Sign the "Draft Al Gore for 2008" petition online

Check it out--

http://new.petitiononline.com/AG2008/petition.html
http://thedarkstuff.blogspot.com/2005/10/draft-gore-petition-sign-up-now.html

I'm not sold yet on any one candidate in particular, but Al Gore would be one of a handful of candidates who would not only be of broad general appeal, but also electrify the base. Many other names have been floated as potential standardbearers by the party faithful, such as Wes Clark, Barbara Boxer, Mark Warner, and Brian Schweitzer (no Senators in the group-- telling statistic), and Al should be encouraged as one of the contenders among these excellent choices. (They'd all be much better than the DLC sell-outs like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman.) He's said he's not intent on running, of course, but we always have to take those statements with a grain of salt so early-- at this point, nobody with sense is going to openly declare a run, since this would just draw fire from the other side without much in the way of tangible benefits.

Gore has been one of the few to stand up firmly for our principles from the glum early years of the Bush fiasco, not only in regard to Iraq (where his opposition has been both principled and brilliant), but also with respect to the environment-- and Mother Nature needs protection at the highest levels now more than ever. Plus his education and economic policies are both well thought-out and mainstream. Plus, Al has become a powerful speaker, a fireball on the stump, nowhere near the stereotype of 2000. He can send crowds into a frenzy of support and vigor after one of his speeches.

He lost to bush. He lost to a cartoon caricature of a cowboy. Think about that. Then think about how he would do against a real candidate like McCain or Pataki.

and the corpwhorate owned MSM that slandered him while giving Bush a free pass. The same corpwhorate owned MSM that cheer leaded us to war in Iraq. The times have changed since 2000, the clothes of the corpwhorate owned MSM have been blown away just as they have from the naked emperor. The internet is stronger than it was in 2000 and everything Gore has said for years to beware of has come to pass.

Check it out:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm

For more, just Google "Gore won".

He lost to a cartoon caricature of a cowboy

Since when do Americans hate cowboys?

Then think about how he would do against a real candidate like McCain or Pataki.

Bush was a real candidate. If you still don't understand that you have to be blind and deaf.
I don't know about McCain but Pataki? Come on. Look at him. He looks like a zombie. No way he would be elected.

and I'm sorry. But I couldn't vote for Al Gore. He's a wimp!

In 2000, Bush won because the military hated Clinton/Gore. No way Gore could win.

Now the military hates Bush. So a pro-military Democrat with an exit stategy (not thru Iran or Syria) could do well with the military.

sorry, but that's how it works.

IMHO, if my country doesn't recognize a qualified president when they see one, then oh well...it will get the president it deserves, not the one it needs. At some point it is irrecoverable. Probably already is.

Gore can spell "Global warming."
Intelligence.
Integrity.
Populist tendencies.

Instead we can get another bozo like Bush, and in another year or two we'll be degraded to throwing criminals to the lions or some other such cultural / ethical chasm.

Gimme a break. He enlisted to the army, he supported every military interventions in the last 30 years if it made sense, he proposed more money for the military in 2000 than Bush did -- and Bush, in turn, called him a big spender. And he served on the Armed Service Committee for years. No anti-military person gets there, you know.

Gore never did anything against the military.

What makes someone pro-military in your view? Should Gore kiss every soldier's ass or what?

If you think Gore is a wimp why don't you ask him for a box match? I wonder whether you'd be alive at the end.

BTW Bush didn't win. He became president because of "irregularities" in Florida. That has nothing to do with the miliary, unless you think that illegal overseas ballots should be counted. The rules were the rules and those in the military who violated them shouldn't have been rewarded by counting their illegal votes.

So logically the militray should like someone who wouldn't have
started this whole mess.

And Gore was against this insanity from the beginning. Long before it was politically cool. He got more shit for his speech in Sept 2002 than any other person who expressed disagreement with Bush on Iraq. But yeah, he is a wimp. If he was he wouldn't dare give speeched like that. More than 60% supported going the war in Sept 2002.

I'd wonder for how long could you bear the attacks Gore had to endure?

Huh, tough boy, would you dare do that or only your mounth is big?

It is the biggest drain on the economy and we have no real enemies militarily. China is never going to attack us when they can easily bankrupt us. Europe doesnt care for war. A few terrorists hiding in caves do not require massives amounts of tanks to be built.

The rest of the world does not want war. I wish America would stop playing stupid war video games and think its cool.

I will NEVER be happy with a pro-military democrat. Or republican for that matter.

most Americans.

But that's the reality. Most Americans are paranoid. They think that the world always wants to take away their freedoms.
They think that their freedoms are so damn unique the rest of the world just envies the US for them.

n/t

the democratic party's best chance of re-taking the White House -- and the only one who truly understands the false imperial course we're on as well as the only one who really understands the environmental precipice upon which the human race is standing. AL GORE ALL THE WAY!

Barbara Boxer is a senator. Otherwise, I think the Democratic process of putting up candidates we truly think can win and/or make a difference is a good thing.

Sorry-- I guess she stands out since she's one of the only Senators (along with Russ Feingold) who've actually had the spine to stand up to the Rethugs at every point. She'd definitely get my vote.

Any of those five would be strong, and I think grass-roots Democrats have reason to be optimistic in 2008 so long as we don't stumble and choose a DLC'er. Gore would be brilliant without doubt. I do like Clark also, from what I've seen. Boxer for obvious reasons.

Warner and Schweitzer I know less about, but they both intrigue me. Schweitzer won the governorship in Montana, one of the reddest of red states, by a mixture of small business populism and pro-environmentalism that drew the support of Republican hunters and fishers-- yet he remained true to the Democratic base from the get-go.

Mark Warner? I know even less about him, but he may be a powerhouse in 2008. He's apparently a strong environmentalist himself-- http://www.caprep.com/0305054.htm (thanks to Tom for the link)
and it doesn't hurt that he's been elected as a Democrat to be the governor of the very Red State of Virginia. A good speaker from the little I've heard about him. Sounds like he might be strong with the base, yet also even pick up some Southern and Midwestern Red States (not to mention the Swing States) for the Democratic column.

... he ok'd Ashcroft and Roberts, IIRC. 2 BIG, BIG oopses in my mind.

You beat me to it. I"m actually surprised anyone on DU wouldn't know that Barbara Boxer is a senator.

anyone else have this problem . . . or know how i can fix it?

tia

ellen fl

Greens. That says a lot right there! One "former Dem" that said she'd return to the party if Al ran.

Al is the one who could reunite the country!

That would be GREAT! :thumbsup:

We have about two years before anybody needs to decide. In the meantime, let's allow the poor guy to have some peace away from campaign politics. Let him decide for himself.

I love Al. Many of us want him to run. But it is too fucking early to start the 2008 election.

and had the moral imperative. He chose not to. It is over. He let someone else carry his water after he hid for two years. I don't forgive him.

bosses kicked him to the curb, as Donna Brazile put it.
So he didn't have much choice.

He let someone else carry his water after he hid for two years

What? He didn't hide for two years. He strated to give speeches as early as 2002 January. But he didn't deserve a year off, right?
Exactly what should he have done?

If he had criticized Bush earlier he would have been dismissed as a sore loser. Noone would have payed attention to him. Especially not after 9/11.

He came out against the Iraq war in Sept 2002. That was not politically cool at the time. He got a load of shit thrown at him for that speech. But you say he hid for two years!

His greatest weakness as a candidate appears to be, despite his grasp of the issues, a real lack of fine-tuned political instincts. In that sense, he stands in sharp contrast to President Bill Clinton, who always seemed to have unerring political instincts, as did Ronald Reagan.

Al Gore seems to have a bit of a tin ear when it comes to listening to the grass roots and responding. You can see that in the debates, when he went from one extreme to the other, from being too aggressive, too exasperated, too bullying to almost melting down into Plastic Man at the second debate. Someone with better political instincts would obviously have struck a much finer balance.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/gore/views/

I would add his seeming unawareness of the "condescending" tone of many of his speeches and the strangely inappropriate Tipper "kiss" at the Democratic Convention. Perhaps it stems from his uncomfortableness in the public eye, but it is a problem for him, nonetheless.

nothing more than shallow emotional manipulation.
Like "I feel your pain" or Reagan's "how can you be president if you are not an actor" or Bush's "I am a uniter not a divider". None of these made any sense but they worked because of voters like you and
Lichtman who no longer challenge the validity of such tactics. Instead they talk about them as requirements for a presidential candidate.

Disgusting.

Reasonable voters should fight against this trend instead of demand from candidates to capitulate to it.

Presidents in the good old days did not operate with such "fine-tuned political instincts" because the media and the voters did not demand it. If you had an argument which made sense you won. That was it. If the voter agreed you won. If not you lost.

n that sense, he stands in sharp contrast to President Bill Clinton, who always seemed to have unerring political instincts,

That's why he gave that speech at the 1988 Dem convention, that why he lost two debates to Ross Perot (the same Perot whom Gore destroyed a year later), why he lost the Congress, that's why he had to prove as a first term president that "he was still relevant", that's why he needed Dick Morris, that's why he did not realize for two years that his advantures with Monica could blow up in his face -- and the Democratic party's face, that's why he wanted Gore to pick Leon Panetta as his veep, that's why he went along with Hillary's crazy health care plan, that's why he couldn't handle the gays-in-the-military controversy,
that's why he continued to believe in 2000 that he would be such a great asset for Gore in the campaign, that's why he lied under oath, that's why he wanted to compromise with the Reps on the government shutdown (and if Gore hadn't urged him to stand firm he would have done just that), that's why he believed that voting for the Iraq war was good politics. All of these prove that Clinton has a "fine-tuned political instincts". Except that they prove the opposite.

It's not that Clinton is a better politician than Gore. It's only that
his manipulations did not lead to his defeat. But if you take a closer look you'll see that had more to do with mere luck rather than "fine-tuned instincts".
Gore in a sense is even a better politician than Clinton. Clinton believed that if you don't charm strangers you can't win.
Gore believed if you don't convince strangers that you are right you can't win. The media and the political elite, including Lichtman, have become so juveline over the last few decades -- thanks mostly to television -- that they are no longer capable of imagining that someone can win enough votes without charming the hell out of strangers.
But Gore did convince enough people to get out and vote for him without following that juveline standard. The only reason why he managed to get more votes than Bush -- and Clinton by the way -- was that more people believed he was right than believed Bush was right.

That's a far higher and better form of politics than what Bill "I feel you pain" Clinton or Ronald "Actor" Reagan did.

Al Gore seems to have a bit of a tin ear when it comes to listening to the grass roots and responding.

1.Gore answered every question the voters had at every meeting during the campaign. He was characterized by his Harvard friends as a good listener and he proved that he was in 2000. In fact the media ridiculed him for things like this:

One reporter covering Mr. Gore noted the connection as follows:
“Gore doesn't so much ask for a vote as insist on it. He starts every town meeting by promising to answer every voter's question, no matter how long it takes. It is a shtick--wherever he goes, he says, "If necessary, I'll stay here till March 7"--but he follows through with earnestness...he took questions at a gymnasium in Springfield, Mass., for more than three hours. By that time, all but a dozen of the 300 audience members had filtered out."Would you like to add comments about anything I might have overlooked in my treatment of this?" he asked a woman who had just heard an exhaustive account of his views on homeless people. Later, he asked, "Did that sound like a good agenda to you? I'm trying to convince you all to vote for me."

But the media ridiculed Gore no matter what he did.

2.What you call the "grassroot" is not a monolitic group. It is a collection of individuals who want all kind of things. Which means you cannot possibly listen to the grassroots. You can only listen to individuals in the grassroots. And Gore did that better than anyone else, both during his congressional years (those many town hall meetings) and during his campaign.


The claim that he did not listen and did not respond to the voters or didn't care what they thought is simply ridiculous.


You can see that in the debates, when he went from one extreme to the other

What does that have to do with "listening to and responding to the grassroots"?
And neither was extreme. That's an exaggeration.
He changed his behavior after the first debate precisely because he listened to the very people who told you that he went from one extreme to the other. This was a media spin that's why it became conventional wisdom because you could hear it from the mass media.
Bush did the same in 2004, changed his manners and tone from the first to the second debate, but that of course that was no big deal. I guess because Bush has "fine-tuned political instincts". No. It was because of double-standard. For the very same thing Bush didn't get bashed by the mass media. Gore got.

Moreover, guess who advised Gore's staff to watch the SNL parody?
Clinton. He believed that Gore should change his behavior in the second debate. Worked out pretty well.

from being too aggressive,

Media spin. Noone said Gore was too aggressive right after the debate. Then some assholes in the press -- or maybe in the RNC -- invented this and the echo-chamber started to repeat it.
If he was so agressive why wasn't a single pundit who mentioned it after the debate? This came up only a day after the debate. Strange.

I watched the debate. And he was no more agressive then he was in the debate with Perot. But nevermind. Once the spin wins facts don't matter.

down into Plastic Man at the second debate.

Exaggeration.
And don't forget about half of the second debate was about foreign policy where Bush pretended to be a moderate. So Gore agreed with him
since he himself was a moderate.

Someone with better political instincts would obviously have struck a much finer balance.

It has nothing to do with political instincts, as politics is about governance not about theater.
But it has a lot to do with the shallowness of the media and the voters who are not watching these debates as if they were some kind of stage performance. Gore focused on the arguments, not on how he looked on TV or what the pundits would drivel about him. And arguments are precisely why we should hold these debates in the first place.


I would add his seeming unawareness of the "condescending" tone of many of his speeches and the strangely inappropriate Tipper "kiss" at the Democratic Convention.

He has a tone he has. Who cares? He always talked like that.
It's in his genes. Again, nothing to do with political instincts.
And Bush's tone is not better. He talks to everyone as if they were 5-years old kids.

As for the kiss, Karl Rove has a different opinion about it:

Now, Al Gore has changed things by pulling off a strategically brilliant political transformation. Gore remains vice president in name only. He's disconnected himself from Clinton and shaped his image to meet the requirements of the Clinton bifurcation. His policies are roughly the same, but he's presenting himself as morally separate. How's he done it? First by picking a religious person and critic of Clinton's morals, Joe Lieberman, as his vice presidential running mate. And then by talking up religion, playing the family man by showing off his wife and children at the Democratic convention, and emphasizing the future rather than the Clinton-Gore past. Also, says chief Bush strategist Karl Rove, Gore's kissing his wife after she addressed the Democratic convention "worked...unbelievably."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bcfc1964c8.htm

You see? one person in the grassroots, in this case you, may not know how the rest of the grassroots react to the same thing.
One thing is sure: Gore jumped in the polls after the convention. It was the biggest bounce of convention history. And most of his new votes came from the so called "moral value" voters. That's it about that "inappropriate" kiss. Maybe your "fine-tuned political instincts"
are not that fine-tuned, after all.

Finally, in a reasonable country these totally irrelevant episodes wouldn't be discussed at all.
The problem is not with Gore but with those who observed him and made a big deal out of nothing then trying to explain why they did that they claimed Gore didn't have political instincts. Nice try.
It's about them not about Gore.
I watched the same debates. And I didn't think about changing behaviors. It didn't even occure to me. I focused on what was said not on how it was said.
But I guess I did something wrong because I missed the really importnat stuff like sighs and smirks. :wtf:

That said, Gore does indeed have a tin ear, speaks condescendingly, and the "kiss" was unappetizing. I supported Gore all the way--even though there was a lot of teeth gnashing, and yes, Gore was treated horribly unfairly by our "junior high" maturity level beltway media--both in print and on the tube.

Gore's rise after the convention has been attritubuted to his populist speeches about "the people vs. the powerful" which energized the base and helped him win the popular vote.

I sincerely hope the man keeps running his TV network "Current" and means it when he says he will not run.

That said, Gore does indeed have a tin ear, speaks condescendingly, and the "kiss" was unappetizing.

A tin ear for what? Be specific. Wonder how he could win so many elections with a that "tin ear". He was just lucky, right?
Speaks condescendingly? Not as much as Bush, for sure.
And most of the time Gore speaks just like everyone else.

You may have an opinion about the kiss but it was a totally irrelevant moment if you think about the presidency itself and if anything it helped Gore to separate himself from Clinton, which was an absolute must if he wanted to win.


Gore's rise after the convention has been attritubuted to his populist speeches about "the people vs. the powerful" which energized the base and helped him win the popular vote.

Attritubuted by who? Everyone had their own opnion. But not everyone's opinion was based on actual data.
And Gore was bashed for that populist speech as much as he was praised -- if he was praised at all.
His gain in the polls came from "moral value" voters. Ask Karl Rove about it. They made several focus groups to figure out where the "new Gore voters" came from. And most didn't come from the left. They came from the middle who didn't care much about Gore's populism but cared about the moral direction of the country.
It amazes me that Democrats still don't get it after 2004.
The South is culturally conservative. All right? TN, AR, VA and the rest. You can't win the presidency if you are linked to an adulterer liar.

I sincerely hope the man keeps running his TV network "Current" and means it when he says he will not run.

Yeah right why should America have a prez candidate who actually makes sense, for a sake of change?

Gore's gain came from "moral values" voters? Do you have any links to back up this claim?

Are you saying Gore's totally inapproriate Tipper smooch endeared "moral values" voters to Gore and separated him from the "adulterer liar?" Absurd. Thinking an absurdly long kiss would endear him to these "values voters" is a perfect example of Gore's political "tin ear."

It's a rare thing that Fred Barnes or Karl Rove would say anything good about Gore, right?
Well, that's what they did after the convention because they couldn't deny that what Gore did was a brilliant move. You don't get 8% bounce for nothing.

...
Until a month ago, that person was George W. Bush. His compassionate conservatism isn't a radical departure from this administration's policies, but he's quite unlike Clinton personally. Now, Al Gore has changed things by pulling off a strategically brilliant political transformation. Gore re-mains vice president in name only. He's disconnected himself from Clinton and shaped his image to meet the requirements of the Clinton bifurcation. His policies are roughly the same, but he's presenting himself as morally separate. How's he done it? First by picking a religious person and critic of Clinton's morals, Joe Lieberman, as his vice presidential running mate. And then by talking up religion, playing the family man by showing off his wife and children at the Democratic convention, and emphasizing the future rather than the Clinton-Gore past. Also, says chief Bush strategist Karl Rove, Gore's kissing his wife after she addressed the Democratic convention "worked...unbelievably."

So, eight weeks out, the presidential race comes down to a single question: Will Gore's separation from Clinton endure? Bush and his advisers recognize how difficult Gore will be to defeat if he's no longer seen as an extension of Clinton, indeed as the vehicle for a third Clinton term in the White House. Their goal is, in Rove's words, to "re-link Gore to Clinton."
The job won't be easy. Gore has gained spectacularly on the moral issue in the campaign. A month ago, voters who said morality is a top issue preferred Bush by 68 percent to 24 percent, according to pollster John Zogby. But a post-convention survey by Newsweek found Gore leading Bush by 7 percentage points on who can best promote moral values. That poll was skewed by sampling too many Democrats. But a Washington Post/ABC News poll released last week showed Gore, after running 11 points behind before the conventions, has pulled even with Bush on the moral issue.
...

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bcfc1964c8.htm
(the original article is no longer online that's why I give this freerepublic link) Read the comments as well and you can see why freepers were frightened by the prospect of Gore no longer being considered Clinton's lapdog


Are you saying Gore's totally inapproriate Tipper smooch endeared "moral values" voters to Gore and separated him from the "adulterer liar?" Absurd.

The kiss was only a part of it. Gores' entire performance at the convention implied that he would not be like Clinton in terms of morality.
He picked Lieberman, he said he was his own man, he mentioned Clinton's name only once, he was talking about the future not he past, he was talking about family values, and yes he kissed his wife.
And that is as much as absurd as the US electorate is absurd.
We are a superficial country if you haven't noticed yet. Just think about the 2004 election and the gay marriage amendments. Look at the election map. Where did all those "moral value" voters come from? From Mexico or what? They are here in the US even if you don't like that.
And they were here in 2000, as well.

Thinking an absurdly long kiss

That claim itself is absurd. It was not that long at all. You repeat media spin.

Thinking an absurdly long kiss would endear him to these "values voters" is a perfect example of Gore's political "tin ear."

Rather this comment proves that you don't understand the US electorate i.e. you have a tin ear.
And again it was not just the kiss. It was just part of a broader and successful strategy to distance himself from Clinton's immorality.
Of course you will deny that until the hell freezes over since you
can't digest the fact that Clinton's immoral conduct made it impossible to Gore to just "run on the economy".
But there is a thing in the US called the South. And voters over there have different priorities that you do. Read "What's the matter with Kansas"

their favorite Democrat, Bill Bennett's good friend and colleague. Gore's pick of Lieberman was designed to separate himself from Clinton--after all, it was Lieberman who chastised Clinton's unseemly behavior on the Senate floor.

I disagree with Barnes and Rove and believe that Gore's surge came not from "moral values" but from Gore's populist message--the "people vs. the powerful"--which ought to be considered a moral value by our media, but alas, is not.

Perhaps we ought to agree to disagree and just leave it at that.

pollsters liked Lieberman. Gimme a break.

Do you really think that Barnes or Rove wanted Gore to win so they liked Lieberman so much or what? What is the logic in your statement?

Rove's strategy was always to link Gore to Clinton's problems with the truth. That's why they created that "remote control" ad, that's why
they were pushing the Internet, Love Canal, Love Story, James Lee Witt, lulluby etc. nonsense. They knew that because of Clinton most voters would not vote for someone who is perceived as a liar.
That's why Dick Cheney said in his convention speech: you cannot think about one without thinking about the other.
That's why Bush was talking about Clinton in his own convention speech, clearly referring to the scandals.

Gore's pick of Lieberman was designed to separate himself from Clinton--after all, it was Lieberman who chastised Clinton's unseemly behavior on the Senate floor.

Of course it was. And because he managed to do that he jumped in the polls. It was not liberals who all of a sudden started to support him.
So tell me where did that 8% come from if not from "moral values" voters?
Liberals after all hated Joementum, right? They were also angree that he was not willing to play the role of Clinton's lapdog during the campaign.
So who were those new Gore voters if not people who cared about character?

I disagree with Barnes and Rove and believe that Gore's surge came not from "moral values" but from Gore's populist message--the "people vs. the powerful"

Prove it. Those who like populism are liberals. But liberals couldn't stand Joementum. Today many on this very board bash Gore for picking Lieberman. They even say that Lieberman cost Gore the election because
liberals went to Nader or were so angry because "Gore betrayed Clinton" by pikcing Joe that they either didn't vote, voted for Nader or even voted for Bush just to give Gore a lesson. (The idiots!)

And since when is running as a populist during an economic boom "good politics" all of a sudden?

Is it undeniable that Gore jumped in the polls among "moral value" voters. The polls Barnes cites were not his inventions. If Barnes and
Rove are wrong (and please read the section of that article which talks about those focus groups) why did Gore come up in those "moral value" polls?

Perhaps we ought to agree to disagree and just leave it at that.

I wonder why do some many people who runs out of evidence say that all the time?
First you said gimme links to polls which show that Gore jumped among moral value voters. I gave a link, you saw the polls. Now you say nevermind it is still not true. It was because of populism -- even though you have no evidence for that all at.

So instead of admitting the obvious you say I go away.

Coward conduct.

Clinton's 16 point post convention bounce in 1992.

Perhaps this is the biggest factor in Gore's 8 point post-convention bounce--rather than "moral values" intangibles. Gore's post-convention populist message "the people vs. the powerful" which Lieberman tried to disown, did indeed resonate with the American people.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_7_25/ai_n6240734

Edited to add this article on post-convention polling after 2000 Dem convention.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/21/cnn.poll/

Gore's gains are due in part to convincing voters that he has the necessary personal qualities to be president -- particularly by convincing the public he is more compassionate than Bush and has a better vision for the future. In fact, Gore used his convention to change his public image in the same way that Bush's father did in 1988.

There is also evidence that Gore has begun to step out of Clinton's shadow. Most notably, his acceptance speech was better received than Clinton's valedictory on Monday night.

Gore made his most notable gains on issues, perhaps because his acceptance speech placed such emphasis on them. Of those surveyed, 63 percent say Gore's policies would move the country in the right direction, while 55 percent say the same about Bush -- at a moment when issues have become more important than personal qualities to voters.

For the first time, a majority of the public thinks Gore agrees with them on more issues than Bush does, and Americans think he would do a better job than Bush on issues ranging from the economy and education to campaign finance reform, abortion, and the budget surplus. Gore's clearest advantage is now on four issues -- health care, Medicare, Social Security, and prescription drug coverage for seniors -- that he stressed in his issue-laden acceptance speech.

Clinton's 16 point post convention bounce in 1992.

You are right. I heard after the convention that Gore's was the biggest and I didn't check it out.

Perhaps this is the biggest factor in Gore's 8 point post-convention bounce--rather than "moral values" intangibles. Gore's post-convention populist message "the people vs. the powerful" which Lieberman tried to disown, did indeed resonate with the American people.

It doesn't add up. Gore picks Lieberman, whom liberals hated. Joementum was everything but populist. Then Gore gives a populist speech, after picking Joe, and liberals all of a sudden forget about Joe. That's what you say?
Gimme some polls which proves your point.
I gave polls which proves my point. "Moral value" voters were asked before and after the convention. Gore was trailing Bush by double-digit before the convetion. He got even after the convention.
How do you explain that?

And none of the polls you cited that Gore got 8% bounce because voters liked "the people vs. the powerful" message. Just because voters agreed with Gore on the issues does not mean they agreed with his populist rhetoric.
Could you show a poll which asked this specific question after the convention?

Gore's gains are due in part to convincing voters that he has the necessary personal qualities to be president -- particularly by convincing the public he is more compassionate than Bush and has a better vision for the future.

Aha. And what "personal qualities" do you think the South cared about in 2000? According the exit polls it was not compassion and not vision but honesty. Sure not Clinton's strenght.

Gore made his most notable gains on issues, perhaps because his acceptance speech placed such emphasis on them.

And that would have been enough to jump by 8%? Gimme a break. Prove it.
Gore was well ahead of Bush on most individual issues before election day. That doesn't mean he won by a landslide. It is silly to think that just because someone agrees with a candidate on x,y,z, issue he/she would support him for president. There are many other factors.

Gore's clearest advantage is now on four issues -- health care, Medicare, Social Security, and prescription drug coverage for seniors -- that he stressed in his issue-laden acceptance speech.

But Gore was never behind Bush by double-digit on individual issues.
However he was behind Bush by double-digit on "morality".
After the convention he pulled even. Accident?

Read again that article:

Gore has gained spectacularly on the moral issue in the campaign. A month ago, voters who said morality is a top issue preferred Bush by 68 percent to 24 percent, according to pollster John Zogby. But a post-convention survey by Newsweek found Gore leading Bush by 7 percentage points on who can best promote moral values. That poll was skewed by sampling too many Democrats. But a Washington Post/ABC News poll released last week showed Gore, after running 11 points behind before the conventions, has pulled even with Bush on the moral issue.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bcfc1964c8.htm

Why do you think this happened? Because Gore embraced Clinton in his convention speech? Except that he didn't.

Greenberg spent most of the 1990s thinking and writing about how Democrats could attract middle-class voters. Just last month, he wrote in the American Prospect that Democrats should "re-enter the values debate." Voters like candidates who "put the family at the center of political discussion," Greenberg wrote, "and who devote themselves to a policy agenda that will help families meet the myriad challenges they face." This leads to the "middle-class populism" of government aid for college tuition, child care, prescription drugs, and health insurance that Gore proposes.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bcfc1964c8.htm

Don't get me wrong, drummo. I supported Gore, but was not excited about Gore. I supported Kerry wholeheartedly and was sorely disappointed with his "I voted for it before I voted against it" gaffe and his campaign's not responding more quickly and aggressively to the Swift Board smears.

I take Gore at his word that he will not run. I could wholeheartedly support Kerry, Edwards, Clark or Feingold. Others, not so much. I want a real Democrat--altho I consider Gore to be a real Democrat, I hope he does not run.

"Article equates "middle class populism" with "values." It makes my case."

Huh? Sure in 2004 all those "moral value" voters voted for Bush because of his middle class populism, right?

You highlight certain parts of the article while ignore others.
Let's hightlight differently:

Greenberg spent most of the 1990s thinking and writing about how Democrats could attract middle-class voters. Just last month, he wrote in the American Prospect that Democrats should "re-enter the values debate." Voters like candidates who "put the family at the center of political discussion," Greenberg wrote, "and who devote themselves to a policy agenda that will help families meet the myriad challenges they face." This leads to the "middle-class populism" of government aid for college tuition, child care, prescription drugs, and health insurance that Gore proposes.

You see? For moral value voters value means family values not populism.
Not to mention that according to other Dems, (DLC) Gore's populism was hardly middle-class populism.

And the same article shows an actual poll, not just Greenberg's personal opinion, which shows that Gore jumped among "moral value" voters after the convention.
Don't dodge the question: why did Gore come up in that poll so much if not because he presented himself as the anti-Clinton on morality?

I take Gore at his word that he will not run.

Those are not Gore's words.
He said he has no plans and expectation to be a candidate again.
But he also said he does not completely rule it out.
That's not the same as "I will not run".
Not even Hillary would say now that "I will run". In fact she said that she does not have intention to run. Doesn't mean anything. It's just 2005.

altho I consider Gore to be a real Democrat, I hope he does not run.

Yeah why have a reasonable presidential candidate for a change? Why have someone running for that job who has been proven right again and again about serious policy matters?
We need someone exciting, right? That's all what matters.
If you want excitement go to your bedroom. Governance is more serious than some temporary entertainment.

Al Gore is the only one I can get enthusiastic enough to support. I will not vote for a pro-Iraq war Dem, like Hillary.

love to see Al Gore run and win AGAIN

but he didn't exactly fight real hard to make sure his win stuck. And he didn't run in 2004. Simply put, his day is past. He's a fine human being, but it's time to move on to someone else.

Oh. And it's about 18 months too early to be worrying about who will run three fucking years from now. Let's get through the 2006 election first. Let's make sure that election is actually a free, fair, and honest one, which I don't for one minute believe it will be.

in all her life. But her day is not past and Gore's day is past, right?
It doesn't make sense.
Same with McCain.
What's this double standard?

Gore is the most future orientered policy-maker you can find. He is not about the past. Never was. If anytime this is the time when a man like Gore should be in the White House. Just to name one issue: global warming. Did you notice Wilma?

And how can you say that he didn't fight? He fought to the very end for 36 days virtually alone while all those Hill Dems did nothing for him (unlike the Hill Reps for Bush) and while a bunch of Rep thugs were screeming in front of his house "Get out of Cheney's house" and worse?

Could you have fought for as long as Gore did under those circumstances?

And of course he didn't run in 2004 when neither the party leadership nor the Dem grassroots supported him. They wanted a "new face".
They got it. The "new face" was 60 years old and a Washington insider
for decades.
And sure he beat Bush.

Now again you want a 'new face'. And if he loses you will want a new face in 2012 and so on.

on my part. And age has nothing to do with it. Gore blew it in 2000.

He rolled over and played dead during the entire aftermath of the election. He thought that acting like a gentleman was the way to deal with Republican thugs. Wrong.

There was a reason the grass roots did not support him four years later. For one thing, he decided not to run well before the primaries. Why waste energy on someone who didn't want the job?

I was not a Kerry supporter, although I eventually voted for him, against my better judgment and my clear understanding that we would not have a free, fair, and honest election in 2004. Of course, Kerry rolled over even more quickly than Gore did, which was completely despicable.

Gore fought and fought and never relented, until SCOTUS appointed Shrub in the Bush v. Gore decision. What else do you think he could have done, started a civil war? When the Supreme Court went against him he didn't have any more legal recourse. It was a BS decision no doubt, but the blame should be directed squarely at SCOTUS, not at Big Al. He fought the good fight.

Besides, the Gore of today is very different and much stronger than the Gore of 2000. He's more charismatic, and a much stronger stump speaker. He's got an evil eye on the stage against any idiot who tries to BS him, too-- he'd scare the sh*t out of any GOP idiot who tried to take him on in a debate. Gore would not only rally the Dem base, he'd also capture quite a few Independents as well. IMHO he should be one of our Top 3 contenders for 2008 (which, incidentally, should have no DLCers anywhere close). Gore, Clark, maybe Mark Warner would be tough.

I don't know much about that guy, so info please.

Here's one of many articles ~ http://www.radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/07/11/index.php

And what does he know about national security?
What does he know about counter-terrorism?
Nothing. Governors know nothing about that issue. And They alwasy screw up. Carter, Reagan, Clinton Bush all screwed it up on national security and foreign policy in their first years.

has hired one of Al Gore’s top aides as a political advisor.

Aren't these the same advisors DUer love to hate?


edit: Do you have a link to a video where he speaks?

http://www.tvworldwide.com/showvideo.cfm?ID=2706

He sounds quite reasonable

But still more info needed on national security and counter-terrorism and the environment.

He rolled over and played dead during the entire aftermath of the election.

What? He played dead for those 36 days? Where were you back then?
He took the heat from virturally everyone, the Dems, the Reps the media and the thugs in front of his house. But he still didn't give up. After the SC decision he didn't have more legal options.

He thought that acting like a gentleman was the way to deal with Republican thugs. Wrong.

What did you do against the Reps during those 36 days?
Did you go to Gore's house to counter the thugs?
Did you got ot Bush's house to drive him crazy?

Do you think that one man alone can beat an entire army? No he can't.
The Dems did shit for Gore. The Reps were united behind Bush and were all over the place. In Washington, in Florida, on radio, on TV.
The Hill Reps never told Bush to stop, the Hill Dems told just that to Gore.

And where were the Dem grassroots? Nowhere. They were wimpy and timid.

This was not a fight between two candidates but between two parties.
And the Dem party let Gore down. Hell, even Joementum let him down.

For one thing, he decided not to run well before the primaries.

Of course not because he knew that he didn't have enough support.
He knew that from polls he knew that from the Dem establishment.
As ususal the Dems gave up.

Why waste energy on someone who didn't want the job?

He wanted the job -- as he told that in the 60 minutes interview.
But he couldn't run because he didn't have enough support from his own party. Simple as that. The Dems wanted a "new face". They got it. They were beaten. Great job.

I was not a Kerry supporter, although I eventually voted for him, against my better judgment and my clear understanding that we would not have a free, fair, and honest election in 2004. Of course, Kerry rolled over even more quickly than Gore did, which was completely despicable.

Kerry didn't roll over. He lost fair and square. Unlike Gore.

He ran a crappy campaign, but the black box voting allowed the election to be stolen and the real scary thing to me is that die-hard Democrats like too many here believe that Bush actually won.

Gore likewise ran a crappy campaign. He distanced himself from Clinton, who is the most charismatic politician of his generation. And when the black caucus tried to protest Florida's electoral votes (you should watch the beginning of Fahrenheit 911 again) he did absolutely nothing.

And if he doesn't have support from his own party, well, that says it all.

just speculation that he would have won Ohio without touchscreen machines. And he lost the popular vote by 3 million. That was not a cheat.

Gore likewise ran a crappy campaign. He distanced himself from Clinton,

Gore didn't ran a crappy campaign and he had to distance himself from Clinton. Clinton was a loser in 2000, he was behind Bush in every hypothetical poll except one in Oct, an ABC poll which was a statistical deadheat among registered voters. (44-41)If he was so damn popular why wouldn't people have wanted to re-elect him? Bush would have beaten him by 6 points in Aug, 2000. Why, if people wanted four more Clinton years?

Clinton gave Bush the White House with his lies and immoral behavior.
Only hard core Clinton fans are unable to admit that by ignoring the facts.


Political Leadership in a Divided Electorate:
Assessing Character Issues in the 2000 Presidential Campaign
By Stanley Renshon
Shorenstein Fellow, Spring 2000

Character Issues as a Legacy of the Clinton Presidency

Any discussion of the role of character issues in the 2000 presidential campaign must begin with the presidency of William J. Clinton. The Clinton presidency is virtually unique in having at its
helm a man whose performance evaluations were strong and whose personal standing was dismal. As they did throughout his impeachment trial, Americans consistently rated his performance in the 60% range, while saying in a variety of ways that they disapproved of his morals and ethics.
A January 27, 2000 ABC poll found that 58% of the public approved of Clinton’s performance as president, but 61% percent disapproved of him as a person.

Seven in ten Americans said they were tired of the problems associated with the administration, and fewer than one-third of
Americans wished that Clinton could run for a third term.

Fifty- four percent said they would be “glad to see him go,” and only 39% said they would be “sorry to see him go.”

Also, look at his poll numbers in red states, including in his homestate:

Alabama
Clinton as President approve 51 % disapprove 43 %
Clinton as a Person favorable 35 % unfavorable 61 %

Alaska
Clinton as President Approve 53 % Disapprove 45 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 45 % Unfavorable 53 %

Arizona
Clinton as President Approve 52 % Disapprove 41 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 43 % Unfavorable 54 %

Arkansas
Clinton as President Approve 49 % Disapprove 47 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34 % Unfavorable 63 %

Colorado
Clinton as President Approve 50 % Disapprove 46 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 39 % Unfavorable 55 %

Georgia
Clinton as President Approve 54 % Disapprove 42 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 35 % Unfavorable 57 %

Idaho
Clinton as President Approve 40 % Disapprove 57 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 23 % Unfavorable 73 %

Indiana
Clinton as President Approve 48 % Disapprove 50 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 27 % Unfavorable 70 %

Kansas
Clinton as President Approve 30 % Disapprove 63 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 17 % Unfavorable 74 %

Kentucky
Clinton as President Approve 49 % Disapprove 48 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 32 % Unfavorable 66 %

Lousiana
Clinton as President Approve 50 % Disapprove 44 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 36 % Unfavorable 54 %

Mississippi
Clinton as President Approve 49 % Disapprove 50 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 37 % Unfavorable 61 %

Missouri
Clinton as President Approve 55 % Disapprove 42 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 36 % Unfavorable 59 %

Montana
Clinton as President Approve 43 % Disapprove 54 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 24 % Unfavorable 73 %

Nebraska
Clinton as President Approve 42 % Disapprove 54 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 26 % Unfavorable 69 %

Nevada
Clinton as President Approve 56 % Disapprove 41 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 38 % Unfavorable 58 %

N. Hamp.
Clinton as President Approve 56 % Disapprove 42 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 31 % Unfavorable 66 %

N. Carolina
Clinton as President Approve 50% Disapprove 49 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34 % Unfavorable 64 %

S. Carolina
Clinton as President Approve 50% Disapprove 47 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 35 % Unfavorable 62 %

N. Dakota
Clinton as President Approve 48% Disapprove 50 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 26 % Unfavorable 71 %

Ohio
Clinton as President Approve 56% Disapprove 41 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 36 % Unfavorable 61 %

Ohlahoma
Clinton as President Approve 46% Disapprove 52 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 27% Unfavorable 70 %

S. Dakota
Clinton as President Approve 52% Disapprove 46%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 29% Unfavorable 69%

Tennessee
Clinton as President Approve 50% Disapprove 47%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34% Unfavorable 62%

Texas
Clinton as President Approve 45% Disapprove 52%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 33% Unfavorable 64%

Utah
Clinton as President Approve 40% Disapprove 58%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 20% Unfavorable 78%

Virginia
Clinton as President Approve 55% Disapprove 43%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 37% Unfavorable 59%

W. Virginia
Clinton as President Approve 55% Disapprove 41%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34% Unfavorable 63%

Wyoming
Clinton as President Approve 39% Disapprove 59%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 23% Unfavorable 76%

Sources:
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polllaunch.asp
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html


Or read this:

Relinking Gore to Clinton
From the Weekly Standard
08/18/2000
By Fred Barnes

Around the time of the political conventions in August, voters were asked in a Gallup poll to take another stab at the 1992 election. This time, President George Bush defeated Bill Clinton by 53 percent to 42 percent. Then, assuming Clinton could run for another term, they were asked if they preferred him or George W. Bush. The answer was Bush, 51 percent to 45 percent. Finally, this same group of voters registered a verdict on Clinton's presidency. A whopping 68 percent said it's been a success, 29 percent a failure. The meaning of all this: The Clinton bifurcation lives! Voters still like Clinton's performance as president but they don't want him around. And so in the 2000 election, voters want a new president who's the opposite of him personally—and especially morally—but not a strong critic of his policies.

More:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bcfc1964c8.htm

Gore was well behind Bush in the polls until people thought he was too close to Clinton and a Gore presidency would not be a fresh start, which they wanted. When he separated himself from Clinton at the convention he jumped in the polls by 8%, the biggest bounce in convention history. Most of his increase came from "moral value" voters. Guess why?

The facts do not support your theory that Gore was stupid to distance himself from Clinton. If he wanted to win he had to do that.

who is the most charismatic politician of his generation.

1.That's totally subjective and not everyone agrees with it.
For example, Clinton never could influence me. And I was not alone, especially after impeachment.
If he is so damn good at convincing people to follow him why did more people like Gore's convention speech than Clinton's and why would Gore have beaten Clinton in Aug 2000 if the Dem primaries had they been held then and if Gore had run against Clinton?

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 11-12

If the Democratic nomination for president were still being decided and if Bill Clinton could run again, would you rather see the Democrats nominate Al Gore or Bill Clinton for president?

Democrats Gore 48% Clinton 46%
Independents Gore 52% Clinton 29%
Republicans Gore 58% Clinton 12%

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/11/cnn.poll/index.html

Rating the speeches at the Democratic convention:

Excellent/good Gore 52% Clinton 44%
Just okay Gore 18% Clinton 16%
Poor/terrible Gore 6% Clinton 13%

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/21/cnn.poll/

2.Unlike you the majority of voters in 2000 cared much more about morality than about charisma -- whatever that means in Clinton's case.

3.Even if Clinton is charismatic what does that have to do with one voting for Gore?
In fact why should anyone vote for Al Gore just because Clinton is charismatic? Where is the logic in that?
Clinton wouldn't have been a member of a Gore administration. Logically he had nothing to do with the Gore campaign, either.
Clinton ran on his own in 1992 Gore had the same right in 2000.
He is noone's second banana.

And when the black caucus tried to protest Florida's electoral votes (you should watch the beginning of Fahrenheit 911 again) he did absolutely nothing.

Because he couldn't do anything under the rules and he had to fllow the rules. There was no Senator who was willing to sign the petition
and even if there had been it wouldn't have made any damn difference since the House was in Rep hands and under the Constitution is the electoral college is challenged the House picks the president.
Gore knew that apparently you didn't.

And if he doesn't have support from his own party, well, that says it all.

He didn't have it in 2004, because the party wanted a "fresh face".
Haha, they got it. Worked pretty well.
And if he didn't have the support that tells much more about this so-called party and how gutless they are but tells nothing about Gore.
The Republicans wouldn't have turned on Bush if he had "lost" the same way Gore did. They would have cried for 4 years that Gore was illegitimated and would have nominated Bush in a minute in 2004.
But you know that's the kind of difference between the two parties which makes Reps winners and Dems losers.

Mark Crispin Miller has a brand new book out about it.

It's really a problem if people here honestly think that Kerry lost in a free, fair, and honest election. They'll steal the next one, and you won't even recognize that it was stolen.

Oh, and by the way, get ready for the 2006 elections to be stolen. Anyone who actually believes there will be (I repeat myself, I know) a free, fair, and honest election next year is living in Fantasyland. Face it, the Nazis are in charge.

It's really a problem if people here honestly think that Kerry lost in a free, fair, and honest election.

Sure it was not 100% free and fair. But Bush's margin was simply too big to be the result of mere fraud. Even if Kerry won Ohio he lost to
Bush by 3 million votes. And I don't care about the electoral college.
No popular vote no mandate. No mandate no right to govern.

And in the case of black box voting the very reason of unaccountability is that noone can prove if there was fraud. Which means that any claim that there was fraud is just speculation.

"Mark Crispin Miller is a far-left liberal. Not credible." Well that answers it. Silly me. And to think that I thought exit polling was valid. (Walks away shaking her head.)

They did steal it last year, and they will steal elections on into the foreseeable future. And fifty or a hundred years from now people will wonder how decent people let this happen.

that Mark Crispin Miller is a far-left liberal.

Ideologues are just ideologues. Whether they are left or right what is common among them is that they don't care much about facts only about their own emotions.

what really happened in Ohio?

is that there is no way to prove fraud.

And as I said, even if Kerry won Ohio, it doesn't matter because he lost the popular vote by more than 3 million votes. No popular vote no mandate. No mandate you don't deserve to govern.

Gore at least won the popular vote and he was indeed robbed in Florida and it was proven by counting the actual votes.

You cannot say that regarding Kerry.

anomalies as more voters in a heavily Democratic precinct voting for Bush than there were registered voters in that precinct?

Personally, I'm convinced. All it took was stealing a few votes here and a few votes there, and it was easy to do.

Let me tell you one reason I'm so suspicious. I ran for office last year. I had poll watchers in each of my precincts at the close of the polls, to get the vote tallies as they were read off the -- you guessed it! -- touchscreen machines. And overall approximately half of the machines would not print out their results and the computer card had to be taken to the county election board to be read.

Now, I'm in Kansas, where Bush was going to win, no fraud needed. And although I lost, my loss was just about exactly the percentage I would have expected. But do a full half of the machines malfunctioning when it came to reading the results bother me? You bet it does. In a place where just a little fraud was needed it would have been more than easy to do. Did you not see all the stuff that was out there about how easy it is to hack into the machines? Howard Dean demonstrated it as I recall, on live TV.

And so long as people keep on saying, oh, well, Kerry lost by three million votes and completely overlook the complete lack of a paper trail, the fact that the exit polls had Kerry winning, well then, every election into the foreseeable future will be stolen and people like you won't think it matters.

I don't think we should argue against touchscreens by saying that Kerry was robbed in Ohio since there is simply no irrefutable evidence, precisely because touchscreens are unaccountable.

We simply should demostrate how someone can cheat with this technology and demand paper ballots.

Otherwise why doesn't this country use the simpliest, cheapest and most reliable voting method every invented : paper, pen, handcount?

Germany, Canada, UK, Sweded, India and countless of other democracies use just that and it works. Even Iraq and Afghanistan. If it's fine there why isn't it fine in the US?

There should be one uniform ballot printed in every state and people wrote an X next to the candidate's name and the ballots would be counted manually.
In 2000 one Florida county, Union, used this method. And there was no problem whatsoever.

Have you ever met a patriot who didn't express emotion? Outrage is not ideology. It's courage in the face of complacency.

agree with most things Mark Crispin Miller says? You know it's not the case.

Have you ever met a patriot who didn't express emotion?

Expressing some kind of emotion and being an ideologue are two different things. And public politicies should not be evaluated based on outrage but reason.

Outrage is not ideology. It's courage in the face of complacency.

1.Outrage solves nothing.
2.Outrage and courage are not he same things.
3.You can be an ideologue even without experssing outrage.
4.I wouldn't say that Mark Crispin Miller expresses outrage more than he expresses his ideology.

Though he says he's not running, I think he'd be an excellent choice.:kick:

I'd never ask him to go through that crap again...

I thought he was incredible back in 2000... But in 2008, we will have a new candidate -- not Kerry, not Gore, hopefully not Hillary..

And we'll win.

Warner and Clark are teaming up.. And I think they'll be a tough ticket to beat! :toast:

changed since then?

He is too tolerant. And he flip-flopped on the IWR.

:kick: It could work... :kick:

would be second banana.

as you have demonstrated since you've been here.

read his mind. Which of course you can't.

And I haven't heard Clark say that he would accept that vice-presidency.
Have you?

if you can't read his mind?....just like me.

Based on what I know about him I don't think he would accept a second banana position. I maybe wrong about that but I don't have any evidence that Clark would accept the vice presidency. Nor do you since he never said he would accept it.

Your repeated claims that Clark flip flopped on the IWR are at the very least the subject of significant controversy. What is not a controversy is that Clark in person testified before Congress against going into Iraq long before that IWR vote.

You and I have been through this before and I thought we reached an understanding that it was not healthy for us or our Party to reignite the atmosphere of Primary Wars, and so I thought we agreed we wouldn't. I know all the "evidence" that you can trot out to support your position on this. I can link back to all the threads from a few weeks back where this was rehashed endlessly. I can provide evidence to the contrary. I can point out the right wing connections of those in the media who pushed that meme. I can point out literal misquoting of Clark for example, where while what he actually said was "vote for a resolution" that was changed to "vote for the resolution" with context changed.

I take the time and effort to comment on this matter now because you just stretched to pull in this IWR "question" out of the blue to insert here. This is what you chose to present as a specific argument against Clark as a Presidential candidate, "Flip flopping". You sound like a Karl Rove hired speech writer engaged in pushing "gotcha politics". Clark's long record of opposing the Bush Administration misadventure in Iraq and the PNAC plans for Mid East domination includes dozens of clear consistent statements made over the course of three years, all documented in video links, books, congressional testimony, interviews with other leading progressives who spoke with Clark personally on the matter at the time etc. etc. Yet you chose to pull out and highlight a media created and manipulated tempest in a tea pot that right now is a complete diversion from many matters of real importance, including the 2005 and 2006 Elections and current U.S. policy toward Iraq and the region.

I know you are a very determined Gore guy and that's fine. You don't see me digging up the fact that Gore was a DLC founder every chance I get just because I support Wesley Clark, do you? Give it a break. Argue against Clark, if you feel it is that important to you, based on something more substantial than an interview conducted by a right wing sympathizing reporter years ago. Even if you choose to disbelieve Clark's explanation of that, it is not a pivotal matter in choosing who the Democrats should run in 2008. Clark's opinions on what the appropriate U.S. involvement in Iraq should and should not be, then as well as NOW, have consistently been a matter of clear public record. That is unlike a certain Democrat who you are fond of.

Your repeated claims that Clark flip flopped on the IWR are at the very least the subject of significant controversy. What is not a controversy is that Clark in person testified before Congress against going into Iraq long before that IWR vote.

1.It's only a controversy for those who do not like the Clark quotes in the NYT and Globe articles.
Clarke never denied the accuracy of those quotes. Noone ever denied that he indeed said those words. And if he said those words then no objective person can conclude that he did not flip-flop.
He did because he knew that during the primaries it was better to be perceived as someone who was against the IWR all along. And Clark was not. He just seemed to have no idea what to say about it.
He even claimed that he didn't know what was in the resolution.
That itself is an unbelievable claim but if it's true it shows an astonishing indifference.

2.It doesn't matter what he said before the Congress in Sept since the issue is whether he flip-flopped or not and not whether he said at one point of time that there was no need for a resolution authorizing the use of force. Yeah he said that in Sept. Then he changed his mind in Oct. Then he said he probably would have voted for the IWR. Then he said he would have voted no on the IWR. No sane person would call this a consistent position. It was all politics because by the end of 2003
the Iraq war was perceived by most Dems as a horrible mistake.

3.Clark became a Democrat all of a sudden during the primaries. What a coincident.

You and I have been through this before and I thought we reached an understanding that it was not healthy for us or our Party to reignite the atmosphere of Primary Wars,

The person who suggested that Clark should be the nominee istead of Gore already engaged in a primary war.

I know all the "evidence" that you can trot out to support your position on this. I can link back to all the threads from a few weeks back where this was rehashed endlessly. I can provide evidence to the contrary.

No, you can't. You can provide spin but not evidence. Clark said what he said and it was clear, black and white language. Noone who was against the IWR all along would say that I probably would have voted for it. And that's exactly what Clark said.

I can point out the right wing connections of those in the media who pushed that meme.

You cannot point out the Globe reporter's right wing connections because such connections don't exit.

I can point out literal misquoting of Clark for example, where while what he actually said was "vote for a resolution" that was changed to "vote for the resolution" with context changed.

That argument itself collapses if you take a closer look at Clark's own defense.
But I was not talking about that a vs. the stuff. I was talking about those two statements he said in 2003. First "probably yes" then "no". Clear flip-flop.

I take the time and effort to comment on this matter now because you just stretched to pull in this IWR "question" out of the blue to insert here.

Not out of the blue. It was a response to someone who suggested that Clark would be a better nominee than Gore. And since Iraq is no small deal, and most Dems are against it, it seems to be a huge amount of hypocrisy from these Dems that they would prefer a someone who couldn't make up his mind about the IWR over someone who opposed it all along.

This is what you chose to present as a specific argument against Clark as a Presidential candidate, "Flip flopping".

Yes, flip-flopping on the IWR. That's no small deal. If you don't understand the significance
of it ask Cindy Sheehan about it.
Noone who changes his or her mind about an issue like the IWR for mere political reasons should be considered a serious presidential candidate. Not Hillary and not Clark. Unless the Dem party is full of hypocrites who only bash Bush for playing politics with national security but when a Dem does the same they don't mind it.

This is what you chose to present as a specific argument against Clark as a Presidential candidate, "Flip flopping".

It's not gotcha. Clark can't have it both ways. If he knew all along that that resolution was a bad idea he shouldn't have said at any time "I probably would have voted for it". But he did say it and words have meaning.

Clark's long record of opposing the Bush Administration misadventure in Iraq

He doesn't have a consistent record on that. That's the problem. When it seemed to be politically beneficial he changed his position.

and the PNAC plans for Mid East domination includes dozens of clear consistent statements made over the course of three years

The issue is the IWR not the PNAC plans for Mid East domination. The later is an abstract subject the former is a concrete resolution with very specific language.


all documented in video links, books, congressional testimony, interviews with other leading progressives who spoke with Clark personally on the matter at the time etc. etc.

And in what way do " all those documented in video links, books, congressional testimony, interviews" eliminate what he told the NYT and the Globe? No way.

Yet you chose to pull out and highlight a media created and manipulated tempest in a tea pot that right now is a complete diversion from many matters of real importance, including the 2005 and 2006 Elections and current U.S. policy toward Iraq and the region.

It was not created by the media. Those were Clark's own words. He never denied them. Instead he tried to defend himself by later saying "I would have voted no on the resolution".
If what you say is correct why didn't Clark just told the Globe: the press miquoted me or the press misinterpreted my words? Why didn't he defend himself by saying exactly what you say now?

I know you are a very determined Gore guy and that's fine. You don't see me digging up the fact that Gore was a DLC founder every chance I get just because I support Wesley Clark, do you?

Why would you bring that up? Is being a DLC founder a sin or what?
Gore was a DLC founder. Good for him.
What does that have to do with national security or political expedience?
Gore is not a liberal. Never was. Why wouldn't he have co-founded the DLC back in the 80s, when the DLC itself was much more reasonable than they are today?
He left them when the DLC forgot where they came from and started to behave like Reps. But they were not like that when Gore was a co-founder.

I know you are a very determined Gore guy and that's fine. You don't see me digging up the fact that Gore was a DLC founder every chance I get just because I support Wesley Clark, do you?

Is is as much substantial as the Iraq war itself is substantial. If you want to be president you cannot play political games with such a serious issue. But that's exactly what Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, Gephardt, Clark and others did.

Even if you choose to disbelieve Clark's explanation of that, it is not a pivotal matter in choosing who the Democrats should run in 2008.

It should be for anyone who believes that national security policy should not be a subject of political games. Clark didn't understand that. Nor did Hillary. It's inexusable.

Clark's opinions on what the appropriate U.S. involvement in Iraq should and should not be, then as well as NOW, have consistently been a matter of clear public record.

Yes, and that's why I know that he flip-flopped. Because he is on the record saying two very different things about the IWR.

That is unlike a certain Democrat who you are fond of.

Gore's Iraq statements are on the record, too. Anyone who is interested can read them.

What Clark says now about Iraq is totally irrelevant. It's too little too late and nothing he can say now will erase what he did in 2003.
Moreover nothing he says about Iraq will have any impact on
events on the ground. And nothing he says about Iraq right now will win this war.
In other words: he can talk about Iraq today as much as he wants it is good for nothing.
He should have taken a clear stand when it was not too late and should have tried to convince the Hill Dems to reject the resolution -- as Gore did. But he didn't do that.

At least Wes Clark never sanctioned politically motivated kidnappings of young children just to pander to a bunch of psychos down in Miami for a few votes.

Why don't we try to keep this thread on subject?

and he knew that supporting the family court solution would hurt him politically but he thought it was still the right thing to do. That case should have been solved in a family court. The RW made it a political issue not Gore.

But most of all regarding the Elian case you don't have a Gore quote which supports your accusation. All you have is the media's spin. You know, "this was his motivation and I know it because I have a mind-reader" type of stuff which happens all the time in the press, especially with regard to Gore.
But in the case of Clark you don't need a mind-reader. You have actual quotes, which Clark never disputed, which proves he flip-flopped.

You know that's the kind of evidence which makes a "mushroom cloud in New York" and a "non-existent nuclear program" different. The first is spin the second is based on facts.

Moreover anyone who compares the significance of that silly Elian melodrama to the IWR lacks perspective. For one thing noone would have died if that case had been resolved in a family court. By contrast 1000s died as a result of the IWR. Elian had nothing to do with national security the IWR had a lot to do with it.
If Clark had played political games with Elian I wouldn't give a shit.
But he played with a war. And that is inexusable.

And you dispute it but with what evidence? Do you claim that Clark didn't say those words or what?

You said:

"The person who suggested that Clark should be the nominee instead of Gore already engaged in a primary war."

I wonder how many here at DU share your definition of "primary wars". Expressing a preference for one Democrat over another is not my idea of a "primary war". I've been through the real ones here at Democratic Underground and I would rather we didn't keep having them. You however intentionally dug back into the past for a hot button issue to push. I don't think that serves the interests of the person that you are supporting though you obviously differ. Alright. Check back later, I will have more to say to you. A quick scan of your post reveals many points which, let's be gentle for the moment, are subject to very different conclusions, and/or are based on disputed information. I will have some words about your logic also. I will try to keep this discussion from flaming out but you are not helping matters, in my opinion with comments like this one:

"(A 2008 Presidential Run) should be for anyone who believes that national security policy should not be a subject of political games. Clark didn't understand that."

Which is to say in other words that you think Clark believes National Security Policy should be the subject of political games. It is that type of blatant negative and distorted perception of Wesley Clark that underlies your entire "read" on what happened between 2002 and 2004 and colors what you accept as reality.

Later. I have things to do and this will take a little time...

I wonder how many here at DU share your definition of "primary wars". Expressing a preference for one Democrat over another is not my idea of a "primary war".

There is a reason why someone does that. Even if he/she doesn't elaborate about that reason in one particular post.

You however intentionally dug back into the past for a hot button issue to push.

Yes since the issue was why Clark should be the Dem nominee instead of Gore. That was obvious from the poster's comment.

I don't think that serves the interests of the person that you are supporting though you obviously differ.

But it serves the truth about Clark. Which one would think matters when we decide who should be the nominee, no?

Alright. Check back later, I will have more to say to you. A quick scan of your post reveals many points which, let's be gentle for the moment, are subject to very different conclusions, and/or are based on disputed information.

It's not enough if it's disputed by someone. It has to be based on facts. Not just opinions.

Which is to say in other words that you think Clark believes National Security Policy should be the subject of political games.

Which is to say that Clark already did that. It's part of his record. And it's inexusable.

It is that type of blatant negative and distorted perception of Wesley Clark that underlies your entire "read" on what happened between 2002 and 2004 and colors what you accept as reality.

Prove that Clark didn't flip-flop and that would resolve this issue.
Actions have consequences. If Clark now pretends to be someone he is not (a person who opposed the IWR all along) then that simultanously shows lack of judgement on serious policy matters like the IWR and political expediency. And if that's the case he deserves the negative perception and it is not based on distortion of reality.
Clark said many many things between 2002 and 2004. But just because he said something at one point of time which alone suggests he wouldn't have voted for the resolution that in no way invalidates my argument that he flip-flopped since at other point of time he said he probably would have voted for the resolution.

Do you actually understand what the phrase "flip-flop" means?

That you can't seem to promote Gore without attacking Clark.

And for the record, you wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you in the ass. All you do is regurgitate GOP talking points. I think that's pretty obvious to all here. If you think you're helping Gore, you really need to think again.

about Clark not Gore.

And for the record, you wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you in the ass. All you do is regurgitate GOP talking points.

Not exactly.

Here are the facts:

Flip:

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

September 19, 2003 by the New York Times

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

Note: Clark never denied that these were his words.

Flop:

"I would have voted no on that resolution," Clark said during that call. "I had serious concerns that the president had no intention of really building an international coalition." Clark said his doubts came as the result of discussions with friends in the Pentagon.

October 24, 2003,Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/10/24/clarks_scrambled_message_on_iraq/

Note: Clark never denied that these were his words.

If you think you're helping Gore, you really need to think again.

If you really think Clark didn't flip-flop on the IWR for political gain think again. The facts are not on your side and you will not refute anything by random emotional outbursts.

I think this one is pretty obvious....I doubt anyone's missing the fact that he/she brings up this shit every chance they get. And I think a lot of folks here are smart enough to see through it and to have educated themselves enough about Clark to know where he really stands.

I'm still trying to figure out what this one's game is exactly though...He/she claimed not to know that Bush used the term "internets", which I would think anyone paying even the slightest attention during the runup to the election would have known....Yet, he/she has all of this Clark-bashing stuff easily at hand....and a lot of stuff to try to make Gore look better too...It's just really really curious is all I'm sayin'. :shrug:

I think this one is pretty obvious....I doubt anyone's missing the fact that he/she brings up this shit every chance they get.

No. Only when Clark is promoted as the 2008 nominee by Dems who also think voting for the IWR was a major blunder and that Hill Dems were cowards to vote for it. Clark was not less of a coward and I'm fighting against double-standard whereever I can.

And I think a lot of folks here are smart enough to see through it and to have educated themselves enough about Clark to know where he really stands.

So far none of those "smart folks" managed to come up with any evidence that Clark didn't in fact flip-flop in the IWR. None of those "smart people" could explain why Clark never denied the accuracy of those quotes.
It's not enough to say it's shit. Prove it that it's false.

I'm still trying to figure out what this one's game is exactly though

To counter the lie that Clark was against the IWR all along. It's simply not true.

He/she claimed not to know that Bush used the term "internets",

And what does that have to do with Clark and the IWR?
Guess what? I do not pay attention to every damn word Bush utters.
Nor do you, by the way. So what's your point?

which I would think anyone paying even the slightest attention during the runup to the election would have known

You can think many things. But that doesn't mean you are right.
In fact you had a very little chance to notice Bush's "internets" comment if you only payed
"the slightest attention during the runup to the election".

Yet, he/she has all of this Clark-bashing stuff easily at hand

And not only that but I also know next to nothing about prehistoric art and still I know a lot about Beethoven's symphonies. How is that possible, you wonder. Can it be that someone knows nothing about subject X while knows a lot about subject Y?

and a lot of stuff to try to make Gore look better too...It's just really really curious is all I'm sayin'.

That's because I know a lot of stuff about Gore.
What don't you understand about that, dear?

I seem to have touched a nerve.....curiouser and curiouser....hmmmm....

my questions.

Only cowards dogde questions, dear. Like Bush, for example.

Gee, to be perfectly honest with you, I must confess that I no longer really read your posts when they're longer than a sentence or two, and sometimes not even then. After reading the same thing about 20 or so times, I decided it wasn't worth my time to keep reading it over and over again.....So I didn't read your questions but I did catch the "dear" on the end...and I see it again. You can call me a coward or compare me to Bush if that makes you happy (I saw that too...one of your short posts, you know), but you are not going to get me to read or answer your questions. I'm thinking I'm not the only one here whose time would be better spent on things other than going around in the same circles over and over again.

So, you know, I wouldn't waste a lot of words on me if I were you because I'm not going to read them...But, if you choose to continue to expose yourself, knock yourself out, I guess.

Now, as Tom says, this is really a Gore thread and I doubt should-have-been-our President Gore would appreciate this exchange on a nice thread dedicated to him so you take care now. But do make sure you get in the last word, OK? :hi:

Gee, to be perfectly honest with you, I must confess that I no longer really read your posts when they're longer than a sentence or two, and sometimes not even then.

Bush doesn't like reading anything longer than a few sentences, either. Seems to me you are just as intellectually lazy. Don't you want to be president?

After reading the same thing about 20 or so times, I decided it wasn't worth my time to keep reading it over and over again....

If you haven't come up with the same things 20 or so times I wouldn't have replied the same things 20 or so times. But one has to be consistent -- unlike Clark.
But so far you said nothing which would refute that Clark indeed said he would have voted for the resolution then he said he would have voted against it.

You dogde that question because the only honest answer would not fit in your prefered imagine of Clark. That's what it's all about.

So I didn't read your questions but I did catch the "dear" on the end...and I see it again.

You say I said the same things 20 or so times. Now you say that you didn't read one question in my last post. Wasn't that question asked 20 or so times? How could you missed it if it was?

You can call me a coward or compare me to Bush if that makes you happy

It's not that it makes me happy it's just that you are a coward just like Bush who also dodges questions he doesn't like.

(I saw that too...one of your short posts, you know)

Yes short post are good for your attention span. I understand.

but you are not going to get me to read or answer your questions.

You said you already did that 20 or so times. Otherwise how would you know that I said the same things 20 or so times? You can't have it both ways.

I'm thinking I'm not the only one here whose time would be better spent on things other than going around in the same circles over and over again.

And suprisingly all of those other people are Clark fans who can't explain why Clark flip-flopped so instead they just go away or keep spinning.

So, you know, I wouldn't waste a lot of words on me if I were you because I'm not going to read them

But you will hear the same things if Clark runs. And he will have to explain why he said what he said. So enjoy your lazyness until you can.

But, if you choose to continue to expose yourself, knock yourself out, I guess.

No, I'm allright, thanks. No knocking occured. Other than the fact that you cannot deal with Clark's flip-flop.

Now, as Tom says, this is really a Gore thread and I doubt should-have-been-our President Gore would appreciate this exchange on a nice thread dedicated to him so you take care now. But do make sure you get in the last word, OK?

You know there was a reason why Gore said in 2003 I endorsed Dean because he was the only major Dem presidential candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. Of course Clark didn't like that and started to push the line "me too" "me too". But he didn't have the record to back that up.
Gore knows what I know about Clark otherwise he wouldn't have said that about Dean.

It is obviously bent on alienating Clark people from supporting Al Gore for anything. I suppose that's a "game", though most here at DU have already had this discussion and have sorted it all out. Most of us are serious about issues and have little time for those who can only parrot RW talking points.

Anyone who relies heavily on Pindell of fundie-owned PoliticsNH and Adam Nagourney of the oh-so-credible NY times must have a 'game' in there somewhere.

If the worst thing Clark ever does is try to answer a complex question with the complexity it deserves, I'll be very happy.

I'm tired of sound-bite politicians, whether they invented the internets or not.... whether they inspired 'Love Story' or not.

Thanks for playing.

It is obviously bent on alienating Clark people from supporting Al Gore for anything.

Can't stand the heat? You rather deny the obvious than admit the obvious.
It is to show that Clark is just another political hack , not better than the Hill Dems who voted for the war and does not deserve a better treatment on Iraq than either Hillary, Kerry or Edwards who voted for the IWR because of political expediency. Clark tries to pretend nowadays that he was against the IWR all along. It's simply not true and his own words comfirm that. Whoever runs against Clark I hope will not let him get away with this lie.

I suppose that's a "game", though most here at DU have already had this discussion and have sorted it all out.

If Clark runs you will this NYT-Globe duo during the primaries, he will not get away with it.

Most of us are serious about issues and have little time for those who can only parrot RW talking points.

Clark's own words are not RW talking a points. He said what he said. Words have meaning.
And yes is the opposite of no. Capisco?

Anyone who relies heavily on Pindell of fundie-owned PoliticsNH and Adam Nagourney of the oh-so-credible NY times must have a 'game' in there somewhere.

You can forget Pindell if you want, the issue was the quotes in 2003. One in the NYT and another in the Globe. You will not discredit that report by just accusing Nagourney lying without any evidence. Clark never denied the accuracy of his and Jacoby's quote. In fact he called the Globe later because he was concerned that those quotes would backfire during the primaries. But he didn't tell the Globe: Nagourney misquoted me. He just tell that "I would have voted no on the resolution".

Again look at these quotes in the NYT article:

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

Do you think Jacoby didn't say that? Do you think Clark didn't reply "Right". "Exactly"?
Basicaly that's what you say but without any evidence against Nagourney.

If the worst thing Clark ever does is try to answer a complex question with the complexity it deserves, I'll be very happy.

Clark didn't try to answer a complex question with the complexity in these two particular case. In fact he was succint. He just said "Right, exactly." answering a simple question :
I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here. You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution.

And then to the Globe:
"I would have voted no on that resolution," Clark said during that call. "I had serious concerns that the president had no intention of really building an international coalition." Clark said his doubts came as the result of discussions with friends in the Pentagon.

Anything simplier than that? I would -- have -- voted -- no -- on -- that -- resolution.
OK? It's not that complex. This is what Gore said on November 21, 2002. But unlike Clark he never said anything else about the IWR.

I'm tired of sound-bite politicians, whether they invented the internets or not.... whether they inspired 'Love Story' or not.

These were misquotes, buddy. Clark's words were really his. Can you understand the difference?

Please stop acting so condescending. That would be a good starting point.

In politics it means to give the appearance of changing ones position on an important matter. The use of the term "flip flop" is almost always initiated by a political adversary, though on some occasions it is then picked up by the media, but I for one do not hold to the naive fantasy that the media can be counted on to be objective. Even in some instances when at least some attempt is made to be "objective", laziness or poor reporting or inaccurate or biased sources or the drive for higher ratings or for eye catching ear grabbing copy or simply to sound "current" can cause the media to use that god awful term in a sloppy manner. Flip flop is an accusation, and usually it is an incredibly simplistic avoidance of a real discussion to throw that phrase out as an accusation.

"Flip flop" in fact is completely a political term substituted for a more neutral phrase such as "changed position". The latter carries the implied possibility that, assuming it is being accurately applied, good reasons may explain a possible shift. The former is a character indictment. "Flip flop" can deal with appearances as much as if not more than with substance. Like most of everything that passes for political discourse nowadays, currently the charge of "flip flop" more often deals with appearances. Hence Kerry is called a "flip flopper" because he said "Actually I voted for the amendment before I voted against it." In reality Kerry meant to say that he voted for a different version of an amendment (funding our troops in Iraq) before he voted against the final version that made it to the Senate floor. But Kerry's literal words, taken out of context, implied an about face of important substance, hence the accusation that Kerry "flip flopped".

You make out "the truth" behind "flip flopping" to be simple black and white reality which is laughable, because at its core it almost always relates to appearances, and often involves instances where a person fails to use clear enough wording, or on occasion chooses poor or sometimes even wrong wording. In the blood sport called politics adversaries look for words that can be lifted from context and used against their foe. They don't care about the truth. They care about the appearance.

Typical of the political art of "flip flop" accusations, you seize on a few words or sentences as truth and discard the life of the person who said them as irrelevant. That is how you reach such a truly mind boggling conclusion as to dismiss General Wesley Clark as unfit for a Presidential run because he believes in playing political games with National Security. (Think about that one for a while readers. Think about General Clark's whole life stacked up against the conclusion drummo has drawn here based on his read of this instance). That is also how you end up in the amazing convoluted intellectual position of saying, as you did above, that matters of war are too important to cut a potential Presidential candidate any slack around. Matters of war. Are you giving General Clark a morality lesson on the significance of War, or worse yet, grading him on his understanding of that?

I planned to take our discussion in a different direction with book marked sources and quotes and research and all of that type stuff. However I found that DU has it's advanced search function disabled at the moment, and I know what I am looking for but do not have it bookmarked so that will have to wait. Maybe that is as it should be. Maybe digging into all that stuff will just prolong a flame thread. Depending on what else is said or not said on this thread I may or may not go through the effort later. I was honest about thinking it is a terrible idea to go down this road but if you remain hell bent on it we shall.

In politics it means to give the appearance of changing ones position on an important matter.

No, in politics it means changing your position for pure political gain.

The use of the term "flip flop" is almost always initiated by a political adversary, though on some occasions it is then picked up by the media, but I for one do not hold to the naive fantasy that the media can be counted on to be objective.

I use it for the sake of brevity and also because what Clark did was wrong.
It was not a change of position after new information was available.
It was a change of position because he wanted to defeat the other candidates.

Even in some instances when at least some attempt is made to be "objective", laziness or poor reporting or inaccurate or biased sources or the drive for higher ratings or for eye catching ear grabbing copy or simply to sound "current" can cause the media to use that god awful term in a sloppy manner.

I am not the media and I use the phrase to descibe something that Clark indeed did: change his message on how he would have voted on the IWR.

Flip flop is an accusation, and usually it is an incredibly simplistic avoidance of a real discussion to throw that phrase out as an accusation.

1.You bet it's an accusation. I do accuse Clark for being an opportunist and pretender on Iraq. And I actually can back that accusation with Clark's own words.

2.I'm fully aware that most policy issues are complex. But the IWR was exceptionally simple. It was a blank check for war which Bush wanted because he wanted to invade Iraq.
On that one you could take a very simple position: yes or no. Clark's flip-flop came after the resolution was passed. Unlike in 2002 Oct there was no longer a question about the language. By 2003 he had to know what it meant.
So for him to say in 2003 that I probably would have voted for it, then I don't know if I would have or not then that I would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution
then I would have voted no on the resolution is nothing but political maneuvering during a presidential primary.

"Flip flop" in fact is completely a political term substituted for a more neutral phrase such as "changed position". The latter carries the implied possibility that, assuming it is being accurately applied, good reasons may explain a possible shift. The former is a character indictment.

Precisely.

Like most of everything that passes for political discourse nowadays, currently the charge of "flip flop" more often deals with appearances. Hence Kerry is called a "flip flopper" because he said "Actually I voted for the amendment before I voted against it." In reality Kerry meant to say that he voted for a different version of an amendment (funding our troops in Iraq) before he voted against the final version that made it to the Senate floor. But Kerry's literal words, taken out of context, implied an about face of important substance, hence the accusation that Kerry "flip flopped".

I know. But what does this have to do with Clark and the IWR?
Kerry was unfaily accused of flip-flopping on the funding issue.
Clark is fairly accused of flip-flopping on the IWR.

You make out "the truth" behind "flip flopping" to be simple black and white reality which is laughable, because at its core it almost always relates to appearances, and often involves instances where a person fails to use clear enough wording, or on occasion chooses poor or sometimes even wrong wording.

What was not black and white in the IWR in 2003!! ?


In the blood sport called politics adversaries look for words that can be lifted from context and used against their foe. They don't care about the truth. They care about the appearance.

I care about the truth. That's why I looked for the actual sources of the Clark quotes not just jump to conclusion because I heard somewhere that Clark flip-flopped on the IWR.
The truth is that he did. You can't say in Sept 2003 that you would have voted for the resolution then in Oct 2003 that you would have voted no on the resolution without committing a major-league flip-flop.

Typical of the political art of "flip flop" accusations, you seize on a few words or sentences as truth and discard the life of the person who said them as irrelevant.

But that was not the case in this particular case.
It was not a few words. It was about three sentences wich had obvious meaning.
The first meant: I probably would have voted for it.
The second meant: I would have voted for it as leverage for a U.N.-based solution
The third meant: I would have voted against it.

If that's not a flip-flop then what it is?
Is there any difference in your world between "yes" and "no"? Or "probably yes" and "no"?

That is how you reach such a truly mind boggling conclusion as to dismiss General Wesley Clark as unfit for a Presidential run because he believes in playing political games with National Security.

It is even more mindboggling that you deny the obvious: Clark changed his position because he didn't want to lose the nomination. After all there is no way that a human would do such a thing, right? History is full of such political maneuvers. Clark added one more to the list. That's it.
But if you do that with regard to a deadly serious issue like the IWR you should have no place in the White House. Clark supporters who are so eager to bash Bush for using nas.sec. for political gain but overlook Clark's flip-flop are hypocrites. Simple as that.

(Think about that one for a while readers. Think about General Clark's whole life stacked up against the conclusion drummo has drawn here based on his read of this instance)

Think about the whole life of all those who died in this war which started with the IWR with which Clark played a game to save his candidacy.

That is also how you end up in the amazing convoluted intellectual position of saying, as you did above, that matters of war are too important to cut a potential Presidential candidate any slack around. Matters of war. Are you giving General Clark a morality lesson on the significance of War, or worse yet, grading him on his understanding of that?

I'm giving Clark a lesson that he should not play politics with a war resolution. If he would have voted for it -- as he first said -- he should keep that position to the very end or admit that he was wrong, even if he loses an election. But he should not pretend he is someone who was against the IWR all along when in fact he was not.


I planned to take our discussion in a different direction with book marked sources and quotes and research and all of that type stuff. However I found that DU has it's advanced search function disabled at the moment, and I know what I am looking for but do not have it bookmarked so that will have to wait. Maybe that is as it should be. Maybe digging into all that stuff will just prolong a flame thread. Depending on what else is said or not said on this thread I may or may not go through the effort later. I was honest about thinking it is a terrible idea to go down this road but if you remain hell bent on it we shall.

You could save time if you just proved that those were not Clark's words.
Can you?

I think you have a personal anti Clark agenda or at the very least you have formed a deeply felt highly negative opinion of him to which you are very attached. That is the most neutral way I know of to put it, and it would be unwise to emphatically say more than that. If I didn't know better I would say that you are going out of your way to create tensions between those who admire Al Gore and those who admire Wesley Clark.

You do not accept some matters as being in dispute because you prefer the version of truth that compliments your current position. You have already condemned Wesley Clark as being an opportunist and pretender, therefor you will not accept any of his explanations about what transpired in interviews, that much is clear. You will not accept as a possibility that a poor or wrong choice of words may have led to confusion. You show no interest in context that establishes that Clark's off the cuff comments reflected a period of several days during which more than one IWR resolution was under consideration for which multiple wordings had been proposed, and that Clark in fact was engaged in discussions with the Democratic Senate leadership over a resolution that they and he could support instead of Bush's. So you dismiss out of hand Clark's assertion that he would have supported "a" IWR resolution, but not "the" IWR resolution that ultimately passed. One of the DU threads I wanted to search for had detailed information in fact on how that was misconstrued by the media.

You think you have your "gotcha" moment on Clark and you won't let anything get between you and it unless I can pull off an episode of the Twilight Zone and have those print articles wiped off the face of the Earth and magically replaced with others bearing the same date but different words. That much is clear to me now. Your depth of disdain for Clark, the conclusions you seek to draw about him from the material you decide to work with, to the exclusion of all else, shows me your fixed mind set. I am not equating you with a Right wing Republican, but I am saying that it would be just about as productive for me to attempt an open minded discussion with you about Wesley Clark as it would be for me to do so with one of them. We are coming from profoundly different realities here.

You will adhere to the evidence that supports your world view regarding Clark, and I am sure that you feel the same about me. I do not want to hijack a thread to have an argument that I see no value in pursuing.

I think you have a personal anti Clark agenda or at the very least you have formed a deeply felt highly negative opinion of him to which you are very attached.

I have a negative opinion about someone who flip-flops for political gain on such a serious issue like the IWR. Why? You like that kind of behavior?

If I didn't know better I would say that you are going out of your way to create tensions between those who admire Al Gore and those who admire Wesley Clark.

Paranoid.

You do not accept some matters as being in dispute because you prefer the version of truth that compliments your current position.

Don't dance around it. Yes is the opposite of no. All right?
Clark first said he would have voted for the resolution then he said he would have voted against it.
If those quotes are not accurate prove it. If you can't you don't have a case.

You have already condemned Wesley Clark as being an opportunist and pretender

What else would explain his flip-flop when he was running for president?

therefor you will not accept any of his explanations about what transpired in interviews, that much is clear.

Look, no matter what he said elsewhere if there was a clear conflict between those two statements he also said. Someone who was against the IWR all along would not say at any moment that he would have voted for it as leverage. That is as obvious as 1+1=2.
Whatever he said elsewhere does not eliminate his comments about the resolution at those two occasions.

You will not accept as a possibility that a poor or wrong choice of words may have led to confusion.

No because his own press secretary clarified the issue so that everyone would understand what Clark wanted to say. And then Clark comfirmed that:

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

Don't tell me that this was just a poor choice of words. Clark knew very well what he was saying.
Just like when he called Scot Lehigh to tell him:

"I would have voted no on that resolution," Clark said during that call. "I had serious concerns that the president had no intention of really building an international coalition." Clark said his doubts came as the result of discussions with friends in the Pentagon.

That's again clearly not a poor choice or words. He knew what he was saying.

You show no interest in context that establishes that Clark's off the cuff comments reflected a period of several days during which more than one IWR resolution was under consideration for which multiple wordings had been proposed, and that Clark in fact was engaged in discussions with the Democratic Senate leadership over a resolution that they and he could support instead of Bush's.

These were not off the cuff comments, and Clark made these two statements in 2003 not when the IWR was still under consideration. Get it? He flip-flopped in 2003!

So you dismiss out of hand Clark's assertion that he would have supported "a" IWR resolution, but not "the" IWR resolution that ultimately passed.

I dismiss the argument that just because the "the" comment was not a direct quote obviously he said "a resolution". And I dismiss it because the "a" comment was not a direct quote either.
If neither was a direct quote how can you know that he said "a" and not "the"?
The fact is that you don't know. But you treat the "a" comment as a matter of fact because that's what you want to believe.

But again, forget that AP report, if you want. I was talking about what Clark was doing during the primary campaign in 2003.

One of the DU threads I wanted to search for had detailed information in fact on how that was misconstrued by the media.

1.Source?

2.Irrelevant. Because the issue was his flip-flop in 2003 not what he said in 2002.

You think you have your "gotcha" moment on Clark and you won't let anything get between you and it unless I can pull off an episode of the Twilight Zone and have those print articles wiped off the face of the Earth and magically replaced with others bearing the same date but different words.

Look, if Clark was so sure that he was against Bush's blank check resolution then how on earth didn't he know that in 2003? And why did he change from "yes I would have voted for it" to
"I would have voted no on it" between Sept, 2003 and Oct, 2003?
Could you explain that to me? Why would someone who was so much against the IWR all along and who didn't want political gain by pretending that he was against the IWR all along
take a U-turn like that during a presidential campaign?

I ask you again: can you understand the difference between yes and no? If you can how can you deny this obvious flip-flop?

Your depth of disdain for Clark, the conclusions you seek to draw about him from the material you decide to work with, to the exclusion of all else, shows me your fixed mind set.

You change the subject. The issue is what he said about the IWR during his campaign.
Try to focus on that and explain: why would someone say I would have voted for it then I would have voted against it if he doesn't want to pretend he was against it all along?

I am not equating you with a Right wing Republican, but I am saying that it would be just about as productive for me to attempt an open minded discussion with you about Wesley Clark as it would be for me to do so with one of them.

This is whining. Stay focused: why the 'yes' and then the 'no' on the IWR in 2003?
If it was not a flip-flop for political gain what was it?

We are coming from profoundly different realities here.

That's for sure. In my reality there is a Clark quote which shows he would have voted for the IWR. Then there is another Clark quote which shows that he would have voted against the IWR.
I don't know why these quotes do not exist in your reality but I can read them on two very real webpages if I follow those two very real links posted on this also very real board.

You will adhere to the evidence that supports your world view regarding Clark,

I didn't not make up that evidence. Do you claim that those quotes are inaccurate? Do you claim they are somehow out-of-context? If so how?
And if those quotes are perfectly accurate how can you claim they don't prove Clark flip-flopped on the IWR?

I do not want to hijack a thread to have an argument that I see no value in pursuing.

You at least the third Clark supporter who just can't do anything with those two quotes.
So at the end you always end up suggesting: I actually have evidence which would prove that Clark has been consistently against the IWR ever since Sept 2002 but I will not waste my time to show it.

This tactic is way too transparent. Obviously no evidence can somehow undo what Clark said in 2003:

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.
A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."
September 19, 2003 by the New York Times

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."
"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."
September 19, 2003 by the New York Times

"I would have voted no on that resolution"
10/24/2003, Boston Globe

If that is consistent to you then you have a very special English dictionary.

And after you made it oh so very clear that you do not regard them as a valid source to cite in these kinds of discussions. We're not having a little double standard or anything now are we?

And you can point out that it's really Adam Nagourney of the NYT as easily as I can point out that I was really citing an editorial by Molly Ivins. It still doesn't detract from the hypocrisy. To say nothing of the fact that Molly Ivins is generally regarded as far more credible than Adam Nagourney around here.

but since on the NYT's own website you have to pay for it I
gave the link to the Commondreams page where the same article was pusblished.

Here is the NYT link to the same NYT story:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70F17FA385E0C7A8DDDA00894DB404482

And after you made it oh so very clear that you do not regard them as a valid source to cite in these kinds of discussions. We're not having a little double standard or anything now are we?

No we don't since it is a NYT article published on Commondreams website. You see?

Published on Friday, September 19, 2003 by the New York Times
Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
by Adam Nagourney

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm


And you can point out that it's really Adam Nagourney of the NYT as easily as I can point out that I was really citing an editorial by Molly Ivins.


1) it was an editorial, meaning that it was Ivins's personal opinion, nothing more. Doesn't prove anything about Gore.
The NYT article however was a report not an editorial.

2)Of course a report can misquote people. The NYT itself did that several times with Gore. But so far I haven't heard either Clark or anybody else say or prove that the quotes from Clark or Jacoby in that NYT article were false.

It still doesn't detract from the hypocrisy.

Where's the hypocrisy?

To say nothing of the fact that Molly Ivins is generally regarded as far more credible than Adam Nagourney around here.

That's subjective. Just because Ivins is more left-wing than
Nagourney does not mean that she is more accurate.
And again, do not confuse and editorial with a report.
And if you can't prove that Clark denied the accuracy of the quotes in that report you don't have a case.

And I'm not trying to prove it to you, just demonstrating it overall. You raked me over the coals specifically for posting articles from Commondreams without respect to their actual content, then you yourself proceeded to use an article from Commondreams to support a position of your own. I don't have anything to prove to you, but I will point out inconsistency when I see it.

You can now have the last word in this exchange, since I am not inexhaustible and I have never seen you, in all the time you've been here, not insist on getting the last word.

So where is the double standard?

Look at this:

Published on Thursday, October 20, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Attack Syria? Invade Iran? By What Constitution?
by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1020-26.htm

Now this is a Commondreams article.

But the article I cited was a NYT report. And it was not an opinion piece like the ones you cited regarding the Elian case.
The NYT article was a report.
Do you know the difference between a report and an editorial?

without respect to their actual content

That's a lie. I questioned the actual content as well. Go back and read that post again. I asked a bunch of questions, such as who is the source, how credible is he/she, did he/she talk to Gore or he/she just expressed his/her personal opinion etc.

proceeded to use an article from Commondreams to support a position of your own.

No, it was not an article from Commondreams it was and an article from the NYT. It was just available in full on Commondreams's server that's why I gave that link. All right?
If you prefer pay for the article and read it on the NYT's website.

I don't have anything to prove to you, but I will point out inconsistency when I see it.

You see inconsistency where there is no inconsistency.
But apparently at the same time you cannot see inconsistency where there is inconsistency, such as in Clark's remarks about the IWR.

:evilgrin:

so called "facts".

Clark bobbled a question, and he said so......many times. So for you to say that he didn't disclaim what was written about that interview you keep referring to, you are being disingenious and a intellectually dishonest....



"I bobbled the question," he later told The Associated Press. "Even Rhodes scholars make mistakes."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2004/02/11/clark_exits_presidential_bid_after_losses/


http://www1.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=FDFD907E-8621-40D5-8F6015F33AFF8A3E

Wesley Clark has gotten a lot of flak for what his rivals call his shifting stance on the Iraq war, and in a Morning Edition interview the retired general admits he "bobbled the question." The last Democrat to enter the 2004 presidential race says he "never saw the urgency of going to war with Saddam Hussein" and taking action without U.N. approval. Dec. 2, 2003

Yet for all his political greenness, Clark has been a quick study, learning from mistakes and adjusting his approach.

Still, many wonder if he has the necessary political instincts. Not being a politician has advantages, he says: Clark is "remarkably human."
------------------

Now Drummo, let's talk about Al Gore a bit. He seems so "perfect" to you.....

What about Al Gore and Foreign policy? What about Rwanda? Did he ever decide about that one?.....cause according to his statements, he seem to have a lot of excuses, but was not very earnest in his "look back" on the lack of US actions there.

As a Black person, those 800,000 black people were Serious Business as far as I'm concerned.

PS: You see, I wouldn't normally even bring this up....but Drummo, you've worked my last nerve with your Nonsensical Clark bashing posts. I don't normally bash good Democrats. Neither men are running....but OK, I'll mimic you from this point on!

Here is Al Gore making up excuses as to why the US let Rwanda happen....

FLIP

We did actually send troops into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures. I think in retrospect, we were too late getting in there. We could have saved more lives if we had acted earlier. But I do not think that it was an example of a conflict where we should have put our troops in to try to separate the parties for this reason. One of the criteria that I think is important in deciding when and if we should ever get involved around the world is whether or not we can really make the difference with military force, if we have allies. In the Balkans we had allies, NATO, ready, willing and able to go and carry a big part of the burden. In Africa we did not. I think it was the right thing not to jump in, as heartbreaking as it was. But I think we should have come in much quicker with the humanitarian mission.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

FLOP

Like it or not, we are now...the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All of the other countries are looking to us. Now just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn't be, doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere. And we have a fundamental choice to make. Are we going to step up to the plate as a nation, the way we did after World War II, the way that generation of heroes said, okay, the United States is going to be the leader -- and the world benefited tremendously from the courage that they showed in those post-war years.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/for-policy_10-12.html

And read this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1183889,00.html

and this....

Please, Frenchie. Don't stoop to drummo's level.

I know how frustrating it is when someone like drummo needs to trash other good Dems, especially a guy like Clark who's working SO hard to get Dems elected in 2006. And purportedly because it's the only way drummo knows to promote his own guy (if in fact that's his purpose... ya gotta wonder).

And I know Rwanda is important, not just for the horrible loss of life, but for what it says about how a Democratic administration would react to a similar situation in the future (we know from Darfur how the Repubs react, or rather don't... I can only HOPE we would do better, but Rwanda doesn't give me much confidence).

Mostly, I KNOW how hard you try to live by Clark's admonition that Democrats must not attack other Democrats.

People like drummo only stir up shit like this. I've seen a couple other good Clarkies who usually hold back attacking Gore because of drummo's crap about Clark. Maybe that's what he's really after; maybe he just can't see the big picture of what's good for Dems and for the nation. I dunno. But we need to work extra hard not to get baited into fighting each other.

Ya know I love ya. :)

and I like Al Gore well enough....but, he ain't perfect, and his shit stinks like everyone else.

Although some have called Al Gore a Robot....the man is human, after all....

The problem is that Drummo doesn't seem to "get that". His hard core pursuit of General Wes Clark in attempting to have folks believe that he was an opportunist.....etc., etc., etc. has crossed the line.

If Drummo wants to "get into" political conversions, political cowardise, the seriousness of foreign policy and terrible campaigns and campaigners....I can certainly go there with him/her.....no problem (as they say in the Islands).

I'd rather not.....But I'm not gonna allow Drummo to build up Al Gore on the back of Wesley Clark. They are both honorable men who each have their flaws, but all in all are the best that we have, and a hell of a lot better than what the other side has.

Smearing General Clark ain't gonna happen as a one way street if I have anything to do with it. And if I have to drag Al Gore into the mud initiated and promoted by Drummo...... by pointing out Gore's own flaws, then I'll do what I have to do.

But I understand where you are coming from....cause that's where I was until I was pushed into providing a reality check.

Maybe the problem is that those who call themselves "supporters" of Democrats really aren't. Maybe that's the problem.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I really don't want to get into this bullshit, at all, and I doubt the sane pro-Gore DUers are a party to this campaign of Drummo's to smear every Democrat on earth who is not Al Gore, but if Drummo wants a fight, he'd better know we can and will, if pushed hard enough, push back. I have my problems with Gore, a few, although I'm not every minute attacking him to boost Clark, but I am capable of it, if that's what is warranted.

Use your head, Drummo. Step the fuck back.

My Clarkie buddies Frenchie and WesDem are.

Open-minded, thoughtful, sincere...

...but with teeth.
:evilgrin:

Wish our party was full of 'em.
:loveya:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Clark is not among them.

And not only that but he also pretends that he is better than other Democrats who voted for the IWR. He was not only dead wrong on the IWR but he is also dishonest.

I really don't want to get into this bullshit, at all, and I doubt the sane pro-Gore DUers are a party to this campaign of Drummo's to smear every Democrat on earth who is not Al Gore

I didn't smear any Democrat. In fact I didn't smear Clark, either since smear is always based on falsehoods not on facts.
But I defended Kerry against those who said he was a terrible candidate or ran a bad campaign.

but if Drummo wants a fight, he'd better know we can and will,

You already fought and you lost. None of you provided any evidence that Clark didn't say what the NYT and the Globe reported. And he said those things then he flip-flopped. Unless you think that yes=no.
Which would be the mother of all spins.

I have my problems with Gore, a few, although I'm not every minute attacking him to boost Clark,

I'm not attacking Clark at every minute I just step in when people spread the lie that he was so right about Iraq and therefore he would be such a great candidate in 2004. Of course all these people also claim that Clark was unlike other Dems who voted for the war. Like Kerry, Hillary, Edwards or Lieberman. Which is a lie.

but I am capable of it, if that's what is warranted.

Go ahead. Try to prove that Gore was inconsistent on the IWR.
Try to prove that Gore ever said he would have voted for it, or that he probably would have voted for it. Try to find a quote where Gore says I didn't know what was in that resolution.

Use your head, Drummo. Step the fuck back.

I am not only using my head but I also use my brain. That's why I can challenge the Clark maniacs to prove that he did not flip-flop on the IWR.
But so far none of you managed to do that. Probably because you can't.

is dishonest and tries to pretend he was the IWR all along when in fact he was not.

Other Dems, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, are beaten up because they voted for the war. But Clark gets a free ride. It's not fair and if he runs he should be not benefit from double-standard.
That is independent from what Gore does.

I know how frustrating it is when someone like drummo needs to trash other good Dems,

I didn't trash him. I give you Clark's own words to show why I say what I say. Trashing someone is based on falsehoods. This is not based on falsehoods. Unless you can prove that Clark was misquoted by the Times and the Globe.

especially a guy like Clark who's working SO hard to get Dems elected in 2006.

The issue was the IWR not what he is doing to get Dems elected in 2006. If he runs for prez in 2008 that will have nothing to do with 2006.

And purportedly because it's the only way drummo knows to promote his own guy (if in fact that's his purpose... ya gotta wonder).

1.That's a bold faced lie. I promoted Gore on many threads without even mentioning Clark.

2.It's not about Gore. It's about Clark and his dishonesty as he tries to pretend he is better than the Dems who voted for the IWR.


And I know Rwanda is important, not just for the horrible loss of life, but for what it says about how a Democratic administration would react to a similar situation in the future (we know from Darfur how the Repubs react, or rather don't... I can only HOPE we would do better, but Rwanda doesn't give me much confidence).

If you want to know Gore would not send US troops to Rwanda if it was happening today. He never flip-flopped on that issue. And the US military is not a toy. You don't send them everywhere where vaious groups are killing each other. By the same token the US military should be in Sudan or should have been in Siera Leone or Somalia.


Clark did on the IWR.

Mostly, I KNOW how hard you try to live by Clark's admonition that Democrats must not attack other Democrats.

Bullshit. Clark himself attacked Gore after he dared to endorsed Dean.
He even said that the election should be decided by the people not by the powerful. And that's just because Gore endorsed Dean -- as if by doing so Gore would have stolen the votes.
So the first who should have lived up to that supposed admonition
was Clark himself.

People like drummo only stir up shit like this.

Actually you stir it up by spinning Clark's words (remember "a" vs. "the")and coming up with contradictory explanations as to why Clark did not flip-flop.
On Monday it is "don't trust the NYT" on Tuesday it is "Clarke bobbled the question".

I've seen a couple other good Clarkies who usually hold back attacking Gore because of drummo's crap about Clark.

Again, it's not about Gore. I bring Gore up with regard to Clark's flip-flop on the IWR only because Gore did not flip-flop so you could see the difference between someone who was indeed consistent and someone who was not consistent but claims he was.

Maybe that's what he's really after; maybe he just can't see the big picture of what's good for Dems and for the nation.

I certainly can see that someone who played political games with the IWR would not be good for the nation. We don't need people in the White House who uses national security issues for their political gain and are too coward to admit that they were wrong and pretend that they are better than the other Dems who were wrong.

But we need to work extra hard not to get baited into fighting each other.

You think you shouldn't fight against politicians who pretend to be better than others by lying about their own record about national security issues?

Now that tells a lot about your principles.

Clark bobbled a question, and he said so......many times. So for you to say that he didn't disclaim what was written about that interview you keep referring to, you are being disingenious and a intellectually dishonest....

1.Where in the NPR interview did Clark say that he was misquoted by the NYT or the Globe?
Nowhere. So what's your point?
First you guys claimed that we shouldn't trust the NYT because they are biased. Now you say well, Clark in fact said those words but he really didn't know what he was talking about. Gimme a break.
Try to be honest: was Clark quoted accurately in the NYT and Globe articles or not?

2.This interview was made after the Globe interview. Of course Clark tried to spin his way out of his flip-flop since he knew less Dems would support him if they knew that he would have voted for the resolution.

3.Bobble the question?
He didn't bobble the question. His own press secretary made sure that the reporter -- and therefore the readers -- understand that he would have voted for the resolution as leverage. The problem is that the resolution was not about leverage. And Clark had to know that by Sept 2003.

Read again:

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

This is not bobbling. And you know that very well.

4.Exactly which question did he bobble? The one in Oct 2002 or the one in Sept 2003 by his own press secretary?

5.Just try to come up with this "defense" during the primaries.
Clark was asked whether he would have voted for the resolution and he just bobbled the question.
Hahaha, it will work well.


"I bobbled the question," he later told The Associated Press. "Even Rhodes scholars make mistakes." http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/art... /

Sure even Rhodes scholars make flip-flops for political gain.

http://www1.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=FDFD907E-8...

Wesley Clark has gotten a lot of flak for what his rivals call his shifting stance on the Iraq war, and in a Morning Edition interview the retired general admits he "bobbled the question." The last Democrat to enter the 2004 presidential race says he "never saw the urgency of going to war with Saddam Hussein" and taking action without U.N. approval. Dec. 2, 2003

Yet for all his political greenness, Clark has been a quick study, learning from mistakes and adjusting his approach.

Still, many wonder if he has the necessary political instincts. Not being a politician has advantages, he says: Clark is "remarkably human."

Again, Clark did not deny the accuracy of those quotes. And he did not even specify which question he "bobbled". But it's sure he did not bobble the question from his own press secretary and he sure knew what he was telling the Globe reporter.

Try something else.

Now Drummo, let's talk about Al Gore a bit. He seems so "perfect" to you.....

Nobody said he was perfect. He just didn't flip-flop on the IWR like Clark and didn't try to use the disaster in Iraq for his political advantage like Clark.

What about Al Gore and Foreign policy? What about Rwanda? Did he ever decide about that one?.....cause according to his statements, he seem to have a lot of excuses, but was not very earnest in his "look back" on the lack of US actions there.

Huh? You compare Rwanda to Iraq?
How many of our troops died in Rwanda?
How many people were killed by the US military in Rwanda?
Did Rwanda increase the terror threat against the US?
Did Rwanda make the US a hated nation in the world?
Did Rwanda cost $300 billion dollar?
Was Rwanda sold by a dishonest campaign about "mushroom could in NY" and "aluminium tubes"?

Rwanda was not a national security issue. Iraq was. If you don't understand the difference maybe you should be sent to Iraq now.

Did he ever decide about that one?

Yes he did. Don't send 150,000 US troops to Rwanda like Bush did to Iraq thanks the IWR.
Gore never wanted to intervene in Rwanda with a large US military force. He supported sending some troops for humanitarian mission but that was it.

cause according to his statements, he seem to have a lot of excuses, but was not very earnest in his "look back" on the lack of US actions there.

1.Excuses? He never said that the US military should have intervened with a large force to stop the genocice.
What exuses did he make? That we should have sent the humanitarian mission there earlier? What does that have to do with combat operations to stop the genocice? Nothing. And he said all along, including the pres debate, that it was the right decison not to jump in with the US military. He was sticking to his position unlike Clark.
You may disagree with that position but that doesn't mean Gore flip-flopped for political gain especially not on a national security issue as serious as Iraq.

2.Just because someone doesn't want to send the US military to a crisis zone does not mean that he is not earnest. Rwanda was not our business. We didn't have strategic interests at stake and the US government shouldn't have sacrified the lives of our troops in a conflict we had nothing to do with.
There have been many armed conflicts in the world in which the US didn't take sides and didn't intervene militarly. If we did everytime some group turns on another group in the world we would
do nothing but engange in combat in all kind of crazy places.
In Sudan more people have been killed in the war than was killed in Rwanda. But sure you think Gore should have supported sending US troops to Sudan to stop the bloodshed. Bullshit.

As a Black person, those 800,000 black people were Serious Business as far as I'm concerned.

But it's none of our business and it's not a US national security issue. Again, no US troops were killed in Rwanda and noone was killed by the US military in Rwanda. There were not strategic conseuneces.
There were not US guard troops sent to Africa so we would end up with
a shortage here at home.
And Gore had been consistently against sending US troops for combat mission to Rwanda.
He regeretted that we didn't send the humanitarian mission earlier but he never said that we should have intervene militraly in way , for example, we did in the Balkans.
So where is the flip-flop?
And most of all: where is the political expediency?

PS: You see, I wouldn't normally even bring this up....but Drummo, you've worked my last nerve with your Nonsensical Clark bashing posts. I don't normally bash good Democrats. Neither men are running....but OK, I'll mimic you from this point on!

Except that you don't mimic my point.
1.Rwanda is not Iraq. See the difference above.
2.Gore didn't flip-flop on Rwanda. He never said that we should have sent the US military to Rwanda to stop the genocide.
3.Clark flip-flopped on the IWR for political gain. Gore didn't flip-flop on Rwanda and nothing he said about the issue was for political gain -- not the least because most American voters didn't even care about Rwanda.

Here is Al Gore making up excuses as to why the US let Rwanda happen....


FLIP

We did actually send troops into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures. I think in retrospect, we were too late getting in there. We could have saved more lives if we had acted earlier. But I do not think that it was an example of a conflict where we should have put our troops in to try to separate the parties for this reason. One of the criteria that I think is important in deciding when and if we should ever get involved around the world is whether or not we can really make the difference with military force, if we have allies. In the Balkans we had allies, NATO, ready, willing and able to go and carry a big part of the burden. In Africa we did not. I think it was the right thing not to jump in, as heartbreaking as it was. But I think we should have come in much quicker with the humanitarian mission.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000



FLOP

Like it or not, we are now...the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All of the other countries are looking to us. Now just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn't be, doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere. And we have a fundamental choice to make. Are we going to step up to the plate as a nation, the way we did after World War II, the way that generation of heroes said, okay, the United States is going to be the leader -- and the world benefited tremendously from the courage that they showed in those post-war years.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/for-...

Where is the flop? In the second quote he didn't even mention Rwanda. And he didn't say that the US should always intervene militarly whenever there is a genocide going on somewhere in the world. He always said that these decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Again, think about Sudan where almost 2 million black were killed. Still Gore never called for US military intervention to stop it. And he was right. Just like he was right about Rwanda.

And read this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1183889,...

Nothing in this article shows that Gore changed his mind and later he thought we should have send the US military to Rwanda to stop the genocice. So what's your point? Where is the flip-flop?
Where is the national security issue? Where is the political expedience?

and this....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2000/0012.confes...
"I think in retrospect we were too late getting in there," the vice president replied, as if the Clinton administration had merely overslept. And, in any case, the U.S. should only intervene when "we tried everything else," explained the man whose administration had tried nothing. Only "if we can really make the difference with military forces," Gore said, even though the U.N. commander in Rwanda had informed the Security Council early on that he could quickly halt the genocide with a mere 2,500 well-equipped troops. The U.S. must "have allies," Gore said, "willing and able to go and carry a big part of the burden." This from the vice president whose Pentagon chiefs proposed--after Ghana volunteered soldiers for a Rwandan intervention force--to lease the U.N. four dozen near-obsolete armored personnel carriers for $4 million plus $6 million shipping and handling.

The massacre of thousands of Tutsis at the hands of Rwanda's Hutu majority in April 1994 is a topic that has already provoked countless articles, hundreds of reports and studies, and some 50 books; it is one of the most meticulously documented genocides in history. That Al Gore can nevertheless stand before a national television audience and mouth such platitudes may explain why Linda Melvern has written A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide. Melvern, a British investigative journalist with a talent for legwork, has devoted herself to the genocide's considerable international dimension. And the result--a wide-ranging account of the actions and inactions of shady arms dealers, inept bureaucrats, and cowardly politicians--still shocks six years after the fact.

Where does Gore say here that we should have send combat troops to Rwanda to stop the genodice? Nowhere.
In fact this quote just repeats what he said in the debate -- what you called a "flip."

"We did actually send troops into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures. I think in retrospect, we were too late getting in there."

"I think in retrospect we were too late getting in there," the vice president replied,"

Where is the flip-flop?
We know that the US did send troops to Rwanda but not for combat missions. Gore later thought those troops should have been sent earlier -- although he never specified how much earlier and we don't know exactly when did he want to send them in as opposed to when Clinton wanted to send them in. And Clinton was calling the shots not Gore.
But he never said that the US military should have been sent there to stop the genoice by fighting against the hutus.

red states - including his own- and Gore couldn't.

Oh - and, hey, drummo: Gore was my first political crush. I'm a Tennessee gal. And, I'm working for Clark in the primaries.

OUCH!

In my opinion Gore is among the better National Democrats. Some may rank him higher than I, others may rank him lower. There will be time enough later to sort that out if Gore decides he wants to run. And if there are posters here or anywhere else who sincerly want to attempt a Gore "draft", more power to them. That's grassroots Democracy in action. That's what I was part of for Clark in 2003.

And even though I have generally favorable feelings about Gore I would not be speaking out against him now even if I felt differently, unless someone really forced a fight over it. I don't spend time now making posts against Biden or Bayr, or Cliinton, or Rendell etc. We need to pull together now for the 2006 Races, not tear at each other over the individual Democrats we support.

Like I said, this is a Pro Gore thread and it should stay that way, and it would if certain people didn't take pot shots at other Democrats when the business of this thread supposedly is to organize support for Gore.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's ugly and decisive.

What you are doing is disruptive and does not lend to unity for the 2006 elections.

ugly. If you call a killer a killer that's not ugly.
If you call a fat guy a fat guy it's not ugly.

And if you call an opportunist and opportunist it's not ugly.

What you are doing is disruptive and does not lend to unity for the 2006 elections.

Clark's flip-flop has nothing to do with the 2006 elections.
Clark himself is not a candidate for anything in 2006, right?

why do you keep making "ugly and decisive" comments?

prove otherwise.

Look at those quotes again. If you can read and if you understand English and if you don't think yes=no and if you are not biased as hell then you can see: Clark flip-flopped on the IWR.

I have confidence in you.

This challange will be tougher. Don't write a reply to this post.

Now I am betting that you somehow will summon the internal strength to resist the temptation to reply to me again, but it's not a slam dunk certainty. It really is tempting for you to always get the last word, isn't it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He ran four months and came in first, second or third in 9 of 10 races.

Not so weak. Hell, he beat Edwards in five of nine races in which they both competed before Clark dropped out. Not weak - but My Little Pony got more press.

Also, Warner should be the Veep, if anything. The CinC should be the CinC.

Warner wants Clark to be Veep? :rofl: Warner needs a clue.

He ran four months and came in first, second or third in 9 of 10 races.

He won only one state, man. That's weak. Don't spin it.
He was promoted on the net long before he announced his decision. He was not a newbie by that time. Everyone who payed attention could know that he would run.
But he never managed to maneuver his way out of his own flip-flop on the IWR and Bush-praising Reagan-voting past.

Not so weak. Hell, he beat Edwards in five of nine races in which they both competed before Clark dropped out. Not weak - but My Little Pony got more press.

Wow, incredible. He beat Edwards in five of nine races! So why did he drop out at all if he was so damn better than Edwards -- and Kerry?

Also, Warner should be the Veep, if anything. The CinC should be the CinC.

I don't know much about Warner, I saw his budget address in 2003 which was not bad.
But I don't know what he knows about national security or foreign policy (particularly the Middle East) or military or intelligence issues or counter-terrorism or global warming or energy and many other issues.
So he is a dark horse at this point.

Warner wants Clark to be Veep? Warner needs a clue.

Hey I didn't say anything like that. Wasn't it another poster?

:kick:

:kick:

n/t

Kerry, Gore, Clark, Edwards - they're all okay with me. :)

Best of luck though...

Because of your spin here at DU about Clark.

You seem to forget that other folks see things differently from you, regardless of your insistance and your long accusations and name calling sprees.

Al is not the solution....

/ r

If you think it is, then obviously Al is part of the solution.

let sleeping dog lay.
no second chances

But if Clark runs it will be his second chance.
If Kerry runs it will be his second chance.
If Edwards runs it will be his second chance.

Should we rule out all of them because it would be their second chance?

Do you have any doubt that if Bush has "lost" the way Gore "lost" in 2000 the Rep party wouldn't have nominated him again in 2004?

Think about it. And then maybe you'll see why Reps win elections and Dems don't. Dems cave in. They always cave in.

Gore didn't lose in 2000. He was robbed just like Mugabe's opponent in Zimbabwe. Or Yuschenko would have been had his supporters not gone to the streets demanding justice.
The Dems didn't do that in 2000. Hence the loser became president.

he just cant win..again
sorry!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry

in that year in every poll especailly in the South.

And i resent calling Bill Clinton a looser

Red states approval of Clinton in 2000:

Alabama
Clinton as President approve 51 % disapprove 43 %
Clinton as a Person favorable 35 % unfavorable 61 %

Alaska
Clinton as President Approve 53 % Disapprove 45 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 45 % Unfavorable 53 %

Arizona
Clinton as President Approve 52 % Disapprove 41 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 43 % Unfavorable 54 %

Arkansas
Clinton as President Approve 49 % Disapprove 47 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34 % Unfavorable 63 %

Colorado
Clinton as President Approve 50 % Disapprove 46 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 39 % Unfavorable 55 %

Georgia
Clinton as President Approve 54 % Disapprove 42 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 35 % Unfavorable 57 %

Idaho
Clinton as President Approve 40 % Disapprove 57 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 23 % Unfavorable 73 %

Indiana
Clinton as President Approve 48 % Disapprove 50 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 27 % Unfavorable 70 %

Kansas
Clinton as President Approve 30 % Disapprove 63 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 17 % Unfavorable 74 %

Kentucky
Clinton as President Approve 49 % Disapprove 48 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 32 % Unfavorable 66 %

Lousiana
Clinton as President Approve 50 % Disapprove 44 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 36 % Unfavorable 54 %

Mississippi
Clinton as President Approve 49 % Disapprove 50 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 37 % Unfavorable 61 %

Missouri
Clinton as President Approve 55 % Disapprove 42 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 36 % Unfavorable 59 %

Montana
Clinton as President Approve 43 % Disapprove 54 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 24 % Unfavorable 73 %

Nebraska
Clinton as President Approve 42 % Disapprove 54 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 26 % Unfavorable 69 %

Nevada
Clinton as President Approve 56 % Disapprove 41 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 38 % Unfavorable 58 %

N. Hamp.
Clinton as President Approve 56 % Disapprove 42 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 31 % Unfavorable 66 %

N. Carolina
Clinton as President Approve 50% Disapprove 49 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34 % Unfavorable 64 %

S. Carolina
Clinton as President Approve 50% Disapprove 47 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 35 % Unfavorable 62 %

N. Dakota
Clinton as President Approve 48% Disapprove 50 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 26 % Unfavorable 71 %

Ohio
Clinton as President Approve 56% Disapprove 41 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 36 % Unfavorable 61 %

Ohlahoma
Clinton as President Approve 46% Disapprove 52 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 27% Unfavorable 70 %

S. Dakota
Clinton as President Approve 52% Disapprove 46%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 29% Unfavorable 69%

Tennessee
Clinton as President Approve 50% Disapprove 47%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34% Unfavorable 62%

Texas
Clinton as President Approve 45% Disapprove 52%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 33% Unfavorable 64%

Utah
Clinton as President Approve 40% Disapprove 58%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 20% Unfavorable 78%

Virginia
Clinton as President Approve 55% Disapprove 43%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 37% Unfavorable 59%

W. Virginia
Clinton as President Approve 55% Disapprove 41%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34% Unfavorable 63%

Wyoming
Clinton as President Approve 39% Disapprove 59%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 23% Unfavorable 76%

Sources:
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polllaunch.asp
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html


Also :

Around the time of the political conventions in August, voters were asked in a Gallup poll to take another stab at the 1992 election. This time, President George Bush defeated Bill Clinton by 53 percent to 42 percent. Then, assuming Clinton could run for another term, they were asked if they preferred him or George W. Bush. The answer was Bush, 51 percent to 45 percent. Finally, this same group of voters registered a verdict on Clinton's presidency. A whopping 68 percent said it's been a success, 29 percent a failure. The meaning of all this: The Clinton bifurcation lives! Voters still like Clinton's performance as president but they don't want him around. And so in the 2000 election, voters want a new president who's the opposite of him personally—and especially morally—but not a strong critic of his policies.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bcfc1964c8.htm

He was losing to Bush in Aug 2000! Think about that.

I am sure you want to see the sore looserman signs come back out.

Give it up.....

The original article is offline. Therefore I gave the freerepublic link. But it was not written by freepers. And it cites a Gallup poll that is real. Aks Gallup about it. Other polls such as an ABC poll in Jan put Clinton behind Bush by 11% (51% Bush 42% Clinton) That was taken among the general public. By Oct 2000 Bush went down but Clinton basically didn't move. An ABC poll put him and Bush into a statistical dead heat among registered voters. 44-41. Just like Gore and Bush.

And those polls are exit polls. Hello? What makes you think they are not accurate? Clinton's personal approval rating was below 40% in every red states.

But if that's not enough look at this:

Poll: Majority of Americans glad Clinton is leaving office

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
January 5-7

Which comes closer to your view of Bill Clinton as he prepares to leave the White House -- I'm glad he is leaving, or I'll miss him when he is gone?
Glad he is leaving 51%
Will miss him 45%

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/10/cnn.poll.clinton/index.html


Also read ths about Clinton's negative effect on Gore in 2000:

Character Issues as a Legacy of the Clinton Presidency
Any discussion of the role of character issues in the 2000 presidential campaign must begin with the presidency of William J. Clinton. The Clinton presidency is virtually unique in having at its
helm a man whose performance evaluations were strong and whose personal standing was dismal. As they did throughout his impeachment trial, Americans consistently rated his performance in the 60% range, while saying in a variety of ways that they disapproved of his
morals and ethics.
A January 27, 2000 ABC poll found that 58% of the public approved of Clinton’s performance as president, but 61% percent disapproved of him as a person.

Seven in ten Americans said they were tired of the problems associated with the administration, and fewer than one-third of
Americans wished that Clinton could run for a third term.

Fifty- four percent said they would be “glad to see him go,” and only 39% said they would be “sorry to see him go.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:xOrrILk_wBcJ:www.ksg.harvard.edu/shorenstein/Research_Publications/Papers/Working_Papers/2001_1.PDF+%22As+Term+Wanes,+%27Clinton+Fatigue%27+Yields+to+Nostalgia%22&hl=en&client=opera

Gore INSISTS he will not run in '08.

Left the door open for '12 though.

Even with a crowd composed largely of scholars and students of the environment, the question of Gore’s presidential ambitions hung over the event. Gore, who lodged an unsuccessful bid for president five years ago, recently said he has no plans to run again in 2008 — but he would not rule out a candidacy. His speech often seemed to reflect this ambiguity.

http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/25/435dc7f41d9b2

Anyone who read what he actually said (and not the media spin following his comments) cannot conlude that he ruled out 08 completely.

Not to mention that nonone would say at this moment that he/she will run in 2008. It's just 2005.

He's not.

Take my word for it.

You name-called me above, but I'm betting I know justabitmore (scrunched on purpose) about Al Gore than you do.

:eyes:

But he may run in 2008.

And sorry I don't take your word for it since you don't have a crystal ball, you don't know what Gore will think 3 years from now and Gore himself did not say "I will not run".

That Al Gore never supported sending troups into Rwanda to stop the Genocide, then I don't want Al Gore as president.

Please read what Gore Supporter Drummo wrote about Gore's position in reference to Rwanda.

It makes me :puke:!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=2174978&mesg_id=2181248

This has degenerated into a flamefest.