Gore is NOT anti-corporate

I like Al Gore and hope he runs, but it's getting tiring hearing the Gore supporters act like he wasn't total DLC in the '90's...and acting like he's the anti-corporate candidate. Yea, he's big on global warming...but let's not forget he and Clinton gave us the disaster that is NAFTA.

The climate crisis and capitalism .

Anyone want to explain what this word means? I'm slow.

:)

serious problems.

Companies head for the boarder to get cheap labor.

and somehow, corn from America is cheaper than maize in Mexico.

But thank you. I agree.

(in their myriad forms), but not against Corporations altogether.

That's generally my opinion too.

Expecting a popular candidate to be altogether anti-corporate is ludicrous. It is corporate abuses that must be focused upon as well as instances where government and corporate alliances override democracy and liberty.

Al Gore has changed since 911 as alot of us have, now you can smell the fascism, for the time being you have to play those forces, I think Gore has better insights on fixing this mess than anyone else out there at the moment.

He talks about health care and Iraq and all sorts of things in his new book and not ONE mention of anything trade-related.

not Gore,

He propagandized for it on primetime television.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z8PJ2KT0RVI

Just awful. I'm not going to give him a pass on that one.

Gore squared off against Big Ears on national TV.

I like Gore, and I didn't support Perot, but I hate to see things swept down the memory hole

had this been a fight, they would have called it in the first round.

had he been allowed to assume the office for which he was elected.

Perot was dead right about his position on NAFTA. The way I recall it, Perot won every single argument with every person, when arguing about NAFTA. That's because his arguments made common sense and were so obviously right.

that, just as the MCM want to defend their monopoly on information. Al Gore exposed Perot for what he was on national television and Perot was never the same after that.

But I seriously think most of us didn't really realize the full consequences of Nafta, and I think it wasn't supposed to be the extreme it is now. Way back then, I was for Perot, mostly because I figured he was a breath of fresh air. However, I think Gore thinks differently on that subject these days, as one would have to, realizing that NAFTA had a bad outcome. One thing I think is important to note, is that Gore is probably a guy that learns from mistakes! And probably his idea is to make America lead in becoming green. Big profits in that, if done correctly.

I don't think there were that many against NAFTA at the time it was signed. It all depended on how it was implemented.

But now, we see how it was implemented and how Mexico got totally screwed in the deal along with a big chunk of the American manufacturing industry.

And yes, I do believe Gore learns from his mistakes.

People who DON'T change their minds in the face of overwhelming evidence are either 1.) Paid off or 2.) Rigid ideologues.

And neither belong in the White House.

the House vote was very close, a majority of democrats in the House voted against it, including the House majority leader.

I'm speaking from my Canadian perspective. There wasn't a lot of visible opposition in Canada from any party.

But I never realized it was that controversial in the US right from the beginning.

Sometimes I make the mistake of conflating American and Canadian reactions.

I promise never to do it again.

He hasn't changed his tune on trade or on the corporate world.

who are you rooting for?

The only candidate who walks the walk and doesn't force us to simply assume he's economically progressive.

Name one bill the DLCer authored on economic progression in his six years in the senate.

Hope you enjoy the ride he's taking you on.

Um, Kucinich does indeed walk the walk. Ref.: H.R. 333.

And has a plan for single-payer health care.

And SUPPORTS legalizing medical marijuana (take a look at Edward's POV on THAT little gem).

And has IMMEDIATE plans to get us out of this damned war that Edwards SPONSORED and VOTED FOR.

I could go on but I think you get the idea.

Kucinich -- the only REAL Democrat representing US.

Or Edwards.

I'll only vote for progressives if I have a choice. Not for DLCers or corporate candidates.

He does address the wrongs corporations have perpetrated on this country. I do think he has changed his mind from the 90s.

The words "NAFTA", "free trade", "trade", "WTO", and "fair trade" aren't in the index. Something smells fishy.

Nah...couldn't be. :nopity:

I suggest rereading Chapter 3: "The Politics of Wealth."

He did not write it as a candidate. The book addresses the constitutional issues at stake at the moment... He doesn't cut corporations much slack throughout the book. Given another oppty, I doubt he would address trade the same way.

Have you read his book yet or just the index?

time, I see H. Ross Perot was RIGHT.

We all change our views -- unless you're a knuckle-dragging republicon.

Randi is having an Oprah-like book-of-the-month segment. The first book is Assault on Reason. I have the audiobook that I'm starting to listen to this weekend. If you've not gotten, buy it our check it out from the library.

I'm not for any candidate either who doesn't support reigning in corporations and return power to the people and having fair trading. If that's not Gore, then Gore isn't for me either.

only to be trashed and slandered by the mass corporate media for his vision and dedication to the people because they wanted to retain their monopoly on information just as Perot wanted to retain his monopoly on his own private little NAFTA. He thought it was good enough for him, just not the rest of the American People, they are as peas in a pod. Today the Bush administration drops any pretense at enforcing the border, or the immigration laws so it can all be blamed on NAFTA, and you guys either get sucked in to these Republican talking points or your part of it.

we see that NAFTA (and it's son CAFTA) should never have been authorized. These aren't Rethug talking points...they're the truth.

Democratic Talking Points, it's a Republican Frame. Bush's corrupt, incompetence and dereliction of duty in enforcing the laws and not using sound fiscal management with the budget, not to mention this asinine war in Iraq has directly led to the problems with our economy.

As history has shown us over and over again, it's easy to blame outsiders when a despotic ruler sends his nation's economy down the toilet.

I believe some in the mass corporate media are using this frame to further Republican interests because they know Al Gore soundly defeated Perot in a debate over this issue.

Or at least nobody makes an effort to enforce them. Whether they knew that this would be the case in 1993 is a different story. I'm still convinced we could've made some serious progress on this front if Obrador had won the election (or not had it stolen).

That was then. Since then he has evolved in many, many ways.

I say he gets the opportunity to refute your claims on the record before we light the torches, but you go right on ahead if you feel you must.

I know Gore has evolved in the past six years, but for me to throw my support behind him I would need specific proof of growth on this issue. "Al has evolved" is too vague for me. He has long been part of the corporate Establishment in this country. His leadership (commendable as it is) on global warming does not in and of itself change his Establishment status.

As I observe things, most of the problems in this country are either caused or exacerbated by corporate hegemony. To be truly progressive, Mr. Gore would have to take a strong stance in favor of transferring power from corporations to the American people. Has he said anything meaningful in that vein?

I'll make this conjecture: if he has any substantial quotes, they probably deal with his advocacy of the Internet. Anyone got anything for me to chew on?

Perhaps considering the source might be a good move before summarily passing judgment on him.

I think it's only fair to allow him to speak on issues of concern before kicking him to the curb, but I can already tell no Democrat will be progressive enough for some folks which makes me wonder why they keep poking at the party with sharp sticks from within.

transferring power to the American people should be the ultimate standard of measurement for any candidate.

Could anyone take issue with that?

My read on Al Gore is that we are probably seeing a very real Gore 2.0. Is it good to know his history? Absolutely. Should we blindly jump on the bandwagon with all the screeching cheerleaders? Absolutely not.

I like much of what I've been hearing from Gore but I have not heard anywhere close to enough to reach a sound judgment. I still think he's been all sorts of wishy-washy about Iraq. While I loved his speeches to MoveOn about the invasion, he's been very muddled about what exactly we should do now. I wish he had shown more leadership on the issue.

And as for his views on trade, the history is ugly. Would I be willing to dismiss it if Gore were to take a new position? Yes, I absolutely would. People grow; people change. I wouldn't want to turn away a newly enlightened ally just because of their unenlightened past.

For me, the door remains wide open for Mr. Gore. As you more than reasonably point out, the case for him still has a way to go.

In the end, you either are fighting to purge the corporate stranglehold on our democracy or you are not. Centrist tap dancers need not apply.

nice ... :eyes:

Unfortunately that is assuming that his "screeching cheerleaders" either don't know or don't care about his history or his policy positions which are yet forthcoming if and when he decides to run.

Again, Gore has evolved from a moderate past, one that nobody is denying or is unaware of, and I like what I see so far - so I am hopeful. Not "screeching" in spite of that rather smug epithet but rather not afraid or embarrassed at DU to say I am hopeful and he appears to be one of the best of the lot.

On edit: Plus Al Gore opposed the war from the get-go and that sure as hell is something to cheer about. Perhaps you disagree? In the culling process, we sort through the wheat and the chaff.

"I still think he's been all sorts of wishy-washy about Iraq."

Wishy washy on Iraq? Where? Because he doesn;t agree with the defunding strategy?

"While I loved his speeches to MoveOn about the invasion, he's been very muddled about what exactly we should do now."

Last I checked he's a private citizen now doing his best to warn us about an even larger danger than the war.

"I wish he had shown more leadership on the issue."

As the only American politician with credibility with the people to come out against the war before it started, I beg to differ.

"In the end, you either are fighting to purge the corporate stranglehold on our democracy or you are not. Centrist tap dancers need not apply."

Wit us or agin us?

Besides the bought and sold corporate military complex that we call a government, this is all that would be happening on blogs and in the media. Rehashing and bickering about the past with people getting sucked into it rather than discussing solutions for the climate crisis and facing the challenges of the future. He sure knows the score alright.

Just ask the unemployed. Gore fucked them over well with his free trade.

Larouchie by any chance?

What's Larouchie?

They seem to have taken a liking to Mr. Gore of late and many of them are college students.

and he definitely recognizes the need to regulate the corporations that are causing/contributing to the mess this planet is in.
i think he is ready to do WHATEVER has to be done to save the planet. we are in a planetary emergency. that is the lens through which every action of the gore administration will be seen. corporations that are doing the right things will be treated well, those that are raping the planet will be stopped. this is not even on the radar of ANY of the other candidates.

Fuck NAFTA. Fuck the WTO.

Does anti-corporate imply the belief that corporations should not exist? If so, why is it a bad thing not to be anti-corporate? You know, there's a fine line between being against the existence of corporations and being in favor corporate regulation.

Maybe you meant that Gore is not pro-corporate regulation?

i have no problem allowing corporations to exist. i have no problem with corporations making money.

i have huge problems allowing the influx of corporate money into our electoral process. i have huge problems allowing the influx of corporate money into our legislative process via lobbying. i have huge problems with an imperial foreign policy that caters to corporate greed and spends America's blood and treasure to further their private commercial interests. i have huge problems with the corporate revolving door that infests our government. i have huge problems with the military-industrial-Congressional-complex ... and i have huge problems with the narrow corporate control of our MSM.

as someone in another reply stated, the issue is whether we are going to get a candidate who understands the corporate stranglehold on our democracy or we aren't. anti-corporate in this context, does not mean "anti-business" or anti-corporate entities; it means fighting corporate abuse and restoring our democracy.

But why bother? They're deluded by all the MSM masturbation over Gore.

just like they did in 2000, so it's really not an applicable point to use as a dig

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Why the "Will he run and save the day?" bullshit?

Why was he on Larry King?

Gore wasn't "hamstrung" in 2000 by the MSM. Do you have evidence of this?

CNN has also jumped on the "is he hypocritical about being green" bandwagon.

He was on Larry King and everywhere else to push his book. Duh. No doubt too corporate for you.

Yes, I wrote a political column during that election so there is plenty of evidence. Here's an excerpt from something I wrote (I'd link directly but it's under my real name) bolding the drivel coming from the tee-vee punditry. Read it and tell me again that they didn't hamstring Gore.

You make good points, but I have trouble seeing Gore as a victim after he victimized industrial America.

I really do. But if Gore's track record since 2000 holds, we have reason to be hopeful he will emerge a candidate of the people and for the people.

Peace.

:toast:

"You know, during the Clinton-Gore administration, we faced a couple of big challenges on that front. There was a financial crisis in Mexico and we took the bold step of shoring them up. And then when it came to this agreement to try to strengthen their economy and get more good jobs down there to slow down the flow of immigration, I think we did the right thing.

I think other developments in the aftermath of those years, principally the rise of China and the movement of jobs from Mexico to China and to other Asian countries, made the situation worse than it would have otherwise been. But without the agreement that was made and without the shoring up of their economy back then, it could have been much worse still."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html

if opportunity knocks

he's not willing to give them a free pass, as shown with his stances on global warming and corporate consolidation. If he ran, he would jump to my #2 after Kucinich, and I could vote for Gore in the primary. You say he was DLC, but many Democrats have ties to the DLC. They don't all share the same philosophy. What I object to is the DLC leadership's platform. Being more conservative helped for a while in the South, but now I think it's best to run someone who is more principled. The pendulum swung, and now people want a real choice. Gore I think is ok on that front. I'm not that picky considering Bush and other extremists running us into the ground.

... than the 90s version.

Gore has alway been a hawk, but he opposed THIS war. OK, good. But as I demonstrated in this thread, he still thinks NAFTA was a good idea. He was Clinton's point man on welfare reform. Has he backtracked on that? He was for faithbased initiatives in the 2000 campaign. Has he backtracked on that?

Just what DLC platform policy has be backtracked on?

Columnist Salena Zito wrote a piece on Al Gore back in March in which she quoted Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democratic Network, as saying: "As a member of the Democratic Leadership Council he (Gore) has some centrist credentials without forsaking his leftist credentials."

I noticed right away that was said in the present tense so I contacted Zito who confirmed with me that Rosenberg, indeed, said it.

I contacted Rosenberg but got connected to Aaron Banks, chief editor of the New Democratic Network. He told me that Gore still holds the same position on most issues he held while Clinton's VP but that his opposition to the Iraq war and his new way of speaking the language of "progressives" have led many to believe he has moved further left.

However, he could not confirm or deny that Gore was still a member of the DLC.

I then exchanged a few e-mails with Donna Brazille (I've met her a few times in the past.) She said she wasn't sure of Gore's membership status with the DLC but she, too, reaffirmed that Gore was still essentially the pragmatic New Democrat he'd always been.

I think many on DU would grow disillusioned with a Gore presidency. I would go so far as to predict many would think Gore fooled them. But Gore has never rebuked his DLC roots.

Very informative. It's what I suspected: The admiration for Gore is a product of savvy marketing. If he were to clearly state state that he was wrong on NAFTA and welfare reform, as Edwards has stated about his IWR vote, then he'd have my support. But as it is, I don't see anything that proves he's distanced himself from the DLC. There's nothing in the DLC platform that prohibits environmentalism or Iraq troop withdrawal.

Gore's stance there in not in conflict with the DLC.

i agree with both you and the previous poster that it would be extremely important to learn much more about Al Gore. he clearly was part of Clinton's unfortunate globalization movement. and, as the poster pointed out, he is now speaking in a much more progressive language.

you inferred that this meant "savvy marketing". perhaps it is indeed just politics and deception.

but perhaps not ... perhaps there really is an Al Gore 2.0. perhaps having gone through the emotional turmoil of the 2000 election and its aftermath, Gore has emerged a changed man. that certainly would be a plausible explanation for change. perhaps the "language of progressives" should not be viewed cynically as just a gimic to win votes. perhaps Gore has found a way to speak to the hearts and minds of the progressive wing of the party. perhaps it demonstrates that he has heard their vision and is responding to it ...

and perhaps not ... my take is that we are NOT seeing the same Al Gore today we saw back in the nineties. do we need to know where he stands on the key issues today? absolutely!

Gore has been a magnificent crusader against global warming. What does that tell us about the role of globalization and the power of the global corporate government in global warming? It's hard to see how anyone as committed on the issue as Gore appears to be would not appreciate the need to fight back against global corporate tyranny. Is that proof that Gore has changed? No, it's not. The questions still must be asked and answered.

That's what the OP said. But neither does he believe every DLC policy.

...but which DLC policies, specifically, are you aware of Gore deviating on?

And also went to a more populist tone in 2000, after his campaign was in trouble.

And also went to a more populist tone in 2000, after his campaign was in trouble.

And ran away from the "lift all boats" policies of Clinton's economy.

The DLC complained about Gore's direction on their own site. I disagree with the DLC, but here's the link:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2918

http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

I'll find the other link.

It in no way says Gore differed with Clinton on Unions. There is no specifics, no who, what, when, where, or why.

I lost the link but I found it on another site. It's not just the progressive take.

There was NOTHING about Gore's differences with Clinton on unions.

And with no cites from you, I simply cannot take your word for it.

But I saw a neutral take on it with a quote from a former AFL-CIO official.

I know it is from Democratic Socialists for America, but that organization does not want government control of everything. It's a neutral take, if still from a progressive site.

http://www.dsausa.org/dl/sum2k/03.html

It also states how Gore did things like advise welfare reform.

From the article:

"And yet — Gore was the unions’ go-to guy in the White House. “Whenever the Clinton Administration got really bad on specific union issues,” says one former AFL-CIO official, “you went to Gore. He had a political sense of the need to accommodate labor. He has a better sense of the institutional relationship of labor to the Democratic Party than Clinton’s ever had.”"

Let's take the passage in it's context:



He we see a portrait of a man who was "hardly a tribune for labor issues" yet, because he thought Gehphardt would be his primary opponent in 2000, began crafting himself as a labor advocate out political necessity. Further, this piece doesn't name the Labor official. Why not?

Still further, the source DOES make a difference, being that labor is the hallmark of socialism.

I have no reason not to. We're at a standstill here, I'm afraid. Socialists should KNOW labor, and the article DOES NOT portray him as an enemy of labor. The reason doesn't change anything. Politicians do things partly for political reasons all the time.

and from the Holy Corporatists themselves (from the DLC's "Progressive" Energy Policy and Global Warming policy statement):



also, you used the phrase "language of progressives" ... i see clearly stating that the "special interests almost every time now outweigh the public interest and that's dangerous to our democracy." Themes like that certainly address the concerns of progressives. Do the Holy Corporatists uses phrases like that? Do you think Gore is just "pandering to the left" or do you think he understands that the battle against global warming is a battle against corporatism and corporate control of our government. One thing's for sure: Gore is scoring major points with the left with that sort of jargon. I'd like to believe it is far more than just the "language of progressives." Time will tell.

Don't you think the second source I found has a neutral take? If anything, I'd expect progressives to be harder, not easier, on candidates about their stances.

but it still is a third party "opinion" ... the best evidence to make a case that either 1. Gore has reversed himself on positions he held in the 90's or 2. he has specific policy differences with the DLC is to either 1. compare Gore's statements (or votes or actions) from the 90's to his current positions or 2. compare current statements from Gore and the DLC ...

your source is fine but I think stronger arguments and evidence could be presented. just my two cents. wish I could help but I'm not very familiar with the policy area you're discussing.

the bottom line for me is that Gore "SEEMS" to be addressing the stranglehold corporate America has on our democracy but, if he were to become a candidate, or a President, what is his plan of attack to fight for meaningful change on this issue?

Thanks for your opinion. I believe labor leaders' own words, like in the source, say it - but I can always look deeper.

The clean coal proposal by the DLC is but one of several suggestions they make on that page, others being bio-fuels and renewable energy - exactly what Gore suggests. Sort of a "here are a host of things we could do."

Gore is right in feelings about coal, though, but it is an alternative to what we have now.

I think, being out of office, Gore is free to say things he otherwise would not. I do believe some of the language is pandering to the left though I don't doubt he believes the spirit of the words. The "language" is just a way to fire up a certain segment of the party, and it obviously has worked.

i've read some of Gore's statements about nuclear. If you read the DLC's "here are a host of things we could do", you'll see they endorse the use of nuclear. Gore is NOT totally opposed to nuclear but has stated that there are tons of reasons it is probably ill-advised.

i think you're understating what many people are seeing in Al Gore 2.0. I make no argument here that he as definitely changed his positions on key issues. I think, however, that Gore very well may not be the same Al Gore we saw during the corporate Clinton catastrophe. That remains to be seen.

the view I have is that global corporate power, under the heading "globalization", is a worldwide government determined to do nothing but make money at the expense of anyone and everything. multi-national corporations have no conscience. their goal is to make profits, period. i more than acknowledge that this is a very black and white perspective. that's exactly how i see the battle. there's no triangulation available here. you're either fighting for "the little guy" or you're fighting for privatization and unrestricted commerce and the disempowering of nation states. global corporate government, in the guise of the WTO and other sources of corporate empowerment, is destroying the planet.

it is inconceivable that anyone truly committed to fighting global warming and saving the planet would not choose to awaken all citizens of the world and call them to arms. it is inconceivable that "the enemy" would not be clearly identified in this fight. to be sure, one enemy is the crisis of global warming itself. one enemy is the uneducated masses who do not understand both how imminent and how severe the crisis is. few would deny those first two situations have been very directly targeted by Gore's crusade. but the third element, the final battle of the trilogy, has to be more than just having citizens use energy saving light bulbs. the third element is the battle against global corporate government and certainly just corporate control of governments within nation states.

in this battle, in my view, the fight will be focussed on national energy policy. the battle will be between "going big", i.e. centralized sources of power distribution like coal and nuclear versus "going small", i.e. decentralized sources of power (local, retail power) like wind and solar. guess which approach the big boys will push.

i'd like to believe in Al Gore 2.0. Those who believe as I do have had precious little representation. It's not easy competing with the big boys. They have virtually unlimited power and unlimited resources to wage their campaign. What we have is grassroots energy and our ideas. The odds are not very good, are they? Some on the left say we have to "do this ourselves" and "we don't need leaders"; I disagree. Any movement, no matter how grassroots it is, needs a voice at the top to represent it. Is Al Gore 2.0 for real? You say no; I say you should hope it is. This country and this planet face severe problems and our political system is unable to do anything beyond reinforcing the status quo. We simply cannot afford that. This isn't about politics anymore; it's about our desperate need for change.

I hear people say they don't like NAFTA. Please tell me what you don't like about NAFTA and please be specific. Otherwise, you're being like a lot of other people who mention NAFTA and Gore in the same post but are short on details as to why it bothers them. Let's face it, trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO are unpopular topics in our crowd and you're making some mighty insuations without mentioning any specifics as to why NAFTA bothers you or how it is a diaster.

But as for NAFTA itself, you do remember that it was signed by GHWB before Clinton was inaugurated. Or maybe you're not old enough to remember. It as was ratified by a bipartisan vote in Congress after the labor and environmental amendments were added. These provisions would not have been added if it had not been for Clinton and Gore.

As for Gore and the DLC, get a grib. He was a founding member of the DLC but he turned his back on it during the 2000 election cycle. If there was any doubt about that he reinforced it by supporting Dean, the anti-DLC candidate.

*Hillary and Obama have already sewed up all the loose BIG Corporate Money.

*Hillary has the full backing of the inside Democratic Party elite (DLC).

*Hillary and Obama have the MIC and AIPAC votes and money for promising to keep the fires burning in Iraq and Iran.

*Big Al's Campaign for Environmental Responsibility and Green Energy have NOT made him very popular with BIG CORPO.

So Al would be running from the outside.
Theoretically, he would at least be able to hear our voices.

Like most here, I am cautiously optimistic. I would love to hear him talk about his economic policies. I am a Kucinich supporter ALL the way, but only Big Al has a realistic shot at beating the Hillbama Corporate/Wall St/Media juggernaut for the Democratic nomination.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

where IB ...

Obama hasn't taken any corporate money.

"But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.

“Clearly, the distinction is not that significant,” said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

“He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different,” Weissman said. “But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/



Another interesting piece in Harpers:

"Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama’s senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation’s manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a “leadership PAC,” a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians’ campaigns—and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles."

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275


Be careful.
Avoid the HYPE.
Trust, but verify.
Think for yourself.
Read the fine print.

I have started writing down patterns I see here, for my personal use only, of course, but it is just amazing the 'Concern" I see posted for certain candidates, the 'teams' I see working in posts, the 'coincidence' of joining at roughly the same time and showing up in the same threads, and of course the hypocrisy that goes on when someone bashes a candidate in one forum and then bashes others for doing the same in another forum. Ya know, I think debating issues is a good thing but posts intended to smear candidates under the guise of 'concern' are just BS. Going into a Pro-X candidate thread and attacking them is BS. If you can't find something positive to say about your candidate to 'convince' others he or she is a good choice, then what does that say about your candidate? I readily admit I am just waiting for Al Gore to step in. No one else leaves me more than lukewarm. However, I try not to post threads or go into pro-other candidate threads just to attack that candidate. In the end, I will vote for the Dem nominee even if it is my least favorite Dem, because we cannot afford another Repuke in the WH, and as long as we have a two party system, that will be my official policy. Can we not focus on the positives of our own choice of candidate and leave the negatives to the other side? Oh, and just for clarity, this does not mean we can't bash the Repukes, but can we keep from doing it to our own? Can we be on the same team, in the end? :shrug:

P.S. Just to clarify, I am sure that at some point I have exhibited this trait myself, so let's just say I am trying to make an effort to only defend and promote my candidate instead of just trashing the other guy (or gal).

so, you're saying you want to put politics above policies? you want us to bury our heads in the sand and not criticize Democrats regardless of what they do or what they say?

i think that's absurd ... i think most here won't do that ...

is your point valid that some posts or posters might be masking their real allegiances under the guise of supporting a candidate they're not really supporting? sure ... i have no doubt that happens ... but asking for "positive only" threads when some Democrats vote to fund bush's war or vote against auto emission standards or vote for more globalization is totally unacceptable ...

if you want less (or no) criticism of Democrats, we first need to purge the Party of those who vote for republican policies ... and the starting point for that purge has to be educating other Democrats about how some have voted and why their votes were wrong ...

I said "debating issues is a good thing but posts intended to smear candidates under the guise of 'concern' are just BS." and educating and smearing are two different things. Going into a Pro X candidate thread and attacking is not educating and it certainly does not endear me to the candidate they, bottom line, are working for. And again, if you can't come up with enough positive things about your candidate to post a thread about them, then I would guess your candidate may not HAVE enough positive things. :hi:

That's it exactly. I've seen a lot of posts that do little more than repeat innuendo or attempt to create new ones. Knocking down someone to prop up someone else is disingenuous. It is also divisive and helps the Republicans more than it helps the Democratic party.

I asked the OP poster what specifically bothers them about NAFTA but I haven't gotten a reply. Why? Because it is okay to bash NAFTA. Everyone does it and no one questions bashing free trade agreements. This Gore-NAFTA stuff is stupid but it crops up every once in a while but if you ask people about NAFTA they don't have any information to reference about how horrible it is. Worse are the people who claim that Al is responsible for everything they find reprehensible (but can't enumerate) about NAFTA.

I've seen several posters say that Gore ran a bad campaign. Ha. He had a contested primary. He started more than 20 points down in the polls. He left the DLC in 2000 during the election cycle. He was bashed and ridiculed by the political media. And he still one. How is that a bad campaign?

Like you, what I want is more intellectual honesty about the candidates (and the possible candidates) and the issues. Like you, I haven't always lived up to that but very few of us have. I have consciously refrained from making comments on some threads because I'm turned off by threads that are little more than a "bash other Democrats" fests.

You are right. We need to work together. We need to be working together to save our country by working to the elect the best person for the job at every level of government.

have an agenda-usually another candidate. Kinda funny, actually, that so many people are scared he is going to run!! :rofl:

We can be Pro-Business.

Do it with fairness. When I see a Democrat cast votes
over and over that supports Business Interest while
throwing his/ her consituents under the bus , I have
a problem.

Believe it or not this happens.

Yes we must compromise at times. At times is the operative
word.

We have reached the point where it is beginning to appear
Business is running the government.

scares me a little. I mean, so many people give Hillary heat for not apologizing about her war vote...at least she's said she wouldn't vote for it now (take it for whatever it's worth). Gore hasn't even acknowledged the problems of NAFTA!!!

It's that simple.