obvious troll clyde?

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 03:20:55 AM PDT

        •  Why I uprated Clyde

          First, I see nothing trollish in his diaries and comment history.

          If they are, point it out to me & I will remove my recommends on him.

          Second, I felt people were troll rating him just for disagreeing about the viability of Gore as a candidate. I thought he brought up valid points, as did everybody pro-Gore here.

          In the interest of fairness, I uprated him.

          by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:56:46 PM PDT

          •  Not Trollish except on this thread

            This diary is pretty obviously for those of us who DO like the idea of a Gore candidacy to see who's the most popular VP candidate IN THE CONTEXT OF GORE AS PRESIDENT. Clyde, having once registered his entirely valid opinion that Gore should not be on the ticket, really had nothing else to contribute, and should have left us Gore fans in peace.

            The reason I don't think it's too premature to talk about 08 candidates is that Gore still needs to be convinced to run, whereas most other candidates are already lining up commitments in Iowa.

            by AikidoPilgrim on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:09:53 PM PDT

            •  I understand the protocol

              I think you should have expressed that to him instead of asking for troll ratings.

              He is not a troll, he brought up good points. If inappropriate for a Gore celebration circle, then tell him so and ask him to let you all have a good time and not rain on the parade.

              by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:22:36 PM PDT

  •  Bullshit

    Gore won the election despite long odds including

    1. Clinton's BJ and impeachment

    2. Media smearing him day in and day out

    3. Nader hitting from the left hard

    To  the Reader: Here is a collection of resources that address many of the spins and urban legends spun by trolls like the commenter above.

    On the 2000 election:

    1. Election 2000 overview, 11/02/2000, By Stuart Rothenberg/CNN.

    2. Gore won Florida: democrats.com analysis.

    3. 2000 election: A summary, by NeuvoLiberal, Aug 18, 2006.

    4. Unfavorite son
       , by Jake Tapper, May 30, 2000 (on the dynamic in TN in 2000)

    5. Bush camp displaying 'tempered' confidence, By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 10/24/2000 (a window into the final weeks of the race)

    6. On the 'Nader factor' in the 2000 election, by NeuvoLiberal, Oct 26, 2006

    by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:00:31 PM PDT

    •  Not to mention ...

      ... that a lot of people who voted for Bush in 2000 seriously wish they could take that back.  Give them the opportunity to atone by voting for Gore, and many will.

      by scientist on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 12:40:11 AM PDT

  •  2000 Showed the glaring weakness of the...

    ...Electoral College system:

    Why does the Electoral College trump us?
    ...I voted in the last 9 presidential elections and while I have nothing personally against my "state electors" WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? Really. Who are these people that decide who my president is? Why do I as one who is a highly educated-and competent adult, a prolific political activist, a well-read knowledgeable historian, an author, and an accomplished inventor NEED AN ELECTOR [or anyone else] to look over my shoulder and second guess me? All of the 3 million voters who were in the plurality who voted for Gore in 2000 were in fact TRUMPED by these electors who like I said before: I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE! And frankly I don't want to know you. I do know that I don't want you disenfranchising me anymore!

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:11:18 PM PDT

    •  You may be a higly literate voter

      but not all of them are, hence the electoral college.  It is a check and balance on the possibility of uninformed mob rule.

      And it served pretty well at that until legislation started fiddling with its' purpose.

      by skippythebox on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:53:13 AM PDT

      •  As opposed to the brownshirts ruling now? n/t

        by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:11:48 AM PDT

        •  like I said it has been fiddled with

          remember it was the electoral college and an elector voting THEIR conscience that gave us JFK and not Nixon.

          Sometimes it works, and sometimes it bites you in the ass, such is the way of things

          by skippythebox on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:09:34 AM PDT

          •  You know after the 2000 election freak show...

            ...I read everything I could get my hands on about the Electoral College and thoroughly examined both sides of the argument FOR and AGAINST direct election of the president. And you know what? It reminded me of the medievil feudal system whereby the king rewarded the lords, knights, etc. with titles and deeds. In our revolution our founding fathers risked everything they owned rebelling against our first King George. I can't help but think that they decided to "put a finger on the scale" to reward themselves. Have you noticed that the richest states have the most electors? I'll write a diary on this and thoroughly present this argument. Can't do it justice here.

            by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:59:27 AM PDT

            •  the richest states are the most populace

              the larger the population the more representatives you have in congress and therefore the more electors.  More to reflect the will of the majority then will of the rich.

              by skippythebox on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 09:37:46 PM PDT

  •  Uh... Gore won in 2000, idiot! Hammer that!

    • Gore's Victory By Robert Parry
    • Not That It Was Reported, but Gore Won
    • So Bush Did Steal the White House By Robert Parry
    • The Media Cover-Up of The Gore Victory  
    • FAIR's analysis of the media coverup of that fact is here.
    • The Media Cover-up of the Gore Victory

    by FightTheFuture on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:48:40 AM PDT

  •  Oh, give it up, Mike Gravel!

    Stop tearing down Al Gore; you haven't got a chance!

    by Major Danby on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 03:01:26 AM PDT

  •  Hey troll,

    your contemptuous and self-contradictory Gore-bashing tirade here, upon close examination, points to one of these three possibilities about you:

    1. you're a Republican troll,

    2. you're on drugs or alcohol addiction, or

    3. you're in need of psycho therapy

    I pick Republican troll.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:01:45 AM PDT

    •  UID 253

      is a troll, according to 54442.
      Wow.

      by kestrel9000 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:27:19 AM PDT

      •  actually, a while back

        there was this thing about people popping up with very low UIDs for whatever reason. some of them were trolls.

        I hope you were snarking. If not, if you read his arguments closely, you will see the obvious trollishness (and much self-contradaction) of things he was rambling on.

        But if you know for a fact that he isn't a troll, then there is something strange at play.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:33:05 AM PDT

        •  Just because someone

          expresses an unpopular opinion doesn't make them a troll......

          by kestrel9000 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:45:08 AM PDT

          •  i am sorry you're missing my point

            I went thruogh everything he wrote, actually drafted a long reply and during that process found serious lack of coherence and some strong contradictions in what he was saying, which promoted me to conclude that he is a troll. I was too exhaused to post the long response but instead posted my brief opinion of his commentary.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:49:49 AM PDT

            •  OK

              fair enough.

              by kestrel9000 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:20:59 AM PDT

  •  This comment

    irritating though it may be, should not have been troll rated.
    Rec'd for that reason and that reason ONLY.

    by kestrel9000 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:25:23 AM PDT

•  Thank You!

  ...for another Gore diary.  

  I REALLY want Gore in.  Currently I support Edwards, but if Gore jumps in he is my guy!

  He came out against the Iraq War immediately, despite the political ramifications (Bush was at something like 80% approval).  He has hit an especially strong stride since 2000 in my opinion.  He has the integrity, experience, intelligence, and electability that NO OTHER CANDIDATE THIS CYCLE HAS.  

  Iraq will be the BIGGEST ASSET to Democrats in 2008... why squandor that with a flip flopper like Kerry, HRC, or John Edwards if it can be avoided?  

  Obama and Clark were anti-war, but their general lack of experience (campaign-wise and policy-wise) is a major downside to their presidential bids (but would make them great picks as a VP).  We don't want an amateur running a presidential campaign OR our nation, do we?  

  Draft Gore!  Draft Gore!  Draft Gore!!!

  by Tetris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:31:28 PM PDT

  •  This could be the start of a whole genre

    of Gore diaries:

    • Choose Al Gore's Secretary of State!
    • Choose Al Gore's Attorney General!
    • Choose Al Gore's Deputy Secretary of Defense!

    Once we have the whole package put together for him, he'll just have to run!

    by Abou Ben Adhem on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:02:08 PM PDT

    •  And we won't stop there

      We're going to write up all the indictments for him to have Attorney General Clinton pursue within 100 minutes of the Inaugural.

      The Music Room.

      by madhaus on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:17:38 PM PDT

      •  which Clinton for AG ? n/t

        by murphy on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:26:02 PM PDT

        •  Does it matter? nt

          The Music Room.

          by madhaus on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 12:13:32 AM PDT

        •  Bill of course

          I really think that he may be the better lawyer of the two plus he has experience at the gig.

          by skippythebox on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:54:20 AM PDT

          •  two words: confirmation hearings n/t

            by raines on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:48:58 AM PDT

            •  two words Democratic congress n/t

              by skippythebox on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:10:13 AM PDT

      •  I was thinking Spitzer for AG

        and the Clintons for Secretaries of State and Health/Human Services...

        by Abou Ben Adhem on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:29:35 PM PDT

        •  Nah, Spitzer needs a few years as Governor

          Then Senator.
          Then President in 2016.

          The Music Room.

          by madhaus on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 12:14:21 AM PDT

    •  Well then Gore he doesn't need anybody but us

      if we've picked his cabinet.

      Course if he picks a different cabinet, hope you won't get upset.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:02:04 AM PDT

  •  Gore and Edwards, too funny

    Let's at least nominate someone capable of winning their home state. Gore will make a great Secy of the Interior, Edwards will be fine as Secy of Health and Human Services. I have a lot more faith that Wes Clark could win Arkansas, than either of those guys winning their home states. Of course you can keep hoping the Repugs nominate Michael Steele for president, but I'd be more than happy to book a bet that won't happen.

    by jhecht on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:12:35 AM PDT

    •  If Tennessee's electoral votes are so important

      I guess we'll need to run someone to the right of Ford...

      by Abou Ben Adhem on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 10:03:15 AM PDT

      •  It's not about the electoral votes

        It's about the message it sends when your own state doesn't support you.

        by jhecht on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 10:10:16 AM PDT

        •  That would explain why Bush

          moved from Connecticut to Texas...

          I guess you'd support Gore if he moved to California?

          by Abou Ben Adhem on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 10:20:11 AM PDT

  •  It is time for the adults to take over.

    We have had enough of the kids, they broke it and now the adults in the room have to fix it.

    Go Gore!!!!!

    by pinkhardhat on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:40:09 AM PDT

•  A Military Ticket

  Gore/Clark: although I don't believe that it is imperatve for the Commander-in-Chief and VP to be Veterans, given the low state of affairs and War on Terra blowback that our current Fool in Chief has bequeathed us, I think the fact that both Al and Wesley served would set them up as 'Responsible Adults' who could reassure us and our armed forces with 'strength but temperence.' The psychological component should not be discounted.

  by Uthaclena on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:35:55 PM PDT

  •  yes yes yes!

    "A military ticket."  Exactly.  

    Clark is the warrior's warrior, whose experience is exactly what's needed to dig us out of the Iraq mess.   And the righties would have a hell of a time arguing against a retired General.   "Why do the soldiers hate America? whine whine...."

    Back in the 70s, 75% of Congress had military experience.  Today it's down to 25% and it shows.  

    Principled pacifism is acceptable as a rationale for having not served.  But the present crew are not that; what they are is a disgrace.  The boots on the ground have nicknames for 'em:  The Deserter-in-Chief, and Five-Deferment Dick.  

    Suggestion for Gore & Clark:  Don't go overboard as Kerry did at the DNC; the righties were able to spin that against him.  Just say it quietly and with much gravity:  "We served our country, we will demonstrate our respect for the men & women in uniform through concrete actions, and we will bring Iraq to the best conclusion possible."  

    Who else on the Republican side has credentials much less credibility with the military?   Colin Powell, yes, and he's gone dissident.  Someone like a General Odom, but he went dissident long ago.  (Seriously: we need a discussion about who the Rs might run, to critique their track records.)  

    by G2geek on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:06:14 PM PDT

    •  McCain and Rumsfield

      by oculus on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:29:08 PM PDT

      •  Yes, and the moderators

        of the debates would get to ask them, "Are you still alive?"

        by LithiumCola on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:41:26 PM PDT

        •  That's what I'm thinking about Gates.

          by oculus on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:43:20 PM PDT

      •  "Come into my parlor" said the spider to the fly:

        I've acticipated the repub McCain/[no name here] move and trust me he'll wish he was back in A-6s dodging SAMs [or in the Hanoi Hilton's pain amplifier] when we get through with him. I'm ready for anyone the repubs throw at us. In the words of our Decider, "Bring it on!"

        by ImpeachKingBushII on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:56:17 PM PDT

        •  Are you channeling the Governator tonight?

          by oculus on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 12:29:11 AM PDT

        •  McCain was a Skyhawk driver

          He flew A-4's not Intruders.

          by darwinsjoke on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 02:19:52 AM PDT

          •  Note taken: I thought he said Intruders! n/t

            by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:06:14 AM PDT

    •  Clark's biggest advantage as VP is the mess

      the neo-cons have created in the military.  I'm afraid we're going to need someone who knows the ins and outs of the Pentagon to clean it up.  Or even start cleaning it up.  And that includes digging out the bad and the black.

      by tovan on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 01:25:22 AM PDT

•  Obamarama

  Gore/Obama is a winning ticket!

  by MakeChessNotWar on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:36:36 PM PDT

  •  Gorebamarama

    = )

    by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:00:20 PM PDT

  •  pluses and minuses

    What I like about Obama is that he appears to be thoughtful and deliberative: "on one hand.. but on the other hand..."  He is the antithesis of The Decider's stubbornness.  

    What I think is his biggest shortcoming is his relative inexperience.  One term isn't quite enough; a second term should be sufficient.  

    by G2geek on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 12:56:59 AM PDT

    •  Yes. As I pointed out elsewhere,

      to a forcefully eager Obama supporter who said the vice-presidency would be a good place for him to learn the job:  vice-president is not a trainee position.  The job description is being ready and able to step into the presidency at a moments' notice.  From day one.  Call me excessively cautious, but I would not want a "trainee" trying to take over in a crisis situation.  

      by tovan on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 01:37:37 AM PDT

•  Kathleen Sebelius