Hillary says that the U.S. must keep nuclear weapons "on the table" -- notwithstanding our treaty obligations.
Despite her upward creep in the opinion polls and the media's willingness to proclaim her inevitabillary, this is no time for voters or the grassroots to take Al Gore off the table.
The Democratic nominee isn't going to have George W. Bush to kick around any more.
...it has become increasingly clear that the Republican candidates for 2008 are not competing for either the mantle of Mr. Bush or the services of his master strategist.
There probably was no better evidence of this than in Iowa over the weekend, where the straw poll in Ames was a gathering point for some of the most committed Republicans in the country. <snip>
This year, Mr. Bush’s name was barely mentioned, much less Mr. Rove’s, and the winner of the contest, Mr. Romney, offered a grim verdict on these past seven years in Washington — and arguably on Mr. Rove himself.
"If there has ever been a time that we needed to see change in Washington it is now," Mr. Romney told Iowa Republicans. The line drew some of his strongest applause of the day.
And even if a Democrat should win, the path ahead could easily lead to political oblivion:
The outlook is not, however, entirely bleak for Republicans. I notice that much of the Democratic party, and especially its activist netroots, has decided that the way to beat Rove Republicanism is by emulating it. They are practicing the politics of polarization; they are elevating "framing" above policy; they have decided that winning the next election by any means is all that matters — and never mind what happens on the day after that.
If they follow this path, they should not be surprised when they discover that it leads to the same destination.
If it's the day after the election and the policies on Iraq, the Middle East, Climate Change, the economy, and health care that really count, then is there any doubt that Al Gore is the strongest and best candidate for Democrats?
Brent Budowsky put it well. The real choice in 2008 is going to be between Bushism and Goreism.
The true choice in 2008 is Bushism versus Goreism. Bushism is the complex of policies that promote massive profiteering and tax avoidance by the oil sector, destruction of the environment that follows from an economy addicted to oil, unwise wars inexorably tied to the oil fields of Arabia, massive campaign donations from oil profiteers to Republican candidates, and an infrastructure of secrecy, fear and deceit necessary to support policies that would be rejected in open and honest debate.
Goreism is a pro-American energy policy that promotes safer and renewable sources; the protection of the planet that inevitably follows from those safer energy sources; avoidance of unwise wars and the use of diplomacy to avoid them when possible; integrity and truth in public debate; a reduction of the corrupting influence of money in politics, and respect for the rule of law and constitutional Americanism.
Yet none of the current candidates has adopted a Goreist platform. As Al himself said recently,
There is no single candidate that is putting forward a comprehensive argument about the environment or making climate change a priority.
You can help keep Al Gore and Goreism "on the table" by supporting your state's grass-roots draft movement to put him on the ballot in the Democratic primary (or caucus).
Here are contacts to sign up in:
NH
MA
the rest of New England
in NJ with State Rep. Gusciora
CA
other states