Ambivalent? Am I the only one? (With Poll, incl. Gore)

I wonder if there are others here who feel like I do about 2008.  I want a Democrat to win the White House more than just about anything right now in my life.  I want it even more than I wanted it in 2000 or 2004, more than I wanted us to take back the Congress in 2006.  My problem is, I don't love any of our candidates.....

more below...

Don't get me wrong.  I would be thrilled if Obama beat whoever the Republicans throw at us.  I'd be ecstatic if Edwards blew out Giuliani next November.  I'd be thrilled if Hillary toppled the Right Wing machine.

But I don't have the fire for any of three yet.  I just don't feel it.  I don't feel it like I did in 2000 for Gore, or in 2004 at this point for Dean.  (I came around to Kerry, but Dean was where my passion was).

I worry too much about Obama, Edwards, and Hillary.  Obama's passion inspires me, but can he stand the onslaught that Rove et al would unleash?    Will the media like tearing him down as much as they built him up?  I admire the work Edwards has done these last 3 years, but do I completely trust him?  Are the positions he holds politically convenient or true in his heart?  Hillary would represent something historic, but her turn from liberalism towards centrism and "strength" really rubs me the wrong way.  Do we want more triangulation, or do we want someone who will stand up and say, "This is what I believe.  Whether you agree with me or not, at least you know where I stand."

I'm not looking for diatribes from the respective camps for each candidate.  That's not my point.  My point is to find out if there are others here who feel as I do.

I wake up every day and check the web to see if there are any Gore inklings.  I pray every night that Gore decides to get into the race.  He is someone I would have passion for.  I would be volunteering for him now.  I would be donating now.  I would be passionate now.

The others, I'm not so sure about.  I will fight like hell once one of them grabs the nomination, should Gore not get in.  But I just don't feel it for them yet....

Please Al, Please Run!!!

•  I don't think you are alone

  Just my opinion.

  by Coldblue Steele on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:55:30 PM PDT

  •  nope not alone

    You could have benefitted from another category in the poll -- strongly for a candidate but would jump to Gore in a heartbeat.  That describes me.  I like one of the candidates a lot (Edwards) but Gore is in a different category.

    by annetteboardman on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:25:07 PM PDT

    •  Yup. What Annette said. n/t

      by electric meatball on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:45:52 PM PDT

  •  I want a candidate that can actually evoke a...

    rare tear in my eye when I see and hear them speak with thundering passion and clarion pitch about restoring the Constitution and democracy, about a return to the rule of law and accountability; about never waging needless wars of aggression - and last but certainly not least - about saving the environment.

    I want a candidate who evokes another humble tear in my eye when I see a poll in which a non-candidate garners more than double the votes as any other candidate.

    I share your bittersweet ambivalence.

    by markthshark on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 11:16:24 PM PDT

  •  He isn't.

    I wish I could vote there.

    by Truckle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 11:49:43 PM PDT

•  thoughts? n/t

  by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:56:29 PM PDT

  •  I would vote for Kucinich...

    ...if I thought he had a snow ball's chance in hell of winning.  He's closest to my politics.  I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet.  I like them all, but I have the same reservations you do, especially about Edwards.  Everything he says is so right, it seems almost too good to be true.  I can't help but wonder if he's promising things he knows he can't deliver.

    If the primary was tomorrow, I would probably vote for Edwards.  I could change my mind any time, though!

    But I differ from you in one regard -- I am excited.  I think my problem with our candidates is that I could easily find myself voting for any one of them.  We have some good choices.  None of them are perfect, and I have misgivings about each one, but I know one thing:  Whoever gets the nod is going to be much better at this job than GW.  So no matter what, 1/20/09 will be a good day.

    by revelwoodie on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:07:40 PM PDT

    •  If Dennis works vote for him the only way he

      can lose if is we don't support him.

      by ghengismom on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:51:32 PM PDT

  •  If We Let This, Enter Into Our Caluclations:

    Will the media like tearing him down as much as they built him up?

    we might as well give up hope.  Because, the MSM is going to do that, to every Democrat, Gore, or otherwise.  

    We Don't want Congress to Cave.  We can't Cave either, when it comes to refuting Right Wing, Corporatist, propaganda, concerning our candidates.  

    by leonard145b on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:14:05 PM PDT

    •  I will fight for him....

      but the MSM is still powerful, maybe we've equalized things a bit, but it's not even-steven yet.

      by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:21:22 PM PDT

•  I'm excited

  because I think we have a great slate of candidates.  I'm leaning towards one, but no, I haven't got the primary fever.  I suppose its because I'm so satisfied with the possibility of any of them winning that I just can't pin all of my attention on any single one of them.

  by tjb22 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:58:06 PM PDT

  •  yeah....

    I think we have a bunch of good candidates, but in the last several cycles, I had a dog in the fight early on.  I've watched every second of this race, and I go back and forth between the three of them (even felt some love for Biden).

    Gore is just the perfect candidate for me.  The others haven't made me feel it yet.

    by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:59:43 PM PDT

•  Ambivalence...

  it's what primary seasons are all about. Having so many strong candidates, whatever their weaknesses, doesn't make it any easier.

  by blueteam on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:58:56 PM PDT

•  I think I am where you are.

  Part of that was the pain of working so damn hard for Dean in 2004 only to have it all blow up.

  I like our field of candidates. They're okay. But I am undecided. Hillary took a step back for me this week with her call for Maliki's ouster, aligning herself, essentially, with the Cheney crowd that wants to replace him with their stooge, Allawi. I don't understand her call at all, frankly, and it leads me to question what she really wants to have happen in Iraq.

  That said, I'd probably still work for her if she was the nominee and I would certainly vote for her over any one from the other side.

  But I still haven't made up my mind. I'm not sure when, or even if, I will.

  by Bob Johnson on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:59:37 PM PDT

  •  I have the opposite problem:

    The Big Three on our side are an incredibly bright, amazingly competent woman who's already survived everything the VRWC threw at her, very probably our first woman president; an incredibly bright and amazingly inspiring black man who very well might be able to realign the political landscape, quite probably our first black president; and an incredibly bright and amazingly populist man who truly could change the country with bold and fearless leadership.

    Hell, I even love our second tier.

    by GussieFN on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:10:36 PM PDT

    •  Initially, I was like you.

      I think I have been disappointed that none of the top three have really stood up against the war. Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel are the only ones calling for withdrawal, and they're not in contention, realistically.

      I hear more of the same pablum on the war from all three of the frontrunners, to one degree or another. And that is disappointing.

      by Bob Johnson on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:14:37 PM PDT

      •  yes

        I don't understand why Hillary and Obama didn't pressure Reid to state clearly, when the last funding bill was vetoed, "Mr. President, this is the funding for the war.  This is the funding for our troops.  We are supporting the troops by funding them with this legislation.  Understand this, if you veto this bill, we will keep sending it back to you until you sign in.  If you continue to veto it, you will be putting our troops at risk unnecessarily.  We implore you to sign it."

        They didn't do that.  They walked up to the vote late and cast their votes after it was decided.  Why?  Where was the bold leadership?

        It bothers me.  Edwards is talking the talk now, but he doesn't have to vote any more.  And Biden just voted for it.....

        by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:17:59 PM PDT

      •  that fact drains my soul.

        I can't get excited about anyone at this point.

        by Compound F on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:18:33 PM PDT

        •  Me, too.

          by Bob Johnson on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:19:52 PM PDT

        •  Exactamundo.

          I think we'd all like to believe that our nominee should be able to wade into the epic tragedy of Iraq, wave their hands, and make everything stop.

          The fact that the none of the candidates understand that and tell us why they can't is disheartening to say the least. The 08 election is going to be about Iraq.  Nobody is fessing up to what that really means, and the limits on what we can do . . . and the screaming about who exactly is responsible, and how they are going to be made to pay for their failure.

          A serious Democratic candidate should be talking about these realities every day.

          The way it is now, they're all setting themselves up to own the fucking war as it slides down the hell-hole during a Democratic administration. I don't really know what the hell they're thinking.

          by chrississippi on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:56:02 PM PDT

          •  well said, n/t

            by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:58:16 PM PDT

  •  I can't see any pressure on Maliki as a bad

    thing, and I doubt the motive is allying with Cheney to keep things going.  But our pressure has often had the opposite effect of what we have wanted it to have (think of Bush's virtual endorsement in the last Iranian election).  The kind of pressure I suppose we need is a pullout, but be probably need that anyway, so I figure that comment is neither here nor there in the scheme of things.  This war/occupation was lost before it was started and there is likely no way to make it go right.

    by mvr on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:13:23 PM PDT

    •  Yes, pressure on Maliki can be bad...

      ... if for no other reason than it aids and abets Cheney's desire to get the oil for his pals. Nevermind that pretending that ANYONE in Iraq will be able to do better than Maliki given that a majority of the military and police (which we've trained and armed) bear no allegiance to any central government.

      It's a sick, sad, pathetic joke to call for Maliki's ouster given these facts, and it does nothing but further the aims of the biggest criminals ever to occupy the Executive branch.

      by Bob Johnson on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:18:08 PM PDT

•  I think it's a good diary

  keep pushing the candidates to be real... to understand we want leadership, not bullshit

  well done!

  by pfiore8 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:00:17 PM PDT

  •  thanks.

    I love democratic politics more than almost anything, and it worries me a bit that none of them have lit a fire for me yet.

    by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:01:15 PM PDT

•  I'm where you are too

  and it's not for lack of trying to get motivated about each candidate... I just don't have the fire burning yet.

  by worried dem on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:01:00 PM PDT

  •  are you worried?

    That we think they're great, but maybe they are more flawed than we think?  I go back and forth on this.  Sometimes I think it's my passion for Gore, but at other times, I think it's their flaws that are holding me back......

    by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:03:19 PM PDT

    •  Well at least we or some think they are great.

      The republicans are obviously not even luke warm about theirs. I haven't seen any republican on television at least, who is the slightest bit excited about a republican, or who has even paid one a compliment or said a good word.  There was a small ripple with Thompson, until he turned out to be a dud.  Just the wild reaction they had to him at first before they even had a feel for him is pretty telling.  They would like anyone they can lay their hands on other than what they have now.  

      That is why it is so ridiculous for anyone here at all to be criticizing anyone of our candidates.  We should be going with everyone and whoever we have and building all of them up as much as we can to make them even stronger over the republicans.  

      by hopscotch1997 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:17:07 PM PDT

      •  agreed

        And I will work hard for any of our candidates, but my point is that I just don't feel it for them yet.

        Yes, we're better off than then GOPers, and I'm confident the netroots will rally together behind whoever the nominee is, but Gore would really light it up.  And he'd light it up now.

        by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:19:21 PM PDT

        •  There is hardly any time left for anyone to

          enter now, moneywise.  He would get money, but the primaries start in January, and that is only 4 months away.  Don't build your hopes up, because I'm afraid they will be dashed.  

          by hopscotch1997 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:23:50 PM PDT

          •  nah....

            He could raise 20 million in a heart beat.  And he's loaded now, which wouldn't hurt.  Also, he could dampen down the expectations in Iowa and NH, and focus on the Super Tuesday contests......  who know?

            by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:24:57 PM PDT

          •  Either Gore or Clark could enter very late, and

            pull off a come from nowhere Kerry win in Iowa, which would assure them immense free media coverage as well as tons of contributions as they would become the front-runner.

            In 2004, Kerry was polling at 3% in Iowa one month before the caucuses.  Iowans weren't excited about any of the choices, and turned to Kerry mainly because they thought his military service in Vietnam would be a big plus that none of the other Dems could match.

            In 2008, only Gore and Clark have any such service.  

            In contrast to Kerry, however, Clark or Gore would likely defeat any Republican.  I prefer Clark, in part because I think he would help more Dems win in red states (based on his 2006 track record).

            by what if on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:38:25 PM PDT

      •  So everyone should

        just STFD & STFU?

        Can't agree that there should be no criticizm. That's the repuke way.

        by witchamakallit on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:54:13 PM PDT

•  Anoodle, I share your feelings

  I'm leaning strongly in favor of Edwards (enough to contribute a few hundred dollars) but am not yet fully sold and still yearn for Gore although his entry into the race seems less and less likely.

  by alba on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:02:53 PM PDT

  •  I think we'll know....

    in the next month.  If there's nothing from him by the end of the month, he may not get in.....  I think the next few weeks will tell us one way or the other.

    by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:04:09 PM PDT

    •  I think it will be October. n/t

      by bablhous on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:51:37 PM PDT

  •  this is me exactly

    Would be very very happy to have Edwards as president, but would be overjoyed to have the chance to vote again for Gore.

    by annetteboardman on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:28:04 PM PDT

•  I would be supporting Feingold...

  ...if he were running, even though he's not as left as I would like.  Wellstone would have been better.

  As it is, I'd just like folks to play fair.  I'm not seeing that so much from the supporters of the candidates here.

  by rserven on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:03:40 PM PDT

  •  oops

    I rec'ed it before I saw who wrote it.  Weird we'd agree on anything.

    by funnywittobunny on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:10:21 PM PDT

    •  why is that?

      by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:11:19 PM PDT

      •  Not you

        the commenter.  I think you (anoodle) wrote a great diary.  First time I've encountered you as far as I can remember.  Plus I really like noodles.

        by funnywittobunny on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:13:57 PM PDT

        •  oh, ok...

          thanks.  I thought maybe we had a fight I forgot.

          by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:14:32 PM PDT

  •  Feingold has my passion too n/t

    by Coldblue Steele on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:12:02 PM PDT

•  Passion for a Gore Presidency

  We've probably never lost that passion to see President Gore turn America around, especially now when so much has gone wrong. America was robbed of a true leader in Al Gore, and it's tough to recover from that.

  Although I do have a favorite candidate out of the current group, a Gore candidacy would set fires under many of us, I think, and motivate us to work hard for his election.

  by Ekaterin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:07:37 PM PDT

  •  He must know that....

    I truly don't understand why he won't run.  How can he not look at this field on both sides and not get in?

    If he doesn't do it know, he has no shot of ever doing it, unless a GOPer manages to somehow pull it off in 2008.

    We can't wait until 2012.  I worry about what a third GOP term will do to our great country.

    by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:09:38 PM PDT

    •  Unthinkable!

      I wonder if our country can survive until the end of the current GOP term.

      And then, four years of..........Mitt Romney? Canada, get ready for a huge influx of American immigrants!

      by Ekaterin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:13:24 PM PDT

      •  Regarding Romney - someone here posted that Reps

        aren't excited about any of the candidates.

        Maybe so, but there are millions of Republicans in the West who would absolutely love to see Mitt Romney win.  You can bet they'll be working very hard (and very intelligently) for him.

        by what if on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:43:39 PM PDT

        •  if nothing else....

          they will be very excited to see our candidate lose.

          It's amazing how people can hold their nose and vote if necessary.  The GOPers who turned out in 2004 for Rove will turn out again to vote down our candidate, even if they don't love theirs.....

          by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:45:03 PM PDT

          •  Yes, if our candidate is one of the current top 3

            I agree that the mass of Republican voters would include many who would be excited to see any of those three lose.  There is active hatred in the GOP for HRC, prejudice in the GOP against both HRC and BHO, and immense disgust in the GOP for Edwards style populism.

            However, several of my Republican friends would even vote Democratic if Wes Clark was our candidate.  While the most rabid neo-cons in the GOP would do all they could to stop a Clark candidacy, they wouldn't stand a chance of convincing moderate Republicans that Clark is the sort of Democrat they need to stop. In fact, their dirty tricks would probably backfire with many Republicans and Independents.

            by what if on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:23:44 PM PDT

    •  It's not the field, it's the...

      rules of the game.  Or the narrative structure.  The basic plot.  And, of course, the fact that the audience isn't exactly looking for Shakespeare here, although this cycle at least they've moved up a bit from [insert inarticulate action star here].  IOW, Gore knows that the great delusion of presidential contenders is that they only think of the performance in terms of the role they want, not the parameters within which they'll have to try to improvise, much less the constraints of a too-familiar script.

      Lately I'm becoming a bit obsessed with political narrative, lol, because while the one the GOP writes sucks, it's a helluva lot more coherent than the mishmash we'd be likely to provide.

      by latts on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:21:55 PM PDT

    •  Won't run or won't declare too early?

      Gore has nothing to gain from declaring yet. He has started dropping hints, however: His statement that he "may re-enter politics" and his criticism of the other candidates for not making Global Warming a focus of their campaigns -- both THIS month.

      If Gore is serious about curtailing global warming before the changes to our climate are irrevocable -- and I think he is -- he will have to enter. BUT he won't have to do it and probably shouldn't until October. That will still give him enough time to get on all the state ballots (many people are already collecting signatures on his behalf) while avoiding the period of the primaries that is mainly for building name recognition and donor bases -- neither of which he needs to build.

      I think Gore wants to accomplish as much as he can as a non-candidate before deciding whether he has to throw his hat into the ring. But when he finally ponders that choice, I think he will realize he really doesn't have a choice.

      by Jim in Chicago on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 09:21:49 PM PDT

  •  I wanted Gore so bad...

    ...in '92.  Clinton got the nomination, and that was ok with me, I guess.  I figured we'd have President Gore in 2000.  I waited 8 years for that day.  I can't tell you how that felt.  I'm sure many of you know.

    by revelwoodie on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:11:44 PM PDT

•  My ambivalence is that I actually really like

  more than one.  Hilary is not my favorite but she'd probably be a decent president but not as good a political leader to bolster progressive causes over the long term.  So there my ambivalence stems partly from a negative thought.  I worry that she'll get unfairly creamed by the right, but otoh she surely has the experience fighting back to pull it off.  And I would surely hate it if the first woman president turns out to be a future Republican.  So that's another plus.

  Edwards is hitting all the right themes for me (except on gay marriage where he at least seems sincerely torn) and doing it articulately.  Obama is a little dry for my taste, but obviously thoroughly decent and his heart also seems in the right place though he's not as good at showing it (and maybe for political reasons he shouldn't).  But he sure seems to inspire people and a black president would be really good for this country.

  I can't really complain, but it is uncomfortable to feel torn when I hear one or the other say something that attracts me.  For once we may not have to choose the best of a bad lot.

  by mvr on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:08:22 PM PDT

•  I'll support Clark

  as soon as he declares, I'd prefer Gore to anyone in the race now, but I'll vote for any Democrat over any possible Republican, without hesitation.

  by Danjuma on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:08:23 PM PDT

  •  Guess those for Clark should vote here since the

    poll doesn't include such a possibility.

    I'd do everything possible if Clark were in the race.  if not, and if Gore entered, I would fully support him.  But as for the others currently in, I agree with the diarist.  None of them excite me nearly as much as would a Gore (or, even more-so, a Clark) candidacy.

    by what if on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:17:25 PM PDT

    •  That's where I am

      General Clark was my first choice as well. I haven't seen the type of thing that inspires passion in me from any of them.  They all, so far, have said the right things, then said the wrong things. Build me up, then knock me down. I think it's best to sit on the sidelines and keep reading and listening.

      Course it may not matter anyway, since the DNC will probably take away any choice I might have. Gotta protect NH and IA.  They're the most important thing.

      by dougymi on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:34:34 PM PDT

      •  Clark is our very best on National Security, and

        as he points out, our National Security depends upon a great many things other than our military strength.  

        Many people have no idea just how broad is the scope of Wes Clark's expertise.  Successful businessman, international negotiator, environmental expert, accomplished teacher, best-selling author, trusted news commentator, four-star general, Rhodes Scholar, valedictorian, athlete, hero, and all around American Son, Wes Clark is the sort of politician that comes around perhaps once a century.

        Our party, our country, and indeed every person on Earth will lose an extraordinary opportunity for positive change if Wes Clark's voice does not become the Democratic Party's acknowledged first choice on matters of National Security.  Eve had a great diary on this earlier today.

        And I think the person with that voice also deserves to be CIC and POTUS.

        by what if on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:05:58 PM PDT

•  It's still early

  I know how you feel - I'm still sitting in the cheap seats, not feeling the belly fire for any of them. But I remember after the disappointment of losing Dean, and feeling pissed at Kerry for a few weeks, it gradually changed for me. He grew on me.

  I expect the same thing will happen again this time around, and don't feel dismayed that I haven't connected with one campaign yet. Whether it's before or after the primaries remains to be seen.

  (I will confess to a shimmer glimmer feeling after I took that candidate test and it came up Obama)

  by bumblebums on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:11:32 PM PDT

•  I usually do not get really excited until

  after we have our nominee.

  Let's be honest here folks, this year, as in other years, the differences among the top contenders are on the margins. However, the differences between any of our leading contenders and any of their leading contenders is enormous.

  There will be plenty of time to get passionate about the election. No need to force it this early out.

  by livosh1 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:12:18 PM PDT

•  Draft Feingold or Nader

  Seriously, drafting Nader to run as a Dem would obviate the "Nader problem."  I remember the first candidate I ever felt passionate about was Jesse Jackson.  I volunteered for the first time in my life.  I think he could spark that in me again if he decided to run.

  by funnywittobunny on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:12:40 PM PDT

  •  Nader?

    Are you nuts?

    by bear83 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:14:16 PM PDT

    •  Actually, now that you mention it

      Nader is a little too right-wing for my taste.  But nominating him as the Dem candidate would obviate his being a spoiler this time around.  Plus he's someone the progressive base could truly get excited about.

      by funnywittobunny on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:26:43 PM PDT

  •  I didn't vote for Nader....

    ....because I didn't think he could do the job, among other reasons.

    I've seen nothing to change this since then.

    by Corwin Weber on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:13:01 PM PDT

    •  bingo...

      Even Bush can't govern entirely by executive order, and Nader didn't even have enough real loyalists to make the necessary appointments, much less build any alliances in Congress.  There would have been a bipartisan consensus to humiliate him for his arrogance, basically.

      by latts on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:25:39 AM PDT

•  only edwards has a real chance against repubs

  Look it up. Nothing else to say...

  by wesg01 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:12:58 PM PDT

•  I would be very surprised if Gore decided to join

  And to be honest - I hope he doesn't.

  Nothing against him, it just seems to me the he picked his topic; became very well versed in it; and has a lot of potential to actually do some good in that area.  For him to walk away from that and step back into the political circus which is the White House, to me, seems a very large step backwards.

  Yes, if the president could enact trade/economic policies with a wave of his hand - much like Bush did with the military policies - then sure, having Gore as President could be a very great thing.  But once he has to water down his agenda, all of a sudden his effectiveness will be diminished as his attention is forced to be directed towards everything else.

  Gore is a great person, with a very important passion - let's not reduce the impact which he could have by getting him to join into the Race. As many have pointed out: the field is loaded with great candidates - we don't really need more.  Let's save Al as an Ace in the Hole to be the head of Dept of Interior, or maybe make him an ambassador, or another top level position which would allow him to concentrate on environmental policies without having to deal with the everyday nitpicking.

  by Yoshi En Son on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:13:11 PM PDT

•  i'll vote for kucinich in the az primary.

  then, in the words of captain louis renault, "i will take what comes."

  by rasbobbo on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:13:12 PM PDT

•  It's Clear That America is In Much Deeper Trouble

  than many of us thought even as late as 2004.

  I've lost it with our entire system, I don't think it's adequate in the modern world. But it's the only one we've got so I'm not abandoning politics or the fight for progressives.

  On the other hand, real passion? No, and not soon.

  by Gooserock on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:13:52 PM PDT

•  I doubt I'd even be crazy about Gore

  I never thought that at this stage in the game, I'd still be in the Insert Democrat Here For President camp. I started out as a die-hard Edwards supporter, and he kind of disappointed me, so now I'm in the "No Freakin' Clue" camp...

  But I'd be totally comfortable with Obama, Edwards, or Hillary as president.

  by PerfectStormer on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:14:30 PM PDT

•  I am not thrilled either.

  I would prefer someone else, but I've been pretty heavily supporting Hillary here and would be happy to have her win the primaries, and the general.  But my support started when I saw all the hatred being directed her way, unfairly and for suspicious reasons in my mind.  So, I decided to go with her, but not enthusiastically.  I think it hurts our chances and the party to completely try to demolish any of our candidates.  We'll live to regret it.  We are helping the republicans when we do.

  by hopscotch1997 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:21:00 PM PDT

•  I Want To Win. Period.

  That means the candidate who can:

  1. deliver the most votes from the three demographic groups that are going to decide the election (women, Hispanics, blacks);

  2. deliver the all important Swing States (FL, PA, OH);

  3. and who can carry the Big ECV States (NY, CA, TX, FL, PA, OH, etc.) is my candidate.

  I don't give a damn what the name of that Democrat is.

  by Limelite on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:22:36 PM PDT

  •  I honestly believe you are right.....

    and clearly, that candidate, electorally speaking, is Gore.  No question in my mind.

    by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:23:33 PM PDT

    •  If Gore entered the race

      it would be an unprecedented eruption of Biblical proportion. His coffers would fill overnight, and he would have an instantly galvanized army hitting the streets.

      by bumblebums on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:25:24 PM PDT

      •  yes

        It would be the Wave of Change we need.  The passion would be absolutely like nothing we've ever seen.

        by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:26:06 PM PDT

      •  he'd also have at least as much hatred

        from the right-wing base as Hillary. They absolutely loathe the man. It's partly his global warming activism, and partly the fact that he won in 2000.

        he'd win anyway (again), in my view, but with all the "hillary will drive the republican base" talk around here it's at least worth mentioning.

        by decembersue on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:54:54 PM PDT

        •  the difference, in my opnion...

          is what would happen with the independents.  I think he would win huge chunks of them, where Hillary might not be able to do that in some key states.

          Put it this way, I would much rather have Gore on the ticket in Ohio or Colorado or Pennsylvania or New Mexico or Florida then Hillary.

          That's just me.

          by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:03:18 PM PDT

        •  no doubt the right wing blowhards

          would go totally nuts if Gore jumps in. 'Drive the Republican base' is severely overrated for it's potential to turnout the nutcases: they'll turn out, anyway, all 23% of them.

          It is the independents that will look at the ravings of Limbaugh et al, and then look at Gore: and this time, they know they chose the right candidate when they voted for Gore in 2000.

          Gore will overpower those blowhards, crush them, this time. If I was a Congressional candidate, I'd want to be riding on the Gore wave.

          by shpilk on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 11:15:49 PM PDT

    •  Gore Is Not a Candidate

      Thus I am force to conclude that your mind is unclear.

      by Limelite on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:27:32 PM PDT

      •  if, if....

        if was the point.

        by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:28:02 PM PDT

        •  If's Are a Waste of Time

          I am a realist.  I will work with the facts.  The fact is Gore is not a candidate but three other very respectable and well qualified candidates are running.

          Many folks dwell of the "light my fire factor" so much.  It's a "warm fuzzy" but moot.

          by Limelite on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:30:46 PM PDT

          •  true

            however, fire wins elections.  That's what GOTV is.  That's what fundraising is.  That's what volunteering is.  And right now, I don't feel it.  And I know others feel the same way.

            I assume that we will light it up once our nominee is chosen, but I think this race would look much different here and throughout the country if Gore was in.  The passion would be even greater.  We'd be seeing stories on TV like, "Is Gore unbeatable?"  Not stories about how the ticket may drag down the party in close races.  (which I know is BS, but the media continues to play their assinine role).

            Superman wears Al Gore Pajamas, at least in my fantasty world.

            by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:33:32 PM PDT

            •  You're Kidding, Right?

              That's what GOTV is.

              Because

              GOTV includes telephoning known supporters on the day of the election (or occasionally in the last few days before it to remind them to vote, and providing rides to the polls to known supporters), but the process of identifying those supporters is generally described as a separate part of the campaign, voter identification ("ID-ing") -- the major focus of canvassing.

              Other GOTV activities include literature drops early on election day or the evening before and an active tracking of eligible voters who have already voted.  Wikipedia

              "Known supporters" don't need their fires lit, only reminding, physical aiding, and just the housekeeping and bookkeeping surrounding them.  Not "rah-rahing," which seems to be necessary for some.

              Is it an attention span deficit that makes the usual plodding, repetitive, droning campaign seem so dull that only razzle-dazzle, high showmanship, and flamboyance rouses interest in a candidate?

              Three excellent Democratic front runners are a plenitude for me.

              by Limelite on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:46:49 PM PDT

              •  yes....

                however, the work that goes into what you just quoted requires some passion.  The campaign needs a lot of people volunteering their time and money to fuel that operation.

                Rove didn't win 81% of the counties and increase Bush's vote by 8 million in 2004 without passion.  I despise the man, but you can't argue that the GOP passion whether it was for Bush or just against Kerry helped to fuel their GOTV.

                by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:48:39 PM PDT

                •  Okay, It's a Difference in "Kind"

                  not "degree" that we have.

                  The kind of passion -- to voluntarily work hard on behalf of a candidate or a party is, in my mind, different from the need to be "OOO-EEE" excited by a personality, as the diarist implies is their problem.

                  Probably the passionate workers requiring passionate exhortations from uber-charismatic candidates are few and far between.  Otherwise, don't you think hardly anyone would volunteer?

                  by Limelite on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:02:59 PM PDT

                  •  That's the passion I'm talking about....

                    not just to wear t-shirts, but to do the hard work.  I'm the kind of person who should be in this race already, but I'm not.  And it's only because I haven't found the candidate who I thought was "the one" yet.

                    by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:04:32 PM PDT

      •  Like my Spelling

        "forced"

        by Limelite on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:28:25 PM PDT

•  I think this is the best field of candidates

  We've had in recent memory. I'm certainly not going to beg you to like pizza either.

  by harrylimelives on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:34:28 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    that the field is better than it was in 2004, but I'm not in love yet, that's all.

    by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:35:41 PM PDT

•  The top of the ticked has lost me, mostly

  I am more interested in the down-ballot races.  I have Rick Noriega to get behind for Senate, and Dan Grant to support for TX-10, and a host of local county races that are getting me fired up.  

  If you are having a hard time coming to a decision on the national level, maybe looking a little closer to home would help?  It got me through.

  by sccs on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:34:29 PM PDT

•  I'm just plain underwhelmed by the candidates

  Once again, Dems ought to be able to do much better. The only candidate I feel entirely comfortable with is Dodd, and for some reason he isn't getting traction. From what I've heard from him, he strikes me as a cut-the-crap, straight to the heart of the matter kind of candidate.

  I'm certain that I won't pitch in if Hillary Clinton is the nominee...a deeply depressing possibility. She's not trustworthy, I don't know what she stands for apart from promoting herself. We can't tolerate a president who will not turn the clock back on ALL of Bush's excesses and illegalities. Clinton can't be counted on to do it; quite the opposite.

  I don't much trust Edwards, and Obama is inexperienced, vague, and banal.

  All three front-runners seem somewhat lacking in self-awareness. And each of them have groupies that give me the heebie jeebies.

  Fortunately, all the Republican candidates are weaker. Still, I fear that Giuliani could pull it off. He has managed to escape most media scrutiny so far for his many bizarre and repulsive activities. If that is any guide, he continue right through the general election getting the kid-glove treatment.

  That is going to be a major factor in deciding the election: Will the media report on the Republican candidate's scandals?

  by smintheus on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:37:52 PM PDT

  •  yes....

    they keep saying, "We always said once the voters learned more about him, they would turn away from Rudy.  But they haven't yet.  He has stayed strong."  Instead of actually uncovering and discussing Rudy's historic record of BS and poor leadership, and horrendous family values, and general dick-ishness, they continue the narrative of 9/11 hero.

    I don't get it.

    by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:39:42 PM PDT

    •  journalists pick favorites whom they promote

      They don't report on their records, doings, or sayings as much as they gush about them and studiously ignore material that doesn't fit the picture they favor.

      As to why they do this, rather than doing actual reporting, opinions vary. I believe that too many of them want to be liked by and be close to the annointed ones, so much so that they become virtual cheerleaders. This goes back at least as far as the Kennedy 1960 campaign, in which the press behaved almost as shamelessly as it did with Bush 2000.

      by smintheus on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:59:37 PM PDT

    •  All or nothing

      That's the bet Rudy is making. He is betting that this country is so degraded, its people so mired in confusion and ignorance, its institutions so decrepit, that someone who's totally unqualified can get to the presidency on sheer balls alone.

      It doesn't matter that his only experience is as a mayor, that his vaunted expertise on terrorism is a complete fraud, or that he's a brutal, egomaniacal control freak who makes Dick Cheney look like Mahatma Gandhi. It just doesn't matter.

      The only thing that matters is the image. The product that can be sold. 9/11 is a brand, and it's been very profitable for Giuliani so far. Why should the presidency be any different?

      If the Democratic candidate comes out swinging and calls out Rudy's B.S. at every turn, holding up his dismal record of failure and corruption, refusing to be cowed by the Republican media machine, he will fall.

      But none of the current Democratic frontrunners will do this. Hillary doesn't want to rock the boat, Obama's too polite, and frankly, Edwards has never seemed like he could actually deliver when the chips are down.

      Gore, however, can and will attack the Repubs on terrorism. His knowledge of national security is second to none and he isn't afraid to speak out clearly and forcefully on Iraq or terrorism. He would demolish Rudy, Thompson, McCain, or Romney, and take the White House in a landslide.  

      Gore is our best hope for turning this country around. He is a man who has never shirked his duty. If he truly cares about global warming and the preservation of the American republic--and he has fought for both all his adult life--he will enter the race. And he will win.

      by limpidglass on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:19:55 AM PDT

•  You're not alone.

  The way you feel about waiting for Gore, is how I feel about waiting for Clark. A leader, a true leader would be really nice about now.

  If neither Gore nor Clark end up entering the race, I will put my efforts and $$ into congressional races.

  The only one of the current field I could get behind is Kucinich, and we all know how that will go...

  by jen on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:43:07 PM PDT

•  HRC's comment in support of ousting Malaki

  really turned me off.  I would vote for Hillary, but Edwards or Obama are more suggestive of 'new life' in Washington. I guess I would support any nominee, but at this point, I don't feel strongly enough about any of them that I'm going to mortage the farm. I feel that we need new blood.

  by phrogge prince on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:43:34 PM PDT

•  I'm decided, my guy just hasn't jumped in yet.

  I'll write in Wesley Clark if he doesn't run.  I can't  justify voting for any of the others running now.  After Wes Clark stepped out in '04, for HIM I swallowed my heart and worked for Kerry and where did it get me?  I ended up voting for the wrong candidate, and look where it got all of us.  I won't do it again.

  Wesley Clark is the man I support. It's about integrity and leadership. Until the DNC and the DLC people running our Party get it that this is not a political game, Dems will continue losing. And until Democratic voters wake up and realize what true leadership is, we will continue losing.  

  by KayCeSF on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:59:02 PM PDT

  •  will he get in?

    I haven't heard or read anything that makes me think he's going to get in.....  have you heard anything different?

    by anoodle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:00:06 PM PDT

    •  He hasn't said he won't.

      He says he thinks about it all the time.  He also told Charlie Rose a week or so ago that there are some preconditions he is trying to work out... so we Clarksters wait.  If he had made up his mind to stay out of the race, he would have told us.  

      If he decides he won't run, I will support his decision.  He's given more than three decades of his life to this country, and I trust that he will continue to dedicate more time to helping us.  

      Anyway, I haven't give up hope yet.  I won't until he tells me otherwise.  

      by KayCeSF on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:06:35 PM PDT