I'd love to vote for Al Gore again. He probably won't run -- after all, he wouldn't get an endorsement from the President he served under. (Arguably, the race would be as much Al-vs-Bill as Al-vs-Hill.) Yet the man who was robbed in 2000 tantalizes us by refusing to rule out 2008.
Suppose he jumps in. How many days, how many minutes would pass before the progressive purists screech and scowl and declare Al Gore to be The New Pelosi? For example, take a look at this vicious tirade against Hillary Clinton's NAFTA stance. I happen to think that NAFTA was a mistake. But it was Gore, not Hillary, who turned the country around on the issue by debating Ross Perot on national television. I can support a candidate even if I disagree with him on an important issue. Purists cannot.
I've been going over The Assault on Reason. Fine as that book is, every page divulges at least one sentence or stance which will cause the progressive purists to go into hate-gasm. The purists may cry for Gore now (even though many of them voted for Nader then), but they want the idealized Al Gore of their imaginations, not the actual man.
And don't tell me that he has changed dramatically since 2000. He hasn't.
8 comments:
Joseph says..And don't tell me that he has changed dramatically since 2000. He hasn't.
He has changed for the better. He has risen above most barking dogs and has achieved a level of celebrity and artistry that places him beyond the rest of the candidates and his newfound reputation and vision has elevated him into the ranks of the noblest thinkers and doers on the planet.
His role in the NAFTA imbroglio will be tested again and I'll bet you dollars to don..., ahhhhh Burger King, that he has a fresh new attitude about that as well..we'll see
NAFTA is yanking jobs galore from the Yanks here at home, and in the seven years since Gore's "establishment" support of NAFTA, he will have matured and now has a chance to be more objective about the multi national takeover of the economies of the world, aka, NAFTA, GATT and the rest of the fascist "pair a dimes" that are cultivating the cheap labor markets of the third world.
In the last seven years even our own workers are seeing the light and are beginning to demand change from the "deep swallowing sound" that Perot is warning us against.
I'm sure some members of the Nazi party found that Hitler was not Nazi enough. Every movement have its purist fringe and THEY ARE IMPORTANT to the health of the movement, even if they are very annoying. For now, the "purist progressive" offer a counterbalance to the "corporate democrats" and an intelligent candidate will find a way to balance the whole spectrum of opinions / view on an issue into a single platform.
A candidate will never please all the members of his party, especially the fringe movement. And even if a candidate came from that fringe movement, the reality of politics would force him to take decision that would offend that fringe base and transform him into a "traitor" in a short time.
But that said, the main problem is the source of election financing. The corporate corruption of candidate by electoral financing is the great "equalizer" between Democrats and Republicans on a lot of issues, like healthcare.
"He has changed for the better. He has risen above most barking dogs and has achieved a level of celebrity and artistry...
"...His role in the NAFTA imbroglio will be tested again and I'll bet you dollars to don..., ahhhhh Burger King, that he has a fresh new attitude about that as well.."
Ah, yes. Yes. And you know what else? He can now FLY! Just by pointing to the sky. Off he goes.
According to recent report, he removed a virus from a computer system simply by laying hands on the monitor.
And when he spoke in Conyers, Georgia not long ago, the sun changed color and danced in the sky, as it did in Fatima.
Gore wouldn't need a Bill Clinton endorsement during the primary campaign, but if Gore becomes the Democratic nominee it's a different story.
NAFTA's former negatives won't make as much sense now that the US $ and Canadian $ are at parity.
Gore is a very bright guy and happens to resent at least half the electorate way more than you resent your stupid readers, way more than Carter resented the voters who elected Reagan.
It's possible that the DNC wanted the 2008 campaign to kick off sooo early to pre-empt a Gore candidacy. The party will not look kindly to Gore's late-seeming entry after its candidates already raised and spent such obscene amounts of $$. Bobby Kennedy was independently wealthy enough (and more 'popular') to enter late, plus Kennedy was liked for being an 'opportunist'. Al will have to include a defense against being tagged an opportunist.
It won't be only the progressive purists who remind everyone that Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
If Al hasn't changed much since 2000, then neither have the Maureen Dowds. Worse, the commentators and pundits have hewn their careers on perfecting their vicious, self-serving wit.
And yet, there may be a critical mass of pundits and voters who want to 'correct' the 2000 shipwreck of state.
It would be cool to see a Gore/Nader ticket. Then I'd pay to read you!
But as much as I like a Gore candidacy, I'd rather he sit it out and let Hillary secure her destiny and let our republic, our nation, and our society secure its own destiny again. If she can make it to next November, she'll prove that she has the kind of strength and stamina no one has seen since Muhammad Ali. She had to live and box in Arkansas for a decade, in the White House and on the campaign trail for another decade, and now all this, floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee, backwards and wearing heels!
Maybe Al hasn't ruled out 2008 because it's much too early for him to endorse anyone, which he would be asked about, and which would require him to name someone or else refuse, turning the issue into a lose-lose huge problem for all of us.
I figure if Hillary stays ahead by February's end, Al will endorse her candidacy.
It's like 1964 for the Republicans, so stop wasting our time with your kvetching about the progressive purists who don't matter this time.
There probably is no absolutely pure candidate out there. I even oppose Kucinich's position on meat, but would still vote for him.
There are, however, issues that transcend mere political debate and are at the core of our democracy. No American should support a candidate who does not believe in the Constitution and is not willing to defend it against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. No one should support a candidate who is obviously naive or deluded about the nature of conservative politics. No one should support a candidate who is unwilling to defend the vote of the majority against those who would seek to override it or circumvent it.
We should be willing to accept a candidate who differs on NAFTA, gun control, stem cell research, or most other issues as long as they have a commitment to the Constitution and demonstrate that they think (rationally) for themselves.
Seriously, why don't you get off your b/s "progressive purists" rant and try focusing on the other side of the aisle for a change? You're like a broken effing record with this crap.
aitchd:
"It's like 1964 for the Republicans, so stop wasting our time with your kvetching about the progressive purists who don't matter this time."
Nonsense. The GOP is not going to pick a Goldwater, someone considered too far to the right to be electable in the general. Thompson, Guiliani and Romney are all considered hard for the Jesus voters too stomach.
2008 will be more like 1968, with the Republican positioning himself as the fresh-start, peace-with-honor candidate and the Dem (presuming Hillary's the one) being saddled with responsibility for all the mistakes of the past. Remember, she won't be running against W.
Why do you think the right-wing propagandists are going after Obama and Edwards, and they are not even TOUCHING Hillary? They want her to win the primary.
The moment she does, expect "new" witnesses to various Whitewater and filegate and penisgate shennanigans. We will relive EVERY DAMN MOMENT of the 1994-1998 period. In spades.
Mark my words (and I speak as someone who would be happy to see a new Clinton presidency): Within five days of her securing the nomination, Dems everywhere will scream: "What were we THINKING?"
Current polls showing her trouncing Guiliani are meaningless. The barrage has not begun. If Hillary gets the nod, you will see the most elaborate coordinated attack since D-Day. I see very little chance for the Democrats.
anon 11:12 -- I DO focus on the other side, every damn day. Its the peepees who devote most of their energies to attacking the Dems, every damn day. And if their attacks were meaningless, Gore would have won Florida in 2000.
I'm one of only a few people striking back at the peepees. But we are starting to have an effect. Every time a peepee says "Better for the Republicans to win everything in '08 than for us to accept anything other than 100% purity!" -- every time we hear THAT (and we hear it a lot), rational people start to see a very dark vision of our future.
The divisions within the Republican party are not the story. The Jesus voters won't split, no matter what James Dobson says. They don't like Thompson, Guiliani and Romney, but any one of those three can do or say whatever is necessary to fetch the Christers.
Progressive divisiveness -- THAT is the story. Watch and see.
Joseph suggests: "2008 will be more like 1968, with the Republican positioning himself as the fresh-start, peace-with-honor candidate and the Dem (presuming Hillary's the one) being saddled with responsibility for all the mistakes of the past. Remember, she won't be running against W. "
Impossible, maybe more than impossible since (1) in 1968 the Dems were the incumbent party; (2) the Democratic party was fractured and ideologically split at least 3-4 ways in 1968 (McCarthyites, Wallace's 3rd-party, RFK stay-at-homes, LBJ/Humphrey loyalists). I'm assuming that your Iraq = Vietnam equation is only intended as an election-year analogy and not as an intellectual or military comparison.
Now just a minute: If your perceived Republican almighty force couldn't defeat someone as vulnerable as Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996, there's nothing valid --nothing -- about your 'sins-of-the-past' thesis. Better if we give the ill-informed electorate the benefit of the doubt and figure they'll 'correct' the 2000 and 2004 thefts of state, assuming they'll be reminded and bludgeoned about them.
But I love the aesthetics: Hillary was for Goldwater!
Post a Comment