Krugman & Kos: Gore/Obama 2008 Dream Team

If Krugman is correct, here's the ticket: Gore/Obama
from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/8/7312/37379

Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 05:06:49 AM PST

A Krugman homerun . . . http://greenpagan.blogspot.com/2006/12/they-told-you-so.html and if he's as prescient as the war naysayers were in 2002 and 2003, then perhaps he's given us our likely 2008 ticket.

And--it's a great, magnificent team.

Krugman writes and I agree, that anyone who supported the war isn't fit to lead this country.



He's got an honor roll of Democrats and Republicans who opposed the war when, if you recall, opposing George Bush's madness was an act of great courage and personal sacrifice.

The Krugman honor roll includes, George Father Bush, Brent Scrowcroft, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, and John Spratt.

And . . . the the 2008 dream team? Al Gore, the man who won the 2000 election and Barack Obama, the child of an immigrant from Africa.



Krugman is correct--or mostly correct. People make mistakes. I love it when someone who has erred badly stands up, apologizes and moves decisively forward. It takes real character. But sadly, what we have from most 2008 aspirants is pandering political double speak. Or they half-heartedly hop-on to the "told you so" train before it fully leaves the station. This shit isn't going to work any longer.

I'd sleep well with a Gore/Obama ticket. Damn substitute no brain for two brains, just on that alone, we have a winner.



And yes, I know Gore has said he's not running. Stay tuned.

I think Clark or Feingold would be better choices for VP . . . but I'll keep an open mind . . .

But for Gore to take advantage of his "revenge" factor, he's going to have to get a lot more aggressive with both the MSM and the Rethugs, and have definitive answers about his backing down in '00 and '04. Obama would do a great job of balancing the ticket (minorities, non-Southerners, the young, women) and then he could run in 2016. It would be hard to hold his race against him with eight years' experience under his belt.

:headbang:
rocknation

Gore fought all the way to the Supreme Court in 2000,
and he was in the private sector in 2004.

In what possible way could that be construed as "backing down?"

than Kerry was. He's going to have to nip that in the bud. For instance, does he admit that Bush got more votes than he did, and if not, why didn't he keep fighting?

:headbang:
rocknation

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and by all accounts (multiple independent recounts after the election) won Florida as well. And he did keep fighting, all the way to the Supreme Court. When the 5:4 judicial coup d'etat was rendered, his choice was acquiescing to the judgment of the highest court in the land or advocating anarchy.

Now what was that about him backing down in 2004 again?

I don't think you have an argument but rather are just being argumentative, so I think we're done.

And he'd better have a bulletproof response to it, or he'll end up like Kerry with not enough independent votes to win by a cheat-proof margin.

:headbang:
rocknation

One that just about everyone realizes was STOLEN? Even the GOP isn't that stupid.

I think either one would be a strong team, and there would be nothing to tie them to the disasterous decision to go to war!

obama works.

I'm kind of hungry.:9

I think it's a matter of convenience that Al Gore can be seen as someone who didn't "vote for the war", which actually is an overreaction to votes such as the IWR.

At the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco on September 23, 2002, Al Gore said this:

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

Essentially, in the speech, Gore was saying pretty much what people like John Kerry were saying about the need to have the UN go in and continue inspections, as was noted in the IWR.

Gore in fact say this about the first Gulf War: "I was one of the few Democrats in the U.S. Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991."

Would Gore have voted for the IWR if he was in a position to vote? I say that based on his first vote in 1991 and his words afterword that he would have. THere's no way to know, but speculation certainly points in that direction, imho.

Senator Kerry, for instance, did not vote for the war resolution in 1991. And based on many statements at the time of the IWR and up to when Bush was about to unilaterally strike Iraq, Kerry warned that going into Iraq without fully inspecting the country and with a much larger coalition would be foolish.

As for Krugman's assessment that Gore deserves Angel's Wings for not "voting for the war", I find his judgement flawed.

Most pundits and historians I've heard discuss this issue (on CSPAN, etc.) consider Gore right on the first Gulf War vote and right on his early and strong opposition to the Iraq War. Kerry voted just the opposite.

And although you beg to differ with Krugman, offering a speculative opinion of how Gore might have voted is moot for obvious reasons.

Finally, it's not a surprise you find Krugman's judgment flawed. That's the essence of partisan politics. You are, as always, welcome to your opinion.

Gore's support for the first Gulf War brought about the direct result of US troops in Saudi Arabia. There was this guy named Osama bin Ladin who was a tad pissed that we did that, namely that Mecca and Medina was not a place for US troops to be hanging out in. He created some group called Al Qaeda that apparently was responsible for some events that happened on September 11, 2001. Remember?

I guess that's what the "pundits and historians" felt was correct about that vote and supporting that war. Giving Osama the perfect situation for recruitment efforts fortunately didn't have any blowback. Right?

Remember Torie Clark, with uber-PR giant Hill and Knowlton? They did a fantastic job making the media war just perfect!

As for Kerry's speech in 1991, it went like this:

"Mr. President, I do not believe our Nation is prepared for war. But I am absolutely convinced our Nation does not believe that war is necessary. Nevertheless, this body may vote momentarily to permit it.

When I returned from Vietnam, I wrote then I was willing personally, in the future, to fight and possibly die for my country. But I said then it must be when the Nation as a whole has decided that there is a real threat and that the Nation as a whole has decided that we all must go.

I do not believe this test has been met. There is no consensus in America for war and, therefore, the Congress should not vote to authorize war.

If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years--even while we armed him and refused to hold him accountable for using some of them. It will be because we set an artificial deadline. As we know, those who have been in war, there is no artificial wound, no artificial consequence of war.

Most important, we must balance that against the fact that we have an alternative, an alternative that would allow us to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, an accomplishment that we all want to achieve.

I still believe that notwithstanding the outcome of this vote, we can have a peaceful resolution. I think it most likely. If we do, for a long time, people will argue in America
about whether this vote made it possible.

Many of us will always remain convinced that a similar result could have come about without such a high-risk high-stakes throw away of our constitutional power.

If not, if we do go to war, for years people will ask why Congress gave in. They will ask why there was such a rush to so much death and destruction when it did not have to happen.

It does not have to happen if we do our job.

So I ask my colleagues if we are really once again so willing to have our young and our innocent bear the price of our impatience.

I personally believe, and I have heard countless of my colleagues say, that they think the President made a mistake to unilaterally increase troops, set a date and make war so probable. I ask my colleagues if we are once again so willing to risk people dying from a mistake. "

That Kerry...what a warmonger...

:sarcasm:

There is no absolute unequivocal proof of the "rightness" of a vote. That is purely opinion, some educated opinion, some not so much so. The discussion I have heard on CSPAN and made reference to in my prior post had to do with the rationale for the Gulf War when there was a different, much clearer case for it (Saddam having invaded another country). You are arguing its effects - not the same thing.

Ironically you are doing the exact opposite in arguing the rationale for the IWR.

And, again ironically, I have never heard Kerry called a warmonger here at DU and I certainly have never used that term myself; no, I'm afraid that epithet has been reserved exclusively by some in referring to HRC. It isn't relevant nor productive in a discussion to present a strawman argument.

The dichotomy in POVs here at DU has to do with how the IWR is viewed, again all opinion. It is my opinion the vote abdicated Congress's war-declaring powers to one man, a clearly untrustworthy, inept man, and secondly the vote was in essence a blank check. The thing about that particular vote that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is that for all intents and purposes many of the "yes" votes were for political CYA reasons, none of which are honorable. That is my opinion.

The current war is viewed on an emotional level by many for a myriad of reasons. I have stated my views on it and how I intend to remedy it in my future voting which is my prerogative. We all formulate our criteria for whom we support, and the IWR will be one of the issues people will consider. I realize it is tough for some that support those that voted "yes" but that is something that should be processed individually instead of getting snippy with those that are not as accommodating in excusing the implications of that particular vote.

I personally was against the IWR and had I been in a position to vote on it, would have voted against it.

The IWR is a many-pronged resolution that some politicians saw as a way to support the President in that political time with the ashes of the WTC still burning.

It would certainly make an interesting documentary to interview all those that participated in the vote. In some instances, the opinions and reflection now would be a deal-breaker for many that would see how that person's opinion may have evolved or not over time.

What is tragic about the IWR is how its intentions were not even followed... Bush went ahead and did what he had already planned oon doing, as the Downing Street memos indicate.

I don't think there is binary logic that if you voted for the IWR that you voted "for the war". It's a lot more complicated than that.

I also actually appreciate your input here at DU more than you think. Being snippy is not my intention.

It was clear in the 1990s what the PNAC boys wanted and Junior made their wet dream come true. I remain admittedly unyielding because BushCo should never have been trusted to comply with the fine points of the resolution. The juggernaut that was the rush to war and the precipitous invasion, the epically tragic and shameful Shock and Awe, was something that makes me angy to tears still. However, knowing that I will support in the general election in 2008 whichever Democrat is chosen in the primary reveals some wiggle-room in my line of thinking which to be honest doesn't make me feel very good right now. In other words, that's my nod to other POVs on this most complex issue that continues to have tremendous emotional overlay. Time heals all wounds but it will not bring back all life lost in this tragic mistake.

No one can really know, how any of those not faced with this decision would have voted. Anything anyone says is nothing more than speculation.
Voting against the IWR could have been as big a mistake as voting for it and it is easy to be on the sidelines and suggest what you might do, it is a lot harder to have to make that actual decision knowing you are sworn to protect this country and its citizens.

But, given how early Gore spoke out strongly against the war, when so few Democrats had the courage to do so, (It was really Gore who made it OK for other Dems to speak out, including Dean), I think its hard to make a case that Gore would have voted for it.

If he had still been in the Senate:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030217082353/www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/11/21/MN58265.DTL

Gore bashes Bush's record
Possible prelude to candidacy
by Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief

(snip)

For the first time, Gore -- who was one of the few Democratic senators to vote in support of the Gulf War in 1991 -- said he would have voted against authorizing the White House to use force against Saddam Hussein had he been a member of Congress last month.

Additionally, folks should remember that Gore was the front runner for the 2004 Dem Presidential nomination at this point, and was actively considering whether to run for President again in 2004. He didn't decide against running until mid-December.

So when he made his September 2002 speech against the IWR and told the media he would have voted against it in November, he was taking a huge political risk. It cost him dearly in the short run - - and has only started to pay off in the long run.

Even though it's speculative, Gore saying back then that he would not have voted for the IWR brings to light what he was thinking at the time...

can't argue with that ...

My post was based on speculation...that's all it can be. I also think that lionizing Gore as some kind of anti-war candidate is a tad silly.

We all agree that Saddam has been a threat in the past and needed to be kept in his box and forced to re-admit the inspectors. It's just that Gore and Dean did NOT support actually invading and toppling Saddam because it would distract from the War on Terrorism, or because it would become a quagmire.

Reading the speech in its totality, several salient points are clear:

1. Gore believed Bush was politicizing the invasion by demanding that Congress vote immediately *before* the 2002 midterm election. He was one of the few public figures to say so in real time.

2. Gore believed the invasion of Iraq was likely to be a problematic distraction from the serious problem of terrorism.

3. That invading Iraq was likely to lead to a quagmire.

To selectively pick quotes from a thoughtful speech distorts the meaning of it, in my view.

It is interesting that you gave only two quotes from the speech. What's more interesting are intervening sentences that you choose to disregard.



Why is this portion significant? Because I believe (my opinion as opposed to yours) to your speculation concerning how Gore would vote. He stated that the condidtions were different in 91 then they were in 2003.

thanks for posting this very important passage

Iraq was actually militarily active in 1991. How can you compare.
That is what made John Kerry's vote so frickin' ridiculous.
The things IWR did that Kerry's vote defender's don't want to acknowledge is that it gave the president permission to go to war by making the public more amenable to the idea. "If congress trusts him, I guess I can too."

We all know that he says he doesn't want to run, but we also know that he's not ruling it out. What we don't know is if he really wants to run and is delaying his announcement for a much more strategically opportune moment.

What many DUers are apparently unaware, the 2008 campaign does not get into high gear until 2008. All this talk now about who's running and who's not is just so much rubbishy speculation. Those jumping in now are most certainly not going to be the only ones. In fact, all this anxiety about 2008 evident here on DU is greatly misplaced.

People need to relax a bit, have a glass of wine, read a book, go on a date, have some fun. Many of today's perceived front runners will be tomorrow's has beens. Regardless of what happens, we're not going to know who's in and who's out for about a year or more.

That means that we have plenty of time to write nice letters to Al Gore and convince him--if he's not already convinced--that his country desperately needs him to serve again. We need a leader, not a politician. Al Gore very well may be that leader. I think he is.

over and over.
Still, I'd rather have Clark.

citizens could well of been put in jeopardy if a wrong decision was made. It was not a vote to go to war, it was a vote to allow the President the authority he needed to do what was necessary to protect this country. Bush voted for the war, no one else did. I question anyone not willing to put our country and its people first. And, I discredit any politician who says they wouldn't of voted for it, but didn't have to make that tough choice to begin with.

The few swing voters in teh few key places that will make a difference don't care about the details of the IWR. They don't care about apologies. They just associate a yes vote with the fiasco. They will figure if you voted "yes" you were either stupid to be duped, clueless as to be not very on top of things, or just plain politically expediant. Hillary and Edwards--check meet mate.

There are other tickets I think could win as well, but that's a great one.
I've been wanting a ticket with a Southerner and a Midwesterner for a while. Its a winning combo.

Sounds ok to me. Seriously, isn't it about time we had an economist for Veep? Combined with a physician as head of the DNC and an environmentalist as President, we'd be covering a lot of bases.

popular Obama during these dark years.

I love the Gore part of Gore-Obama though...

But seriously, I would so be up for a Gore-Krugman ticket :) -if that were even a remote possibility.

or at the Fed. As far as I'm concerned, Krugman should be able to write his own ticket, he's done so much. :loveya:

.. on the ticket in any place.

However, my preferences in order are:

Gore-Edwards
Gore-Clark
Gore- any Dem (excluding Lieberman just in case)

and I think Obama running as his VP is an excellent choice. I feel the same about Clark, for different reasons.

I think his unique background and talent makes him ideal for SOS or SOD.

He is a much-needed talent. Mostly for his candor and his experience. Not only that, but he is what I consider to be a true moderate Democrat with the interest of the people first and foremost on his list. Dean falls into this category for me, as well. These men are different slightly in ideology, but they both have a fighting spirit, charisma, and a surety of purpose that transcends inside-the-loop politics.

BTW...as an aside. Gore is the only Democrat who can unite this party from one end to the other plus garner support from independents and a few Republicans...his appeal is that wide. There are few people who can do that. Rasmussen poll be damned!

Clark and Dean both add a richer dimension to the party.

And it is extraordinary that Gore does cross all ideological thresholds here at DU.

clintonkerryedwardsetc...yuck.

That's the killer ticket. I'd rather have Clark somewhere on the ticket, but he's never gonna get the votes to be on top, and Obama is kryptonite to Hillary, and keeping her as far away from the ticket as possible is paramount. So I'm content to have Clark as Sec. of State or Defense.

I deeply admire both men and their message.

Most important, I admire their supporters :toast:

Edit: clarity

I want to see him prove himself policy-wise first.