Why Wes Clark over Al Gore?

Yeah I know Gore isn't running, doesn't want to run, is a loser, is boring, is a liar, etc. - put that aside for a moment...

It seems Wesley is filling Al Gore's spot as an even divider.

Why a guy with little name recognition and no experience who can get about %50 of the country, when we already had a guy who was clearly the right choice last time?

With Clarks numbers he seems like a direct replacement for Al Gore - a guy who can get %49 but can't win against a corrupt system.

How is Clark going to WIN? Wouldn't Gore be a better choice because at least people can feel they are getting revenge against Bush by putting the real winner of Election 2000 in office?

Oh - and I'll even throw in the *sigh*, so you don't have to...

a guerilla war to run against

I don't think you can discount that one.

but you assume those who are for clark are supporting him over al gore. you don't know for sure that many of these people would have supported gore over clark had al gore ran again.

I think that's why we have such a large, wide open field, because Gore, who polls show would be the overwhelming front-runner, is not a candidate.

though I like Edwards, Clark, and Kerry...


I would support Gore out of loyalty if he ran but I am afraid the press would pillory him again...

Maybe he's too good for this country....

in a walk, IMHO.

i like al gore. for what he has done, endured, and can do.

the american press fucked al gore so bad that every time i even see a journalist i want to punch them in the face.

Excuse me. Gore did win the election with more vote margin than any other Dem ever. He was cheated, just like America is every day that this idiot sits in the White House.

:hi:

I don't understand why we don't support a Gore campaign? He has already shown proof that he can beat Bush*. If Clark can be drafted, why can't Gore? Are those who supported a Draft Clark movement vehemently opposed to a Draft Gore movement? If so, why? What makes Clark so special? Gore was and will always be my first choice. That said, I will vote for whomever secures the Dem Nomination. Anyone But Bush*!

forget all that "I don't want a repeat of 2000"

We're getting a repeat of 2000 no matter what.

It's already started with Clark.

Plus, all of the baggage attributed to Gore was all lies.

Clark has many nice features, but Al Gore has a track record and experience, a progressive vision and no ties to the MI complex.

Gore is less of a risk than Clark and probably has a better shot of winning.

He kind of bailed on us, and maybe he was right. I don't know. If he runs, I'll certainly consider him. I think Clark potentially has a better shot, not so much at winning, but at crushing Bush. However, I'd have no problem with a Gore candidacy. OK, one problem. Tipper really gets on my last nerve, but that's because of the whole recording industry thing and the fact that she's called Tipper. Probably time to get over that. I voted for him once, would vote for him again, but he's gotta run first. In the meantime I think there's an excellent field to choose from.

I would pose the question, Who bailed on Gore? Short answer, We did! We, being the Democratic Party. We didn't stand and fight for him when he needed us. Most of us don't back him as a candidate now. Gore didn't bail on us, we bailed on him.

I totally agree with you.

I'm mystified why there was such a big Draft Clark movement but Draft Gore was never taken seriously. I mean, I never participated because I'm a political realist but it seems like Gore is far more of a "grassroots" favorite than Clark. I guess it's because Gore took himself out so quickly and there was more support for Clark from the Establishment and liberal intelligentsia (lot of pro-Clark stuff from people like Robert Kuttner, Joe Conason, Gene Lyons, Michael Wolff, etc.)

and finished in a dead heat with a guy who ran a crappier campaign. It was Gore's election to lose and he lost it. It shouldn't have even been a horse race and it was. I like Gore. A lot But he's finished in politics. He isn't a good candidate.

Clark COULD be a good candidate, we don't know yet, Plus, he has war cred and it's wartime. I've got my fingers crossed he's not going to come out like a Stepford candidate who's mainlining poll results. I am so SICK of this word parsing, mealy-mouthed CRAP coming out of these guys

in the future run as 'crappy' of a campaign as
Gore in 2000.

Al Gore got more votes than any other Democratic
candidate in the past 50 years. More than
Bill Clinton both times.

The BFEE stole that election. It's only b/c of
the concerted efforts of the media whores to
minimize Bush's faults (DUII, AWOL, drugs, abortion)
that Bush was able to get close enough to steal
the thing.

To still spout the rhetoric that Gore ran a lousy campaign. It was a great campaign. Could it have been better? Sure! Everything can be improved, but...

You ignore so much about 2000 when you say it shouldn't have been a horse race. You ignore the Clinton scandles, you ignore the impeachment trials, you ignore the media attacks, you ignore the Repukes bald face lies! Most of all, you seem to ignore the fact that in spite of all these setbacks, Gore took in more votes than any Dem, ever, and any Repuke but Reagan. AND, if there were no vote fraud issues, and the true votes for Gore were counted in EVERY state, I am sure that Gore would have been elected with the most votes of ANY candidate, and Reagan would hold the #2 spot.

Yet, you cling to the outdated notion that Gore neither won, nor deserved to win (based on your perception of his campaigning skills) the 2000 election.

I know nothing about you, other than this opinion of yours, but it is enough to make me doubt the credibility of the rest of your political views.

That's sad. I bet you may have had a lot to say.

He hasn't shown proof that he can beat bush. Gore lost in 2000. Maybe not fair, maybe not square, but he lost. Florida should have been irrelevant. Gore lost when he had everything going for him and when bush was a much weaker candidate. Gore was a poor campaigner.

I think Clark's personal appeal and his military record could attact support from many voters who'd never support Al Gore. Hell, you could give Clark and Gore the exact same speech to read, and I have no doubt that people would respond more favorably to Clark's speech than to Gore's. That's just the way it is.

I think they'd do about as well under the same set of circumstances.

Even the fact that Clark once voted Repub will play in his favor. Dems , at least the more rational ones, won't mind, because a lot of us have made similar mistakes in judgement, until we saw the light. And, Repubs who have grave doubts about * but won't vote for a tradational Dem, will go for Clark.

made a few populist remarks ("the people vs. the powerful") that were well received, and then ran away from them when the presstitutes accused him of "class warfare."

I lost a lot of respect for him then.

Show some evidence, please.

Gore made a great speech--sounded like an old time Democrat. The crowd loved it and he got a bounce out of the convention.

Then the chorus of disapproval started, and rather than make an issue of how yes, Virginia, there is class warfare in this country, Gore seemed to back off.

Things might be different now, but I don't think Gore ever quite disabused himself of the notion that he could make the press like him. They had it in for him from the beginning, and I think that backing off from his rather tentative populism is just another example of Gore trying to ingratiate himself with people who were going to attack him no matter what.

I just don't remember him backing off from populism. That link doesn't even say that, it just shows how lots of pundits and right-wingers (redundant) criticised Gore as too populist after his convention speech.

Btw, here's a New York Times editorial from last year where Gore defended his 2000 message:

http://www.westfieldnetwork.com/misc/broken_promises_and_political_deception.html

I wish he had hammered relentlessly at that theme throughout the campaign. If he had, then it would not have been close enough for Bush to steal. After all, Bush is so obviously a child of privilege--that's his great vulnerability, and it's one that Democrats are still reluctant to talk about.

And yes, I'm aware that the link doesn't claim that Gore backed off. I used it as an example of what a remarkably ugly shitstorm resulted from some fairly tame "populism."

I was pretty shocked by that myself. It seems like a lot of people, including some Democrats, can't even accept the most basic of populist rhetoric. It's ridiculous considering some of the stuff the Republicans get away with.

Really. This is it. Gore did have the majority in all polls. Clark is building it up.

a lot of democrats have bought the bullshit about Gore. It's really sad but there it is. Democrats are scared. The republicans said "BOO!" and the democrats cower.

Dems are spending far too much time reading their critics. "Liberal a bad word? OK, we won't call ourselves liberals anymore." I put it down to PSTD over the Clinton impeachment. It scared the SHIT out of them, and they're still skaking in thie boots.

when Michael Dukakis ran from the label instead of poking out his chest and saying how proud he was of being a liberal and then bragging about the achievements of liberals. Instead he took the other route and ran from the label. From that moment on, "liberal" became a bad word.

I don't have to hear my (un)favorite right-wing
wacko whine about what a "horrible" candidate Al
Gore is.

I'm a bona fine Al Gore fan. I bought his book,
Earth in the Balance. I sent him a birthday card
in April 2001. (Got a response back, too.) I had
Al Gore on my desktop for nearly two years. And I
am still angry about Bush v. Gore, and know beyond
a shadow of a doubt that if all of the legal and valid
votes cast in Florida had been counted, Gore won.
Period. End of sentence. End of argument. Gore won.

I will never move on, I will never get over it.

Okay, now that my bona fides are established, I am
glad Al decided to forego a run at the WH this time.
NO flames please, but Howard Dean is a Big Dog in
the making. Wesley Clark is a proven leader, another
Big Dog in the making. Al Gore is a fantastic second,
a trusted advisor who will tell the #1 guy the truth,
no matter what.

But he's not a Big Dog. And I can't take the pain of
him being lied about by media whores like Katherine
Seeyle, Dickie Berke, Ceci Connolly, Howard Fineman,
and all of the rest of the Kool Kid Washington
Presstitutes. And we all know that despite the work
that we have all done re: media reform and rapid response,
the media whores will lazily fall back on the RW talking
points, knowing they will not be punished for it.

With this new crop of candidates, the wingnuts have to
do new work. They're scrambling like mad to try to find
something, anything, to hang on Dean and Clark. It's
thrill to watch how the sleaze machine works.

That sleaze machine was hidden prior to 2001 because the
ReThugs could always point to the "stained dress" and the
"cigars" to excuse their jihad against Democrats. Now
the jihad is exposed.

So that's why Wes Clark instead of Al Gore.

They've already trashed Clark as a phony from what I can tell. The things I have read knocking Clark have been disturbing to me. I don't like that he is a Military Industrial man.

They can say most of the stuff they said about Gore about anybody.

I just think that if you made a weighted decision matrix of the top candidates, Gore would be the strongest choice.

America loves a comeback story. If Gore were smart, he would be listening to the theme from Rocky and limbering up. In my opinion, if he doesn't run, then he really is a loser and doesn't deserve the office. If he has decided that that is who he is, then so be it.
If he can throw away the best chance to get the country going in the right direction again, (which he is doing) then I guess he really is not presidential material. As much as I love Al Gore, I am inclined to believe that statement.

I just have to say it because I believe that he is the best choice among the current players in the field.

THINK ABOUT IT: If Gore ran the natural implication is "going back" - undoing the damage of Bush; going back to the good old days and policies.

"Back to better days" - noone can sell this theme with the clout of Al Gore.

heroes so that we can knock them back down to size
again.

I think I have Al Gore fatigue. It's a psychological
condition of trying to explain the likeability of a
man who can go on Saturday Night Live and be absolutely
hilarious to people who think him a stiff policy wonk
who always thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.

I like Al Gore. I always have. He let us down,
we let him down. Let Dean/Clark, Clark/Dean, or
whomever, take down a hemorraging Dubya, then give
Al Gore his place at the table as an elder statesman,
a man who was disrespected by everyone, not just his
political enemies.

I want Al Gore to stay above the partisan fray. I want
him dignified, a man finally given his due.

That will be the sweetest revenge.

walk a mile in Al Gore's shoes...then tell us that he must not be Presidential material.

I really wanmted Gore to run, 1% for revenge against the Bush clan, and 1% for the political drama of the rematch, but 98% because I think that he would have made the very finest President this country has ever seen--ever.

You think Gore showed himself a loser for not running, and I think that stepping back from a 2004 run must of been the hardest thing Gore ever did. I take him on his word for his reasons. I honestly think that Gore believes it would have caused a split in the Dem party if he ran, and as we so often repeat on DU, we can not afford a split party this election cycle.

I think that Gore made a tough and courageous decision. I wish things were different for him, but they are not.

In the mean time, the best revenge we can get for the 2000 theft is a 2004 Democratic landslide, taking back control of the American Democracy, putting our Constitution in a lockbox, and bring the Bush clan up on criminal charges.

If we can do all that, I'll consider the score evened, and then i'll get over it. :-)