Very good site blog.washingtonpost.com, and very the interesting for me, is a lot of helpful information here. I will be glad to see you on my site http://winter.puteshestviy.net With best wishes, Mikle

Very good site irregulartimes.com, and very the interesting, is a lot of helpful information for me. I will be glad to see you on my site http://putevok.com With best wishes, George

There was be a website called the The International Society for the Promotion of Cruelty to Attorneys and I've noticed that it's GONE! Someone has got to take the flame from them. I've got a site with not much on it about [url=http://www. bankrupcy-lawyer.biz]
slip and fall law[/url] and am thinking about turning this into one which would resurrect the aforementioned society. Anyone know where the great folks that started the group can be found? What say you, is their enough flailing of attorneys already or could we use a bit more of that in the world as their numbers swell.

Ultimate Myspace hacking / resource site

http://www.sjl.cc/

Gore would be a strong candidate.

But I still remember how he lost three debates against lightweight George W Bush, lost his home state of Tennessee, and cynically called for the recount of only heavily Democratic counties of Florida (instead of the whole state). I thought the point was to have every vote count, not just every Democratic vote.

What has Al Gore accomplished outside of speaking admirably about the environment? At least initially, he was a C student at Harvard. He dropped out of Vanderbilt Divinity School. He dropped out of Vanderbilt Law School. He wrote briefly for a Tennesse newspaper. Then, as an unemployed married person, he somehow had the money to buy a large estate outside Nashville. He then ran for congress on his father's famous name.

I'm suspicious of political nepotism. Gore's father was a U.S. Senator from Tennessee before Gore ever got involved in politics. I believe people should rise or fall on their own abilities.

We should not have political royalty based on nepotism.

Earlier in this blog, a reader blames Obama for possibly running for pres after 2 years in the senate. That same reader says Edwards would be a great VP. HELLO?! Who do you think ran for president starting 2001, after just two years of elected experience in any office? None other than Edwards. No one remembers a single bill Edwards sponsored in the senate - except for his bill authorizing war in Iraq. Obama has as much experience as nearly any leading candidate in either party. And he had the political courage and good judgement to oppose the war at the height of Bush's popularity. Clinton has no charisma. Edwards is an intellectual light weight with no famous bills sponsored in the senate except for his infamous bill to authorize war in Iraq. Of the leading Dem candidates for president, only Obama has the combination of charisma, academic achievements, good judgement on Iraq, fundraising ability, ability to appeal to moderate voters, and draw record Black vote in key states.

If Mr. Gore has the Constitional right to run for Presdent he should run. I and the internation community including American Sciencists belive is horrible event that has already started. And if globle warming has not reached the point of no return it should be stopped immediately.

If Mr. Gore has the Constitional right to run for Presdent he should run. I and the internation community including American Sciencists belive is horrible event that has already started. And if globle warming has not reached the point of no return it should be stopped immediately.

If Mr. Gore has the Constitional right to run for Presdent he should run. I and the internation community including American Sciencists belive is horrible event that has already started. And if globle warming has not reached the point of no return it should be stopped immediately.

Al Gore Tickets Sold Out

Idaho may be famous for being the reddest of the red states, but one of the top leaders of the blue party is the hot ticket.

Al Gore's lecture sold out once, and when BSU moved the event to Taco Bell Arena-- he sold out again.

Who'd have thought a PowerPoint lecture on global warming by a politician once chided for his lack of charisma would turn him into a movie star in the documentary feature 'An Inconvenient Truth'?

"My wife and I watched the film, and my wife is really impressed," said Vern Barnett.

Organizers say the original plan was to open up just a quarter of the Taco Bell Arena, but they got so many phone calls they decided they had to open up half the seats. Within 45 minutes after the ticket box opened Tuesday morning, demand was still high-- so the school decided to open up the entire venue.

People in line told CBS 2 News global warming isn't a red or blue issue.

"See, we gotta be more friendly to the environment," said C.D. Houston, who adds that applies even if you're not a fan of a big-time Democrat like Gore.

So who did Houston vote for in 2000?

"You putting me on the spot, okay!" Houston said. "I'm a military man. I voted for George W. Bush."

You might ask how could this happen in a state know for it's die-hard Republicans?

"You need people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. And then you need the guys on the left too so you can get this huge idea of what you feel is right," said Justin Vipperman, a Republican who is going to see Gore with his wife.

10,000 tickets are gone, but just ask around.

You might get lucky.

"We're looking for, you know, hot and smart dates to go to Al Gore," said BSU student Christine Core, who has extra tickets. "We think it'd be a good opportunity."

Al Gore is speaking in Boise for free as a favor to Bethine Church, the wife of the late Sen. Frank Church.

Bethine told CBS 2 News today she's known Al since he was a little boy.

BSU says they are charging $5 for the tickets to cover production and security fees. They say there's also a chance more seats will open up once they set up the stage.

http://www.kbcitv.com/news/5137736.html

To watch the Video

http://www.electgore2008.com

ManBearPig Awareness Meeting tonight at 8pm sharp!!

Quite agree.

Best experienced ticket is Gore/Richardson. Espeicially if McCain doesn't win having Richardson on there will be a big help with the mid west.

Gore probably wouldn't win Tenessee, but that may not be vital. Romney wouldn't win MA, and Guiliani wouldn't win NY.

Many people would go good with Gore. Obama is not one, in my opinion. I like Warner from VA, Vilsak from IA, Bahy from IN and Richardson from NM. Even Edwards would be good for VP.
Two smart, experienced, good looking southern guys... look out. Bring it McCain and Rudy.

What's Obama going to say to IL voters. "Thanks for electing me to my 1st state-wide office, but after serving 2 of a 6 year commitment, I've decided on the White House. I don't need this legislation work anymore. I've made my mark in Congress." Get real. Obama is a hoax with a bad profile. He lost his one real House race to civil rights hero Bobbly Rush. I think he has a real ego problem. And it's showing again now that he's entertaining the Pres run, knowning he's unqualified, and sucking the air out of the room from real contenders. Not my kind of Democrat. I want someone who's been tested, and has major qualifacations.

While I would love to see a woman President, Hillary isn't the right person. She has never said that she regrets voting for the Iraq war and that is a major sticking point with me.

There may be only one person in the Democratic Party that is both qualified to serve as President of the United States of American AND can stop Hillary from getting the Democratic nomination. That person is Al Gore.

I hope Gore runs and runs with Barack Obama. The hope and inspiration they bring back to this country after the long, dark days of the Bush II regime would be a ray of sunshine.

Gore/Obama 08!!!

Where was everyone? I made cookies and popcorn and had movies set up and I thought everyone knew the meeting was at 8 pm sharp. I don't understand...doesn't anyone care that ManBearPig is a threat to us all? That we must raise ManBearPig awareness if we're ever stand a chance. I know that each and every one of you has within you the power to come together and do something that will be an inspiration to generations to come....

Let's try again tonight, same time, 8pm sharp! I'll have more cookies and popcorn too! Hope to see everyone there!!

Gore has my vote if he runs, but Hillary is going to be the candidate (and probably president) in 2008. If she loses in 2008, Gore and Obama will be the big names for 2012. Isn't Chelsea eligible to run then too?

Gore is the world's leading voice on environmental issues, and will have a strong voice in Hillary's White House.

Vice President Gore is the best choice for Democrats AND AMERICA. The only good thing about 8 years of Cheney/Bush is that NOW we can contrast 2 terms of Clinton/Gore with Bush/Cheney. As it turns out, the continued "peace and prosperity" of Clinton/Gore was a big lie. And Bush's promise to give money back to Americans with tax cuts has put America in record debt like some 3rd world country. If we want to get America back on track, we should go back to where it was stolen.

1. Gore WON once, he can do it again. Yes, facts now show that Florida was not lost, but stolen. Several different actions took place in the FL theft. Tens of thousands of votes were stolen. The hanging chads were but a footnote in the theft.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

2. He has been vetted once, and they can't bring out any dirt. You can't say that for any other candidate. Priceless.

3. He has EXECUTIVE experience, and he has vision for the crisis facing America's future and youth. The Senate is too easy to twist votes. Face it, Senators are not good at running for Executive office. He has all the right stuff.

4. Edwards crumbled when the vote was disenfranchised in OH. We had tons of proof of disenfranchisement AND vote fraud, and still Kerry and Edwards did nothing to protect the poorer voters. Even when Cliff Arnabeck, OH lead attorney, showed Kerry the proof, they did nothing. In fact, sadly it was the Green Party to question the vote. The recount was rigged. We took Kerry/Edwards to the big dance (I worked for them for a year), and they jilted us in Ohio. Sorry, Edwards does not deserve another chance at the big dance.

5. Gore worked to streamline government as VP, and he knows all the issues we must address. Gore is needed now more than ever. We need an experienced leader who will restore faith and trust in America and Government, at home and abroad.

In closing, it doesn't matter who we choose unless we get the rigged voting machines out of the process. No more out-sourcing the administration AND counting of public elections with PARTISAN companies. The vote should not be privatized. How else could a Guard dodger beat a decorated war hero? It's the machines, folks. Watch Lou Dobbs and thank him for being a strong and honest journalist.

Yes, the media had a hand in it. They are corporate owned and controlled, and labor issues and accountability are never the issues with corporate information outlets. Heck, they've sold America either Hillary OR Obama, and they are the only ones who CAN LOSE the election. Go figure...

It's time for the rightful President of the United States to enter the White House, and get America back on track. Gore understands how investing in the future with green technology will create industry we need now, and in the future. Gore knows how to make America stronger, and prepared for the future.

Some voice was in here whining about the security for VP Cheney and that DC is not Bagdad. Why not look at the murders of presidents in the past and then tell us that security is not an issue? Would anyone really complain about the rigid access to the President or his VP? Are those who complain so blind to history that they forget the murders of John F Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy? How about the attempted murder of President Ford who was shot at TWICE in September 1975 by 2 women?
Do we want our nation to witness another murder of any president, even President Bush? Yes, there was a recent movie about the murder of President Bush, but let us also remember, that is was soon after the 1962 movie MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, with Frank Sinatra, that JFK was killed in 1963. Can we blame the movie? Probably not. But it might have sent the TONE for thinking that murder is a way to settle the hatrd toward any elected offical.
Would the same people screaming for the head of Bush complain if Bill Clinton or Al Gore was murdered? If you really stand for our political system, then no one would ever believe it was ok to murder any president or VP. So please, stop complaining about the security which is protecting our leaders. When the Democrats come back into power in the White House, they will want to be protected as well.

Spare me the Gore hype. Anyone who would want long-time neo-con 'Nuke Iran' advocate, Sen. Joe Lieberman a 'heartbeat away from the presidency' is unfit to hold the office.

That disqualifies 2 snake oil salesmen:

His Ozone Holiness Al Gore & John 'Surge' McCain.

Hillary vs McCain would be a horrible choice. That would bring out another 3rd party/Ross Perot type candidacy. Which party would it favor this time? Bill Clinton only won because of Perot; I don't care what anyone says. Thats why he lost the House and Senate for the Democrats 2 years, later: people were angry that they threw their vote away and let Bill Clinton get in.

Regarding Gore, I don't think he'll run but I do remember that as a Senator, he was something of a neocon. (Hawkish, super pro Israel)

For those who say Gore "lost" in 2000 and therefore can't win in 2008, remember that had the Supreme Court not made the unprecedented move of stepping in at the last minute and ordering a State to stop recounting its own votes (I tought each State had the power to run its own elections. Where were all of the conservative "state's rights" supporters then?), the recount would've shown that Gore won Florida, and hence would've won the election (this has been proven by several independent agencies that did their own recount after the fact). So in fact, it could be said that Gore did win, even during a time when ol' Georgie boy was considered a "fresh" and "bipartisan" face in Washington and people were still angry about the Clinton/Lewinsky thing.

I believe the electoral system is outdated and seriously flawed. Why should it be that if a candidate loses California by 1 vote, that ALL of the electoral votes go to the other candidate? I prefer more of a proportional assignment of electoral votes. If a candidate gets 45% of the popular vote in a state, he/she should get 45% of the electoral votes. I would also favor just a straight popular vote where the winning candidate MUST get 50% + 1 of the popular vote. If no candidate gets that, then there is a run-off between the two highest vote getters. Why are people afriad of this? This is true Democracy. The way it stands now, a candidate can still win a relatively small number of heavily populated states and become President, so why is this better?

Its funny, (some) people hate the idea of affirmative action (which was designed to give people whom for generations had had less of an opportunity/voice to get ahead because of the color of their skin or God's desire to make them female) but they support giving people who live in rural areas an extra boost in the Presidential election to compensate for the fact that because the place where they live is more sparsely populated, their voice is not as well represented compared to people living in more densely populated cities. If affirmative action is no longer needed (something I disagree with), then on the same grounds, the electoral college is no longer needed.

In any event, I think a Gore/Obama ticket would be a great thing. Gore proved he could win even without Tennessee in 2000 and I think Obama would give the Democrats the fire and excitement that a winning ticket needs (yes, I admit, Gore is not that exciting to watch or listen to, lol). Look for Gore to announce his bid for the nomination in mid to late Spring, the buzz from the Obama and Clinton announcements has died down considerably.

PG

Run, Gore.

Why?

I am for everyone substantive with a shadow of a shot getting into this race, from Giuliani to Barack to Mr. Gore.

Why?

On a political junky level, this could be the most exciting race this century.

But if it's coronate Hillary, then coronate McCain -- well, who cares?

Added to that, without these high-profile entries, entries representing distinct world views and legitimate chances, the voters lose. The voters never see the best debate the best.

Run, Gore.

Why?

I am for everyone substantive with a shadow of a shot getting into this race, from Giuliani to Barack to Mr. Gore.

Why?

On a political junky level, this could be the most exciting race this century.

But if it's coronate Hillary, then coronate McCain -- well, who cares?

Added to that, without these high-profile entries, entries representing distinct world views and legitimate chances, the voters lose. The voters never see the best debate the best.

Run, Gore.

Why?

I am for everyone substantive with a shadow of a shot getting into this race, from Giuliani to Barack to Mr. Gore.

Why?

On a political junky level, this could be the most exciting race this century.

But if it's coronate Hillary, then coronate McCain -- well, who cares?

Added to that, without these high-profile entries, entries representing distinct world views and legitimate chances, the voters lose. The voters never see the best debate the best.

Isn't it sad that Gore is rejected because:
a) he lost a previous election - despite the fact thatit was very close, was controversial, and many voters will now be regretting their choice.
b) he's boring - despite the fact that Americe desparately needs a President who has substance more than style, having failed miserably with a style over substance President.
c) he lacks passion - despite the fact that Gore mk 2 clearly doesn't.
d) he's yesterdays news - despite the fact that America desparately needs someone with a track record. Why does the electorate insist on Hope over Experience. Has no one learnt from GWBush?

The guy has a track record others can only dream of. An experienced executive, someone with immense respect in the international community (that would be welcome right now!), and someone who has been more correct than Bush in the last 6 years.

If he runs, he should win. The fact that many write him off is a sad inditement on the political scene right now.

EdA

Your point underscores another fundamental misconception - Gore did not win a majority of the votes but a plurality.

Is AG zouk?

Today I saw some cherry trees in full bloom. In Westchester County, in New York. In January. And down the street, some daffodils.

Run, Al, run.

Just a reminder to everyone to come to my ManBearPig Awareness meeting tonight at 8 sharp! I'll have fresh baked vegan cookies that I made in my solar oven, and of course my personal favorite - organic pop corn popped with a special magnifying glass. I really do hope all of you can make it. Afterwards we can all join hands and sing or we can just have a good ol' rap session about the issues that concern you as citizens. We could even play a few games like pin the tail on the ManBearPig or tell scary stories...

Isn't it sad that Gore is rejected because:
a) he lost a previous election - despite the fact thatit was very close, was controversial, and many voters will now be regretting their choice.
b) he's boring - despite the fact that Americe desparately needs a President who has substance more than style, having failed miserably with a style over substance President.
c) he lacks passion - despite the fact that Gore mk 2 clearly doesn't.
d) he's yesterdays news - despite the fact that America desparately needs someone with a track record. Why does the electorate insist on Hope over Experience. Has no one learnt from GWBush?

The guy has a track record others can only dream of. An experienced executive, someone with immense respect in the international community (that would be welcome right now!), and someone who has been more correct than Bush in the last 6 years.

If he runs, he should win. The fact that many write him off is a sad inditement on the political scene right now.

Isn't it sad that Gore is rejected because:
a) he lost a previous election - despite the fact thatit was very close, was controversial, and many voters will now be regretting their choice.
b) he's boring - despite the fact that Americe desparately needs a President who has substance more than style, having failed miserably with a style over substance President.
c) he lacks passion - despite the fact that Gore mk 2 clearly doesn't.
d) he's yesterdays news - despite the fact that America desparately needs someone with a track record. Why does the electorate insist on Hope over Experience. Has no one learnt from GWBush?

The guy has a track record others can only dream of. An experienced executive, someone with immense respect in the international community (that would be welcome right now!), and someone who has been more correct than Bush in the last 6 years.

If he runs, he should win. The fact that many write him off is a sad inditement on the political scene right now.

Isn't it sad that Gore is rejected because:
a) he lost a previous election - despite the fact thatit was very close, was controversial, and many voters will now be regretting their choice.
b) he's boring - despite the fact that Americe desparately needs a President who has substance more than style, having failed miserably with a style over substance President.
c) he lacks passion - despite the fact that Gore mk 2 clearly doesn't.
d) he's yesterdays news - despite the fact that America desparately needs someone with a track record. Why does the electorate insist on Hope over Experience. Has no one learnt from GWBush?

The guy has a track record others can only dream of. An experienced executive, someone with immense respect in the international community (that would be welcome right now!), and someone who has been more correct than Bush in the last 6 years.

If he runs, he should win. The fact that many write him off is a sad inditement on the political scene right now.

In defense of Dave to Wright

In the 2000 election, Bush received 50,456,156 votes out of 105,396,641 total. The other three canidates who received votes got a total of 54,950,485 of which 50,991,335 were cast for Gore. Gore received 535,179 more votes than Bush. Nader and Minor received a total of 3,949,150.

In Florida, which was tainted by many problems of voter harassment, defective machines in heavy democratic districts, a ballot layout which caused many attempting to vote for Gore going to Buccanan, a US Surpreme Court overriding a FL State Surpreme court, Bush was declared victor by a few more electoral votes than Gore, "winning" the state by a few hundred votes. Just proves "home field advantage" is real, and works both ways.

Republicans applauded the consitutnal provision ( I agree with the rule )which gives the election to the one with the most electorial votes. Popular vote not the deciding factor designed by our founders to balance heavy populated states with those of low population.

Sone say this rule is outdated because "electors" from each state needed to travel a long distance by slow transport to cast their votes. No instance results as now. I say leave the consitution alone with rare exceptions.

The losers, Gore and those that supported him accepted the results, and the Surpreme court decision with grace.

I wonder if in 2004 where Bush got over 2,000,000 more votes than Kerry, what the republican reaction would have been if Kerry had won the electoral vote with a switch of about 50,000 votes in Ohio. ( another election ran with "home field advantage" )

F&B: the clock is ticking on when KOZ will weigh in with the ridiculous notion that trickle down is unambiguously good for the country. And the equally ridiculous notion that only he/she/it understands economics issues well enough to blog about them.

Anything associated with Reagan is firmly enshrined in the GOP firmament of the gods.

Al Gore is a bore!

Nice to see you as well FH, and I hope you and yours have been well also. I have to admit, I had a pretty great new year anticipating the swearing in of the new Congress :)

As for the NYT article, don't take it from them, or from me, take it from the CBO, the study is from their numbers! In fairness tho, I looked for a link to the actual study and couldn't find one.

But, FH, if Democrats restore pay-go and roll-back Bush's tax cuts (just for the top 1%!) and they wind up balancing the budget, will you ever believe in the GOP trickle-down tax cuts for the rich again? Every time the R's try to pull that stuff on the American people we wind up with a mountain of debt and middle America suffers. Every time. We can't allow that fake "conservative" ideology to mess up our economy ever again imho. I like the real Republicans in Congress who caucus with the Blue Dog Dems on matters of fiscal solvency. That's the debate we need to have, imho, that's been completely missing the last 6+ yrs under GOP, uh, *ahem* under GOP "rule". Or is it "reign"?

But anyway, in all seriousness, can we finally put the Republican "trickle-down tax cuts" theory to bed? It can lie side-by-side with the old moniker, the "tax and spend liberal". Both proven totally obsolete in the 'modern' era.

For MikeB and Steve: No matter what facts that are posted here, the crazies will attempt to change them, and they will stop at nothing in their efforts. This is not only my opinion, but fact. Any difference each of us may have with another should be based on the knowledge we have on any given matter. Not so here.

All he needs to do to win, is act like himself and ditch the political advisers.

If Gore runs, he has my vote.

Indeed, Gore is the right candidate for 2008. No matter what issue is raised, planetary warming trumps them all. He has the credentials and the ability to drive home the message about the ultimate price we will all pay unless the issue of 'greenhouse' gasses is brought under control.....
His opposition to the Iraq war when others supported it demonstrated foresight....much lacking in this "president". H.Clinton's position on the war will not be able to be swallowed by those of us who brought the recent change to the Congress.
Its not too late, Gore in 8!

Indeed, Gore is the right candidate for 2008. No matter what issue is raised, planetary warming trumps them all. He has the credentials and the ability to drive home the message about the ultimate price we will all pay unless the issue of 'greenhouse' gasses is brought under control.....
His opposition to the Iraq war when others supported it demonstrated foresight....much lacking in this "president". H.Clinton's position on the war will not be able to be swallowed by those of us who brought the recent change to the Congress.
Its not too late, Gore in 8!

Indeed, Gore is the right candidate for 2008. No matter what issue is raised, planetary warming trumps them all. He has the credentials and the ability to drive home the message about the ultimate price we will all pay unless the issue of 'greenhouse' gasses is brought under control.....
His opposition to the Iraq war when others supported it demonstrated foresight....much lacking in this "president". H.Clinton's position on the war will not be able to be swallowed by those of us who brought the recent change to the Congress.
Its not too late, Gore in 8!

'One thing we have discovered, "activist community" candidates tend to lose in a general election...see Ned Lamont.'

Not true. Actually Lamont was almost the only netroots candidate that lost. Jos Sestak and Jim Web are two good examples of candidates suported by the netroots who won.

Is Sean Hannity really Joe McCarthy? I mean is this just about the creepiest thing you've heard of on TV? How long before this hannity maroon gets some innocent person killed?

'Great Moments In Fox News Dept. Forget Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person In The World" contest -- it's now been completely upstaged by a new Sunday contest on Fox: Sean Hannity's "Enemy of the State" award. Last night, Hannity's new Sunday night program aired for the first time, and from here on he'll award his "Enemy of the State" prize -- a term originating with ancient Roman dictators placing bounties on rivals -- on whatever red-state abortionist, anti-war activist, or run-of-the-mill Democrat who has attracted Hannity's ire that week. Imagine Hannity in that famous Twilight Zone episode, as the ranting Chancellor putting to death the old librarian portrayed by Burgess Meredith, and you'll get the idea. So who won the first "Enemy of the State" prize last night?'

I haven't foundout yet but my guess would be nancy pelosi or obama or keith himself... anybody know?

Sean Hannity, with his burning hatred, divisiveness, lies, racism and generally scummy behavior, is the real enemy of the state, a traitor to everything this country stands for.

Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly puts it as bluntly as I've seen it in the traditional media:

With a new Congress that's run by Democrats, a restive public that's pining for change and a government in Iraq that's descending into chaos, the way forward in Washington might not include George W. Bush.

Despite the power he has to ramp up his use of the veto, and his tenacious hold on his powers as commander in chief, Bush faces a tough challenge to remain relevant in the waning 24 months of his presidency. Indeed, if not for his war-making clout, this president might be the lamest lame duck ever.

There was something almost sad about Bush putting his own name on an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal that laid out his legislative agenda on the eve of the formal Democratic takeover of Capitol Hill. Clearly gone are the days when Vice President Dick Cheney could use a private meeting with Republican lawmakers to set the congressional priorities list. Now, it seems, the president is positioning himself as just another spectator on the outskirts of power - firing off letters to the editor. Perhaps he should start his own blog.

Even according to the war's remaining advocates -- particularly those who want to escalate in Iraq -- there is a serious and harmful shortage of willing volunteers to fight in Iraq and to enable a more aggressive application of U.S. military force generally. So we do now have a situation where those who are cheering on more war and escalation really are needed not at the computer screen but on the battlefield, in combat. And their refusal to fight is actually impeding the plans of those on whom the President is relying for "Victory."

As a result, it is now morally indefensible for those who are physically able to do so to advocate a "surge," or even ongoing war in Iraq, without either volunteering to fight or offering a good reason why they are not doing so. One of the war's key architects is sending out a desperate plea for volunteers in order to enable the U.S. to achieve "Victory" in Iraq. How can those who believe in the premise and cheer it on -- all the while depicting themselves as strong and resolute -- possibly justify not taking the necessary action to enable the U.S. to "win"?

Terry - Thanks for the Nixon reminder. The R's had NOBODY else, and Nixon got the nomination out of pure desperation.

Dave - You've got your facts wrong, buddy. As it happens, the ONLY counting method by which Gore came up short was the one his campaign picked, i.e., recounting a few cherry-picked precincts. By EVERY OTHER counting method, verified repeatedly, Gore won by several dozen to several hundred votes in Florida. And that's not to mention the whole "What do you mean I voted for Buchanan?" issue.

(1) Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute (and a Contributing Editor of National Review), on his Pajamas Media blog last Thursday: "BREAKING NEWS -Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, is dead."

(2) Pajamas Media, front page, last Thursday: "A source close to Pajamas Media has learned that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has apparently succumbed to the cancer that hospitalized him last month, as exclusively reported by Pajamas Media, at age 67." (The phrase "still unconfirmed" added at the top only once nobody else touched their "exclusive").

(3) Michelle Malkin's Hot Air, last Thursday: "This is either going to be a two-ton feather in Pajamas's cap or a major embarrassment. I have my fingers crossed for them."

(4) Associated Press, today -- Headline: Iran's Ayatollah Appears in Good Health -- "Tehran, Iran - Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, looked thinner than usual and sounded as if he had a cold, but seemed otherwise in good health when he appeared on television Monday. . . . On Monday, Khamenei addressed hundreds of citizens of Qom, a holy city 80 miles south of Tehran, who gathered outside his residence in the city center."

Pajamas Media is a $3.5 million embarrassment that was launched in 2005 by right-wing bloggers Roger Simon and Charles Johnson (of Little Green Footballs). It was supposed to be some sort of "credible" right-wing media outlet, an alternative to the dreaded "MSM." Yet they have done nothing of even minor note since their inception (until now). As a result, news accounts from real media outlets -- like the one today from Associated Press -- refer to reports from Pajamas Media as mere "Internet rumors."

In light of this latest humiliation, it's obviously necessary that they be downgraded still further in the credibility department. But what is lower than "Internet rumors" when it comes to the credibility of a report? It seems like it's necessary to create a whole new level of unreliability just for Pajamas Media. Anyone minimally familiar with the right-wing blogosphere would have predicted -- and did predict -- that a "news outlet" that grows out of that credibility-free swamp is destined for ignominious failure.

Below, a timeline of McCain's multiple positions on escalation:

October 27, 2006 -- McCain Calls For 20,000 More Troops in Iraq:

Reporters asked him to elaborate on his statement last week in Iowa that more combat troops are needed in Iraq to quell a "classic insurgency."

"Another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and the Marine Corps," he said. [Link]

December 6, 2006 -- McCain Calls For 100,000 More Troops In Iraq:

"We must have more troops over there," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said after meeting with the president. "Maybe 20,000 more Marines, and 80,000 Army. ... We have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control." [Link]

January 4, 2007 -- McCain Calls For 30,000 More Troops In Iraq:

MCCAIN: I would advocate two additional combat brigades in Anbar province, four in Baghdad, with one in reserve. That's around 30,000. [NBC, 1/4/07]

January 4, 2007 -- McCain Suggests 20,000 Troop Escalation Is Too 'Small':

LAUER: The president seems to be settling on the 20,000 number. Is this a numbers game? Will 20,000 do the job, in your opinion?

SEN. MCCAIN: I'm not sure. ... I have not seen the exact plan, so it's hard for me to know. But to make it of a short duration and a small size would be the worst of all options to exercise, in my view. [NBC, 1/4/07]

January 5, 2007 -- McCain Says He Is 'Not Specific on Numbers' About Troops in Iraq:

QUESTION: How many troops are you calling for in Iraq?

MCCAIN: We are not specific on numbers, we don't have -- we are talking about 3 or 4 combat brigades, in Baghdad, and one or two more in Anbar province. We are not that much detailed oriented. [AEI "Future of Iraq" Conference, 1/5/07]

that BILLION DOLLARS...

as I understand it some oil contracts have been signed that will take effect for a 30 year period in March BP EXXON and some others for Iraqi OIL...

the interim government in Iraq put in place by the United States managing that task... John Negroponte, an appointee and head of the Central American terrorist obfuscation task force was in charge of that I believe...

anyway the US Appointed Iraqi Interim government looted the Iraqi treasury of 2.3 BILLION DOLLARS in the last 10 months and built homes in other countries...

so the BILLION DOLLARS IS BUSHES WAY OF SAYING

you need money now? give me what I want and I will give you this pay off...

he put them in the position of not having any money by putting people in power that took the countries money and spent it on themselves....the treasury is empty..on purpose...

believe it or not this was in Parade Magazine that weekend paper...in the Intelligence report with a list of sources for the info...

BS walks and talks and sits in the WhiteHouse spinning webs of deceit...

john negroponte honduras, do a search on that... he exempted Halliburton from financial or IRS review...he has signatory ability to do that...$9 Billion disappears? hey, they are with us ,dont search their bagssssss

MAFIA we are family...

A majority of voters chose Al Gore in 2000. He has more knowledge of government and foreign affairs than any other potential candidate.
Barack Obama is an exiting new power in the Democratic Party, but he lacks the experience that Gore has.
I strongly feel that a Gore/Obama ticket would be the best we could put forward. Also, it would be best for the USA.

David Flocker

I would like to remind this anonymous writer that the USA consists of more than the Washington, D.C. area. Global warming is a fact, but you can't judge it by your local conditions: I write from the lower Rockies where we have just gone through a 50-year snowstorm.....

"It's tough to begrudge these weeks of spring-like weather during what should be the dead of winter -- unless you're part of the multibillion-dollar ski industry. With its record-high temperatures and shortage of snowflakes, this winter is shaping up to be the bleakest in 25 years for regional ski resorts.

Resorts typically collect nearly 30 percent of their revenue during the second half of December and first week of January, according to the National Ski Areas Association. This year, however, lodges within a few hours' drive of Washington are relying on small patches of rapidly melting man-made snow, and several resorts have been forced to close their ski operations altogether."

And whoever was touting Bill Richardson as an alternative to Gore should take a look at the rampant corruption, favoritism and incompetence of the New Mexico state government....

Second coat of lipstick, meet pig. Haven't we been here before?

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 -- President Bush's new Iraq policy will establish a series of goals that the Iraqi government will be expected to meet to try to ease sectarian tensions and stabilize the country politically and economically, senior administration officials said Sunday.

Among these "benchmarks" are steps that would draw more Sunnis into the political process, finalize a long-delayed measure on the distribution of oil revenue and ease the government's policy toward former Baath Party members, the officials said.

As the policy is being debated in Washington, the new American operational commander in Iraq said Sunday that his plan was to send additional American troops, expected to be part of the policy change, into Baghdad's toughest neighborhoods, and that under the new strategy it may take another "two or three years" to gain the upper hand in the war. [Emphasis added]

Let's see, we've got benchmarks (nee "milestones"). We've got no discernible penalties in the [inevitable] event the Iraqis fail to meet said benchmarks, only the Administration's swearing on Saddam Hussein's noose that there will be penalties. Yup, we've got inclusion of the Sunnis in the political process, we've got an increase in troop presence in the most dangerous areas of the country. And most importantly, we've conveniently got another four to six "Friedman Units" in which even more U.S. troops are sacrificed on the altar to Bush's vanity and more U.S. taxpayer dollars poured into the money pit that is the Iraqi war. Where have I heard this all before?

'I think it's swell that the President wants those militiamen in Iraq to swap their rifles for brooms and paintbrushes. (It'd be heartwarming if he's extend his newfound zeal for public sector jobs programs to American inner cities plagued by horrendous youth unemployment and gang violence, but set that aside for now.)

Bush's Iraqi jobs program is reportedly going to cost a billion dollars -- a billion American dollars. Where should that money come from?'

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we had A BILLION DOLLARS here in this country, for a job retraining program for people displaced by outsourcing and immigration?

I would like to invite you to lunch...

wanna dance?

I would like to invite you to lunch...

wanna dance?

'To read "Al Gore" and "man of priciple" in the same paragraph almost made me loose my lunch. '

To read your comment made me lose my lunch. You are proof of what MikeB and a lot of other posters here have talked about. A totally braindead zombie who gets his 'facts' from fox and that fat lying dope addict ho, limbaugh.

Gore won the popular vote. HE GOT MORE VOTES, GET IT? If the supreme court hadn't decided to stop the recount, he'd would have won and several thousand of america's children would still be alive.

Come join the party. In 2008 there will be about 48 brain dead people running for President.

F&B: Nice to see you again my friend. Hope you had a great new year! Good article...I need to look at the numbers a bit before I comment on its validity.

your lives depend upon it/will be affected?

November 06 was that reckoning...

remember that.

those are metaphors for actions...

in case you are feeling threatened smallbeans..

question was asked...

why is it right wing to say that the president should have a good personality?

listen closely: the political system will say whatever they need to to get you to falter....

who do you think all of those "democrats," that say they hate Hillary are...

republicans

why do you think PNAC was written?

Bill Clinton interrupte George H.W. Bushes second term, it never happened...

Iraq was in embargo just waiting to be picked and they could not get to it....

Clinton was not an insider ,but an astute individual that would not be easily led....

Bush represents a group of interests not just himself... he gets paid by who he lets through....

Another canny Clinton would make it so that they couldnt steal at will....

Carter was treated badly for the same reasons...interruption ,outsider ,needed proof...but he had no dirty fighting skills...to take on this bunch you have to be willing to ruin some careers quickly...

thats the point, wanna win a fight quickly?

step past them and sidekick their knees while looking at their faces...

break their weak areas that allow you to take them apart at leisure and _do_that_

take them apart in such a fashion they never get put back together again...

FH is right. The natural state of the universe is disorder, and the sooner we are gone, the better for the planet. I think we can squeeze out a couple hundred thousand years more of society if we play our cards right (return to technology-enhanced sustainable agroeconomy and elimination of all nuclear weapons). We, of course, will have to use our intellect and technology to create and improve upon society (super-thin and inexpensive photovoltaic cells, or ending curable 3rd world disease being examples) instead of break down and destroy it (tax cuts for the rich, war in Iraq as examples).

On that note, I actually wanted to post this off-topic NYT article:

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 -- Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

...

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

BushCo is over. America is finally beginning to realize the damage he has done. Fact is, America is TOAST without a fiscally secure and vibrant (largely Democratic) middle class. Republican aristocracy has been an unmitigated disaster. Again.

two things could get Gore elected and shore up his ship of state...

Bring back the MIDDLE CLASS to the focus of the country...immediately stop outsourcing...as a matter of National Security...

look at energy independence/infrastructure issues as National Security Issues... use bushes methods for good ends....

and arrest some treasonous traitors that have been willing to plunder the United States Treasuries and that of other countries to put the cherry on top of their lives while

our people are getting their legs blown off believing their fraud...

take them down to the river and cleanse them...

why is it right wing to say that the president should have a good personality?

why is it right wing to say that the president should have a good personality?

I F Gore cant play hardball ,he shouldnt run...

this is a real break their knees kinda ball game...

like the current dilemma of what to do with Iraq....

three things

1. John W. Dean makes the case that bush never met the markers for declaring war... that being the case, we are not at war

2. want to find out how it is really not about the oil ,National Security is an ISSUE that would make NATIONALIZING OIL a possibility and perhaps necessary to get corporations out of controlling the government...

3. conscript the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WORKERS....if this is all about National Security ,then they should be proud to give up their revenues in their countries best interests...

could it be done ,sure if we are at war or it is considered a matter of National Security....

GORE SHOULD HAVE DEMANDED A FULL RECOUNT...if he cant act like Jack Nicholson now....he shouldnt get in the game...and I would advise him to have Bill Clinton in his cabinet...that boy can kick some behind...

Good post MikeB. I think Al Gore or someone like him might be the salvation of this country but the "liberal" media would be trumpeting the right's innuendos and half truths and of course that he just doesn't have a good enough personality to be President. Why would he put himself and his family through that? Just so he could preside over the sinking of the ship of state?

Good post MikeB. I think Al Gore or someone like him might be the salvation of this country but the "liberal" media would be trumpeting the right's innuendos and half truths and of course that he just doesn't have a good enough personality to be President. Why would he put himself and his family through that? Just so he could preside over the sinking of the ship of state?

"If the energy currently crackling through the activist community for a Gore candidacy fails to abate"

One thing we have discovered, "activist community" candidates tend to lose in a general election...see Ned Lamont.

Al says he will not run again, and I believe him.

As for global warming...how is it a bad thing for the environment if we all get wiped out by natural disasters. That would be the best thing that ever happened to the environment. It wouldn't be so great for us...but the environment would love it.

The comments today are getting more interesting by those that support Gore, and that is the way it should be if you support someone you should do so in a way that will help them. The problem I have with them is that Gore has plainly stated he would not run in 08 and to change and enter the race the "flip-flop" would be the "big time" theme.

Don't Forget, I think you ARE forgetting how polarizing Clinton was in 2000 just two years after being impeached over the Monica Lewinsky tryst. Clinton's own juvenile sexploits saddle Gore with the dilemma about how close to link himself to Clinton. It was an impossible situation. The fact that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 may suggest that he made the correct choice.

As for Lieberman, you're also forgetting that it was on Sept. 11, 2001--more than a year after Gore chose him as a running mate--that Lieberman lost his mind and started rabidly foaming at the mouth. Before that, he had his occasional conservative position, but he wasn't the Zell Miller bastard he became after 9/11. In retrospect, many of us are doubtless as horrified by our having cast a vote for him to be a heartbeat from the presidency as Gore is at having chosen him.

A previous poster is correct about McCain not picking Lieberman. McCain will pick whichever ultra-right-wing bigot Jerry Falwell tells him to because the precious Christo-fascist "base" doesn't trust McCain. That makes defeating McCain all the more crucial. Given his age, the odds are high that he could die in office and leave us saddled with a president who makes Bush look like a secular liberal Democrat, a real right-wing-nut president, such as that utter freak Sam Brownback.

On Gore as VP:

He would not necessarily need to run in 2016. In fact, he could even step down in 2012 and let someone else take his place as the VP for a second term. This all makes some sense if you assume he would already be content not to run for President in 2008.

Incidentally, this is not entirely unprecedented--two people (George Clinton and John C. Calhoun) served as VPs under two different Presidents and never served as President themselves.

The suggestion of Gore running VP on an Obama/Gore ticket is interesting. Very strong ticket for the short term, a likely win. The only problem is that this will put Gore in 2016 in the same place as in 2000 - the de facto anointed candidate for president. The Democrats really do not need to deal with this specter yet again.

Al Gore is a decent man on an important environmental mission, but he has made very serious mistakes in the past as a candidate. His biggest mistake was to run away from Cinton and his record, instead of having Clinton campaign for him, and his second biggest (and related) mistake was to choose Holy Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman's current appaling behavior, in a position that allows him to hold de Democrats hostage in the Senate, for fear that he may switch to the Republicans, is a sufficient illustration of Al Gore's poor judgement. Gore should continue campaigning against global warming, and leave campaigns for the White House to others.

Dave, January 8, 2007 12:45 PM - You are the poster child for vicious right wing lies and distortion. Al Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet. What he claimed was, and this is quite true, he was amounst those supported and planned ARPA which led to the modern internet. Right wing talk, being ignorant savages, picked up on this and made sound like a claim by Al Gore that he, personally, had invented the internet. Your contemptable repeating of this bald faced lie, is so loathsome, so vicious, so utterly shameful, that you ought apologize to everyone on this forum. That you and KOZ and the rest will not, is merely a sign of how far we have fallen as a nation. It makes you typical of Bush's supporters, typical of the Peabody Award Winning O'Reilly jerks, a liar, a cheat, a thug, nothing more than a wart of humanity's a*s.

*Joe Biden wound up the show by declaring his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president. Undoubtedly, this will mark the third unsuccessful run for president by the senator from the great state of Delaware.*
Another dem jumps into the fray..no discussion of this actual news Chris??
Dems would be smart to get behind Richardson or Biden, and forget about Al Gore running. He needs to stick to what he does well: making money with books and movies.

afam212 wrote: I believe that Nixon still had that drive to make a run in 1968.

By "that drive," you mean "the pathological need for acceptance, approval, and power," right?

I misspoke at first in my last post. Humphrey did not enter any primaries in 76. After Church and Brown some late primaries, some pundits thought Carter was stoppable despite having won all but one of the earlier primaries. Humphrey signalled his willingness to be a compromise candidate if none of the contenders had enough delegates for the nomination. However, Carter did win a first ballot victory. I do not believe HHH actually announced his candidacy per se.

To read "Al Gore" and "man of priciple" in the same paragraph almost made me loose my lunch. So after he got done inventing the internet, he got to be vice president. For those eight years he towed the line - the NAFTA line, the sleaze line (like soliciting donations from White House telephones) and the study to study the entire federal government to pinpoint wasteful areas. He supported Clinton during his, um, girl troubles. Then, when he was running for pres, he suddenly decided that the administration he had been a part of was too scandle-ridden and would not allow Clinton to campaign for him and teamed up with Lieberman to boost his moral image. When he lost, he asked for a recount - not a total recount mind you, just from the areas he thought he would carry or be able to pick up votes from. And ultimately, though people seem to forget, after independent recounting by various new orgs, he still lost pretty much every way you could count votes (read the NORC study). But since the results of this study were buried in most newspapers (i guess it was old news by then, afterall, there is no media bias) people continue to actually believe that an election was "stolen".

A.G. - You're on. I'll drive my hybrid car there. Mmm, what's that delicious smell?

"He is now a three time loser"? Where does this math come from? Fox News?

Raise ManBearPig Awareness! We CAN stop him! Bring everyone you can to my ManBearPig meeting tomorrow at 8 a.m. sharp!

Thanks Terry for the correction. Nixon said after the election of 1962 when he lost to Pat Brown, "Your not going to have Nixon to kick around anymore". However, I believe that Nixon still had that drive to make a run in 1968 that Gore does not for 2008.

Al Gore is a very decent man and would a wonderful President...a lot better than most of the candidates running. For all that, Rove and the rabid dogs of right wing talk radio have smeared him so badly, and the inbred morons that compose the voting public have bought enough of it, that I do not belive he can win. That, is Amercia's loss. The Amercian sheep, the great voting public, voted for George Bush in sufficient numbers that he and his hencemen were able to steal or squeek through a victory. So great men like Gore and Kerry, men with actual ideas and ideals and morality, have been cast aside, while this country is led by an actual criminal who is murdering our children and the children of others, and will ultimately be responsible for the downfall of this once great nation. Suck it up, America, you got what you deserve.

Thanks Terry for the correction. Nixon said after the election of 1962 when he lost to Pat Brown, "Your not going to have Nixon to kick around anymore". However, I believe that Nixon still had that drive to make a run in 1968 that Gore does not for 2008.

Thanks Terry for the correction. Nixon said after the election of 1962 when he lost to Pat Brown, "Your not going to have Nixon to kick around anymore". However, I believe that Nixon still had that drive to make a run in 1968 that Gore does not for 2008.

Terry,

Humphrey jumped into the 1976 presidential primaries in an effort to derail Jimmy Carter. Carter was viewed with extreme suspicion by liberals who were unable to really coalesce around another candidate. Idaho Senator Frank Church and California Governor Jerry Brown entered late and each did win several late primaries although Carter had won enough delegates by then to be unstoppable. Humphrey flirted with announcing himself available for a draft in case the convention deadlocked but did not actively campaign. He had already been diagnosed with terminal cancer by that time and passed away in January 1978.

Why can't people simply accept the fact that Al Gore cannot be elected President. He is now a three time loser, and that's enough.

A quagmire in Iraq like Vietnam
Who ends it?
Maybe he is the Democrats Nixon

Andy Warthol was right when he said that everyone has 15minutes of glory and popularity on the world stage, and therefore I feel that the current crop of president wannabes are just that. Eventually they will go "POUF". The next president will be Gov.Wilsak.

Um, afam212, the man who defeated Humphrey in 1968 was one of those "rare to none second acts." Remember, Nixon lost a close presidential race to Kennedey in 1960, and then even lost to Jerry Brown's father for governor of California in 1962. If anyone was ever politically dead, it was Nixon. If he was able to come back, anyone can. Don't count Gore out.

Not that I am on the Richardson Bandwagon but he is in Sudan today trying to broker a cease-fire and agreement for UN peacekeepers to enter Darfur. If he pulls that off and it works then I will take another long look at him for 08. Darfur is the most blaring example of government sponsered genocide we have seen since Rwanda and it needs to be stopped yesterday.

Al Gore reminds me of Hubert Humphrey. A man of prinicple who lost a close election to a President who led the country down the wrong path. Humphrey tried to capture the Democratic nomination in 1976 as Gore would be in 2008. It would be nice, as the Saturday Night Live skit of what the country would be like if President Gore was in charge. Unfortunatley Gore, like Humphrey, would have been a great president. There are usually few to none second acts in American Presidential politics.

"Where in missouri are you from? My mom was from Reeds Springs."

Vandalia area. I'm actually in Ohio now, but my heart is Missourian.

inresponse, as I said I don't feel that way but alot of people do. And in all honesty it is not the presidents job to fix global warming by himself it is the Congress. Why can't the congress pass higher fuel effeciency standards? It is the NUMBER 1 best approach to stopping our greenhouse gas emissions.
And Chris if Al Gore and followed your advise 6 years ago he would have won that election. You all forget how in 2000 he pandered his way to an electoral college defeat.

Not that I expect this to happen, but an interesting compromise that would allow Gore to focus his attention on issues like global warming would be to have him run again as the VP candidate. And in that role, I think he would do a lot to help alleviate concerns about the lack of executive experience by some of the other notable Democratic candidates for President (e.g., Obama and Edwards).

'Not all republicans are driven by personal greed or moral superiority. '

Good to hear that, farmboy. It's nice to know that there are still some rational folk in this country who support science. I mean, thank god. What's truly scary is how medieval some here are. I could never have imagined that in this great country, in the 21st century, many would be as backward as they are.

Where in missouri are you from? My mom was from Reeds Springs.

McCain would never pick up Lieberman as a running mate. McCain's already marginal with the hard right and knows it. He spent the run up to the midterms verbally bashing D's to help appease the GOP 'base.' Hooking up with a D (Fox News headline: "McCain Partners with Demoncrat!!!") would keep that base home in droves on voting day.

If it comes to it he'll find a hard-right R governor somewhere as a VP.

Amen to Inresponse. We need people who will take a stand for the right thing regardless whether their party is on board, or what sheep think. It is not supposed to be a popularity contest, or an office where you can suck up to companies or interest groups. The person should use their unique perspective for the good of the country and world without fear of elections or popularity- and without thought towards monetary gain. We need someone honest who can and will make the right and tough choices. If done right, things will be painful, but there will be hope. If the elected people keep sugar coating things and putting them off, there will not be anyone or a planet left in the long run.

Back in the 80s I was pretty seriously conservative and there was no possibility that I would ever vote for any Democrat for anything. Except Al Gore. I was familiar with his strong support of science generally, and the space program in particular, in Congress. I actually attended a Gore caucus when he ran for the nomination, and would have voted for him as President.

I believe Gore is one of a handful of Dems who might attract republican crossover voters in 2008. Not all republicans are driven by personal greed or moral superiority. And the Dems had better attract crossovers because you can rest assured that McCain will in the reverse direction.

unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think realty TV IS reality. sad.

Hey Andy, you said: "Also expect to hear alot of "Would you have wanted Gore as president on September the 12th?". Now I would answer 'HEck Yeah" But alot of people in this country would say no. He just doesn't project the kick a$$ take no prisoners attitude alot of people look for in a president."

My question to you have you learned anything from the past 6 years? Look what we are into now thanks to the "kick a$$ take no prisoners attitude alot of people look for in a president"? We need a president who understands that this is the only planet we've got. If your going to kick ass, kick the right one and kick it hard. Secondly, understand that what you do today will effect millions for generations. I'd personally prefer a president who understands history and how not to repeat it. Running a country isn't like a t.v. show or a popularity contest. It's SUPPOSED to be choosing a person who will lead the country in a beneficial manner. The results speak for themselves. when people stop treating politics like reality tv, maybe we will take the blinders off and stop making stupid choices.

Yes, the lockbox. I guess you're bored with getting the Social Security checks you yourself have paid for. If we had the 'lockbox' nobody would be talking about privatizing social security, because there was a surplus in the social security fund. But George Bush deliberately spent that so he could hand your retirement to the tender mercies of the financial sharks.

'When the President finally announces this week his predictable and repeatedly leaked plan to escalate the war in Iraq, it will mark the culmination of another massive fraud on the American people. It will signal yet another betrayal of the nation's armed services men and women and their families. Just as the President and his men lied us into the war, misled us about the conduct of the war, and misled us about the horrible conditions created by his failed policies, the Bush Administration concealed from the public before the 2006 elections their intentions to escalate the war after the elections.

To the current White House occupants, the mid-term elections were not a democratic means to validate or reject candidates and by implication, the policies they advocate or oppose. Instead, the elections were an obstacle in time, a temporary restraint on the President's ability to tell the truth and reveal what his intentions were all along.

The day after the election, the President himself explained, without the slightest embarrassment, that he deliberately lied about his pre-election plans to replace Defense Secretary Rumsfield to avoid making this an issue -- translation: further damage to Republicans on election day. And news reports/analysis since then reveal that the President's team secretly began as early as September, two months before the election, not mid November as they first claimed, the Iraq strategy review that would inevitably lead to escalation, but they deliberately withheld that information from the public. And we know any review by this crowd would lead to escalation because the only kinds of people this President listens to are those who tell him that he cannot conceive of losing but can still win by escalating the war. Given this President's lack of candor, we thus have every reason to believe that the same unapologetic lying was involved for at least the entire year before the elections.'

This deception was designed to minimize Republican losses in the upcoming midterms, and thereby to undermine the potential for investigations, oversight and possible impeachment. To do that, the White House needed to convince the American people that they had a plan to win the war, that the plan was working, and that within a reasonable time, possibly before the elections, we could begin to remove US troops from Iraq. Any message that might suggest an escalation was dismissed by the WH, because the President listened to his Generals and the Generals had not asked for more troops. "Stay the course," now appears to have been a cover for the real intent to expand the war once the elections were over. And even when realities forced the WH to declare that phrase inoperative, there was no suggestion before the elections that "escalation" would take it's place.

I'd love to see Al Bore run. I could use the nap. And perhaps we could talk about the lockbox once again. I know he has been "reborn" now that he is about to win an Academy Award, but let's face it, he is just too boring to be president.

'Idaho: Sold Out Gore Speech Moved To Taco Bell Arena
Saturday, 06 January 2007
KTVB -- The Frank Church Institute announced today that due to the high demand for tickets, that former Vice President Al Gore's keynote speech, "Global Warming: Beyond the Inconvenient Truth," has been moved from the Student Union Building to the Taco Bell Arena at Boise State University. Gore is scheduled to speak at 7 p.m. Jan. 22.

All 700 free tickets distributed on Jan. 3 will be honored, and those who purchased reserved tickets will be seated in a special section on the floor. Those tickets were given away in just 10 minutes.'

ugh. the taco bell arena. my poor country. but in any case, gore sells out in --idaho, of all places.

people are listening now.

Zach wrote:

"However, people have long memories and no one liked the recount."

Most people do NOT have long memories. If they did, then explain how John Warner keeps getting elected in Virginia. Also, if no one liked the recount, they must also be against football coaches calling for instant replays, huh?

Andy -- I have a feeling that Joe Loserman, who is now frequently spotted in bed with McCain, might well jump ship like the rat he is and run with McCain.

How about Gore/Obama vs. McCain/Lieberman?

Now that would be epic -- young and idealist vs. old and cynical, the possibility of peace vs. eternal war, optimistic and progressive vs. gloomy and egressive, good vs. evil.

'no one liked the recount. ' Really? I would have liked it just fine had not the supreme court stepped in it and stopped it. I wish he would have fought harder -- but I honestly beleive he was doing the right thing, after the immpeachment and all, to 'heal' the nation.

However, no one knew what a disaster the bush crew would be? How could you imagine incomptence on such a massive scale? I'm sure if Gore could have known, he would have done whatever was possible to stop it.

Am I the only one who finds this discussion completely moot at this point in the game? I get that this blog seems solely dedicated to the '08 race - and being many, many months away from there, we're going to have to bear with some recycled posts - but, Gore has said repeatedly he is not considering running. And I actually believe him. I like Gore, voted for him 2000. I'd jump on his bandwagon if he were interested, even though I'm not generally a fan of re-running prior candidates just on the principle that I think it sends a message that the party can't get anyone else, so let's drag out this guy (or gal) again. Even if they are the best candidate, it kind of gives the impression of old news to the thousands of people out there who don't pay attention as much as we loyal readers do. It just seems as though this entire blog and comment session are just idle chatter with no real resolution to be had, since CC himself said in the opening lines that Gore hasn't shown any indication of a run and has given zero indication that he is changing his mind in any way.

Gore had his shot in 2000. I think most people agree that election was stolen. However, people have long memories and no one liked the recount. The charges of 'sore loser' will come back to haunt him.
As for Obama, will you guys get off the VP bandwagon? He's said he doesn't want that job.

Gore had his shot in 2000. I think most people agree that election was stolen. However, people have long memories and no one liked the recount. The charges of 'sore loser' will come back to haunt him.
As for Obama, will you guys get off the VP bandwagon? He's said he doesn't want that job.

Gore had his shot in 2000. I think most people agree that election was stolen. However, people have long memories and no one liked the recount. The charges of 'sore loser' will come back to haunt him.
As for Obama, will you guys get off the VP bandwagon? He's said he doesn't want that job.

Lark,
That is true that the mainstream has just recently caught on to global warming, but there were other problems that needed addressing too. For example smog in the major cities, water pollution, deforestation, urban sprawl, etc etc etc. Gore was known as an environmentalist before he was VP. In the Eight years in office the Clinton Administration didn't do squat to fix these problems. How many hard core environmentalists voted for Nader in 2000? Alot and they did it because Gore didn't do enough as VP or as a candidate to address their concerns.

Also for Drindl how do you like this quote.
"We need an increase in troops there now," he asserted before an audience of military experts and academics. "It must be substantial, and it must be sustained."
Quess who said that. That's right Joe Liebermann. He also said he wouldn't rule out endorsing John McCain for president. How about a McCain/Liebermann in 08 ticket? Can you feel the Joementum?

'There is even a wonderful phrase for this, going back to those intense first years of the Clinton administration: "getting BTU'd". Back in the early stages of the Clinton 1993 budget reconciliation bill, there was a plan to impose a tax on all energy usage based on the actual energy used, as measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs). This is not a bad policy, and would be an even better idea right now when energy conservation is far more urgent. But it was never going to be an easy sell politically, especially given that members of Congress from oil- and gas-producing states tend to gravitate toward the tax-writing committees. And it was sure to be unpopular everywhere, in exactly the same way that a gasoline-tax increase is unpopular. The Clinton administration was able to push the BTU tax through the House, but then when the bill went over to the Senate, where they needed every single Democratic vote, it became apparent that with Senators like David Boren of Oklahoma and John Breaux of Louisiana in key positions, it was totally dead.'

It wasn't just the repugs who were owned by oil companies. There were a lot of sell-out Dems too. And I think that Gore did try. The big failure was Clinton who himself was too compromised by corporations. This is why the co-called 'centrist' agenda for Dems is no longer an option. We have to get away from being controlled by corporatists to get anything done in the public interest.

You have to remember too, Andy, how few people were even aware of climate change, then -- or didn't want to know. How hard it was just to get people to listen. And how much power does a VP have [I mean, when we actually have a president who's more than a sock puppet}?

In any case, it wasn't really until the icebergs and ice caps started melting that it was clear even to scientiets, how rapid the process was and how fast it was accelerating due to feedback loops -- and how little time we had to do something. And I think it's the only the last few years that Gore really caught fire on it.

I think that Al Gore would hurt the chances of the DNC taking back the Whitehouse if he is elected by the democrats. His weak response to the republican attacks on his voting track record and personal integrity, plus the way he avoided certain hot button issues, might have possibly given a lot of voters the impression that he was not the person that could fill Clinton's shoes.

I think the republican leadership rather take the fight with Al Gore then with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her sharpness and her husband's campaign experience might give the DNC the edge the need in order to beat their opponents.

The enormous threats and challenges the nation faces right now, makes the next election crucial in regards to how the United States correlates with the rest of the world and its own citizens.

Will the gap in between the haves and the have-nots continue to grow? Will the US try to build higher walls around it-self in order to protect its strategic assets from the European and Asian economic and diplomatic advancements on its own territory? What actions will the next administration take now that North Korea has advanced its nuclear program? These are a few of the questions that the next administration will have to confront as best as they can.

The American population is facing a crossroad where they will have to choose in between America placing itself on a pedestal, ignoring, belittling and ridiculing its real or imaginary adversaries, or an America that collaborates, negotiates and listens to the rest of the world in order to create a safer world for all of the people that inhibit this planet.

In Australia, which is struggling through its worst drought on record, the impact on farmers could be devastating. The country has already registered its smallest wheat harvest in a decade, food prices are rising, and severe water restrictions have put thousands of farmers at risk of bankruptcy.

'LONDON Jan 4, 2007 (AP)-- Deepening drought in Australia. Stronger typhoons in Asia. Floods in Latin America. British climate scientists predict that a resurgent El Nino climate trend combined with higher levels of greenhouse gases should touch off a fresh round of ecological disasters and make 2007 the world's hottest year on record.'

Anonymous, Gore could have been saying the same things he is saying now when he was VP. He should have put pressure on President Clinton to fight for real higher fuel standards on cars and SUVs. He could have pushed for decreasing our dependence on foreign oil while our economy was humming. Its not like Global Warming snuck up on us. The Environmentalists have been screaming at the wind about Global warming for 15 years.

'What the Ford obsequies were most about was the Beltway establishment's grim verdict on George W. Bush and his war in Iraq. Every Ford attribute, big and small, was trotted out by Washington eulogists with a wink, as an implicit rebuke of the White House's current occupant. Mr. Ford was a healer, not a partisan divider. He was an all-American football star, not a cheerleader. He didn't fritter away time on pranks at his college fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon, because he had to work his way through school as a dishwasher. He was in the top third of his class at Yale Law. He fought his way into dangerous combat service during World War II rather than accept his cushy original posting. He was pals with reporters and Democrats. He encouraged dissent in his inner circle. He had no enemies, no ego, no agenda, no ideology, no concern for his image. He described himself as "a Ford, not a Lincoln," rather than likening himself to, say, Truman'.

This Frank Rich column was quoted approvingly in the largest Arkansas nnewspaper. Even in the heartland