posted on August 14, 2001 02:29:05 PM new
I have to agree with James. I would not want to work at the polls in Florida in 2004 lol. If they try to keep people from voting again there will be riots big time. There was so many voters last time they were turned away in several states. Election day in my opinion belongs on a weekend, or make it a holiday.
posted on August 14, 2001 02:43:16 PM new
I think that what really hurt Al Gore was his following the criticisms for the Bush Campaign. The complaint that he was "too stiff" or "Too elitest looking" made him run around trying to change his perceived image -- an image he'd been told that was bad. Actually, being stiff, quiet, then speaking his piece in a stately manor with much intelligence was his strong point -- and he listened to the GOP Blather Machine hype instead of his common sense. Al gore can wear the beard if he wants to give us a particular message of some sort -- but don't shave it off at the last minute. It'll look like he's got low self-esteeme once again. So, if he intends on running again in 2004, he'll just have to go on his instincts to just be his wooden self and give us the confidence that he can do the job for us in Washington.
On that score, if Al Gore does run again, he'll need to show that the DNC has a leader. It's impossible to rally the troops when the generals are all in disarray and looking out for thier own interests. He will need to show us his clear-cut idealism that everyone can understand and transfer that idealism to the Democrats in Congress. In turn, the Democratic Party will have to do more than just posture and tell us that they are for the people -- they have three years to SHOW US that they are for us! Can Al Gore lead them to do it?
Personally, I think that Al Gore arriving on the scene is a dodge. Since he is the most liely candidate for the DNC on the next ticket and the heaviest weight opponent to Bush, he'll do everything to attract as much scorn and lightning as possible, while allowing the DNC's real choice peal with thunder. The GOP will be so busy, they hope, trying to tear down Al Gore that they'll over-look the real contender. Did I mess up the DNC by revealing this?
I've said it before -- Al gore gives me the creeps. He's so intelligent and has such a poker face that its hard, if not impossible to tell what he's thinking. I truely don't know if he would help us or hurt us as a President. like I said before -- it'll take more than just words to let us know what he's about.
posted on August 14, 2001 03:20:25 PM new
If you know anything about Harry Browne, or have seen him speak, IMO, he's one heck of a smart dude. If he had any chances of winning, I would definately vote for him, but for now I'd go for Hillary. I think she's be a fantastic president! Any news of her even considering it?
posted on August 14, 2001 03:20:33 PM new
I will vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party. I think that Hillary Clinton has an excellent chance to be that candidate.
posted on August 14, 2001 04:07:36 PM new
krs: you said,
"I think that the so-called 'exposure' of the Indiana Senator Bob Kerry's war record painting him as having committed atrocities, when that senator had already placed the incidents in question before the public himself during his election campaign in 1989, was only the beginning of a program to destroy the electability of any perceived opponent."
Good point. I agree.
Who will I vote for? I'd like to vote for Gephardt but if (and jamesoblivion says he will) Gore runs I'll probably vote for him.
I'd like to see a woman win some day in the near future but don't think I'd vote for one this next time around. She'd have to be a miracle worker to win this one.
Ponderment: Come to think of it, I wonder if Anne Bancroft would be able to swing it.
I just threw in the ponderment for those who miss them. Neener.
[ edited by rachelcrisscross on Aug 14, 2001 04:11 PM ]
posted on August 14, 2001 06:32:25 PM new
While having a woman as President is way-overdue in this country of ours IMO, there are still too many conservatives and conservative factions who believe that it's a man's job and that the woman's place is in the home, being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen fetching a beer for the Master of the house. And it's going to take much more time than just three years to change this attitude with enough Americans for a woman to have a real chance at being elected President. I suspect that our first woman President will be Chealsey Clinton when she gets older -- if she isn't sick of politics forever, that is.
posted on August 14, 2001 06:41:25 PM new"Re Gore: He's so intelligent... That's an asset...has such a poker face that its hard, if not impossible to tell what he's thinking. Also an asset, especially if you are playing on the world's stage."
Absolutely!
On the postive side, yes, this is the sort of World Leader that we need: smart, sophisticated, capable -- and a good poker face.
But the negative side is the commentary that his opponents will bring up, stating that he's up to no good because who can tell what he's really thinking?
That is why I was trying to say that if Al Gore is going to seriously run again, he needs to be his natural wooden, intelligent, sincere self instead of that silly, unbelievable Hollywood character that he blew it with last time. Also, he has to start >>NOW<< to SHOW the American people what his mind is about! He needs to be an agressive People's Activist, the People's Champion in Congress who can get things done, a leader who can rally both the jaded party members and create a vision of the future under his leadership for the people to follow! And above all -- he should just be himself, no matter how much fun the republicans make of it (as we've all seen what the opposite is like now).
posted on August 14, 2001 07:00:29 PM new
Actually, I think that you are right, Borillar about the fact that a woman will probably not succeed as a presidential candidate in the next few years.
It's a little early to predict the Democratic candidate but there is no doubt that the Republicans are agonizing over it
right now!!!
Helen
grammar corr.
[ edited by Hjw on Aug 14, 2001 07:04 PM ]
posted on August 14, 2001 08:16:22 PM new
I think 2008 looks much more likely for Hillary.
If Gore wants to get in in 2004 he's going to have to step up to the plate and embrace Bill Clinton. I'm convinced that if he'd done that this last time around he would have won by a landslide. Whatever his personal feelings may be... and, I'm supposing he may still feel competitive and wants to "prove" that he doesn't need Clinton - regardless, if he doesn't find a way to align himself and get the sacred "nod" from Clinton then he's not going to stand a prayer in 2004. Whether he wants to admit it or not Bill Clinton is still the leader of the Democratic party hands down and his leaving office doesn't change that.
posted on August 14, 2001 08:58:49 PM new
Nothing about being president prevents a woman from still being "in the home, being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen fetching a beer for the Master of the house" does it?
I think that borillar is right. If Al Gore could make himself into a leader able to create a picture of and elucidate a plan for an improved future he could win, but as he was he'd have a hard row to sow. He isn't the Bill Clinton riding his bus around the country engaging people with his warmth and good ideas. I doubt that he could inspire the people with the sorts of enthusiasm that both Clinton and Kennedy generated by force of character, humor, and intelligence. Al Gore isn't that type of guy.
Anyone who thinks that Gore was not aligned with Clinton was not paying much attention. They ran Gore's campaign to be his alone, free from the baggage and ill will that Clinton had built up over the years. Clinton held himself off of the campaign at least so far as the public could perceive to protect Al Gore from the unsaviory parts of the Clinton legacy.
posted on August 14, 2001 10:13:39 PM new
It was a tough call on the Clinton thing. On the one hand, he never should have distanced himself from Clinton, because that made him seem as if he disapproved of a wildly popular passing president. He did need to show that he was his own man and not a flunky to the party boss - that's the problem Truman had. I still think that he could have done both: saying that Clinton was human, with the ypical human failings that we often find in o9urselves; but at the same time, was one hellva president and damned good for this nation. Had he openly proclaimed that, I think, he would have had more support -- after all, who would seriously believe that Gore had anything to do with Monica Lewinski?
Umm, also, wasn't some republican on here going on about Gore's daughters? What was that all about and would it be brought up if he ran again?
posted on August 14, 2001 10:27:45 PM new
One of Gore's daughters suffers from epileptic siezures as a result of some condition that she was born with which also has given her some level of learning disorder. There was an attempt to compare those things with the bush kid's alcohol problems, I think. The other Gore kid has received several honors as a student for various things, and doesn't seem a likely target to smear.
posted on August 14, 2001 10:29:01 PM newI think that the so-called 'exposure' of the Indiana Senator Bob Kerry's war record painting him as having committed atrocities, when that senator had already placed the incidents in question before the public himself during his election campaign in 1989, was only the beginning of a program to destroy the electability of any perceived opponent.
posted on August 14, 2001 11:03:49 PM new
All I know for sure is that I won't vote for Bush or any other Republican!
I also think it would be too soon for Hilliary. She has to prove herself as a politician on her on merits, and not by her name.
Interesting thought about Clintons daughter, but that is a very long way off. Regans daughter (the one that just died) tried for a career in politics, but didn't make it.
I think it was smart for Gore to keep a low profile all this time. If he would have made any comments about Bush or the election he would have been looked at as a sore loser.
This will be a very interesting election. Not too soon to start talking about it at all, and I welcome the information about any candidates brought to the RT.
kraftdiner - back in the day there wasn't an RT. (I think it was you who asked)
posted on August 14, 2001 11:15:43 PM new
Is Gore really so intelligent? There seems to be a public perception that he is, but I'm not at all sure that it's warranted.
posted on August 15, 2001 12:19:30 AM new
I paid last time; fair's fair.
Donny,
I don't think he's anywhere near as bright as Clinton, but intelligence is in many ways only a relative measure. Less so than Clinton and more so than Bush is pretty easy to see for someone above the mean level, or even at it, but that perception is less likely in one who is below the mean. From that viewpoint if extreme bush could seem bright and Gore strange while Clinton is only unfathomable.
In this country of hee-haw fans it's a wonder that dumbya didn't win by a landslide.
posted on August 15, 2001 01:09:43 AM new
An interesting front page article in the New York Times this past Sunday.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/12/national/12MINE.html?searchpv=day03]
Heavens to Betsy, Bush doesn't just want to desecrate Alaska, he's going to fire up our coal mines here in PA to get those new power stations working.
Damn the environment and not worry about the future.
I will be rooting for someone sane and mature enough to realize the fragility of our small world come this next election.
I don't live in that valley. I won't even visit the place anymore. But I do occasionally have need to communicate with the young from there, much as I try to avoid it, and so maintain a minimum of communicative tools for their benefit.
Hep!
@ the neener