Lamont victory helps Al Gore

Gergen just said that on CNN. Gore is more closely aligned with the left, anti-war base and was a strong advocate against the war.

I agree. Save us, Al!!

Could we all get behind either of those?

Would that be some of the strongest combinations we could come up with?

has a chance to avert the impending crisis of global warming. I like all of your choices for VP

n/t

Feingold and Boxer would just be like Gore-Gore, and Dean's busy running the Party.

Schweitzer is a populist from the northwest (as opposed to Gore's southern and eastern roots) who would appeal to those who would think Gore "too left," but is at the same time not a DLC-style "Washington elite" DINO "centrist." In fact, his distance from D.C. altogether is a serious positive, as he can't be linked to the Democratic establishment that annoys us as much as it does those in the political center. Also, he's a Governor, so the ticket would be spared the weakness that comes with two Senators (two sets of Congressional track-records to serve as GOP targets). And he represents "new blood," giving any claims to advocate "new way of doing things" a degree of credibility that stands in stark contrast to the DLC attempts to invoke the same mantra.

It's the way the game in Washington is played. Never let them know what you are thinking. However, don't listen to the words, look for the signs.

In that regard, once more I saw Al Gore's "fingerprints" in the Connecticut race. I have never really listened to an entire Lamont speech. The moment it was over I immediately thought Al Gore had a surreptitious hand in this race. The outcome did send a message, and it's the message Gore has been preaching.

There are too many dominoes falling in exactly the right -- make that precise -- way for this to all be coincidental. This is being orchestrated beneath the surface by those in a Gore groundswell.

I have no links, no proof, just an extremely strong whiff of Al Gore in the air everywhere.

I also sense a Gore resurgency. I'm not convinced that it's orchestrated but I do think he is the best candidate for this time.

anything happend to Gore helps Gore?

Let me think about that one for a minute.

Gore and Lieberman have about as much in common as Olberman and O'Reiley. Gore was still taking advice from the DLC that Clinton started, because everyone was abuzz that the DLC was the "new wave of the future" for the Dems, and had Bill Clinton to show for it -- 2 terms. But the DLC included Lieberman, who ended up dissing Clinton during the impeachment hearings. I'm sure they're the ones, (the DLC) too, who told Gore to distance himself from Clinton during the campaign.

Gore, since then, has become his own man. Very much his own man. He's the closest thing we have to a prophetic voice in the Dem party. The man's ability to see down the road, into the future, is almost mystical. And, since he's shed himself of the DLCers, he chooses what he wants done based on what he sees. I think that's pretty damned impressive.

:kick::kick::kick:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/QuickOnTrigger.html

And he was friendly to Wall Street -- or at least he drafted the Telecom bill Wall Street wanted. He's also friendly on a personal level: his daughter married a Citicorp heir.

Gore and Lieberman had a great deal in common in 2000. If Gore's repudiating his DLC orignins, fine. But I think that would raise a lot of questions about his core convictions. Why has he changed?

as a slogan because you can also say it as "Save Us All!"

Feingold and Gore especially because they were always against this war.

But it also helps people like John Edwards who have shown the sense to realize a mistake and apologize for their actions.

It is bad news for: Clinton, Bayh, etc. who are still stuck in defending their vote.