I love Al Gore and John Kerry but maybe fate knew they weren't the right ones

I worked hard for both candidates to help get them elected but something went wrong and neither of them managed to win. I believe in fate, perhaps that's a bit of my faith in God and a lot of my 'things really do happen for a reason'.

Perhaps Gore and Kerry weren't the right people. I know they would have done our country well, alot better than that idiot in there now. But for some reason it just never felt like we could win this even though I would hope upon hope that we could managed the win.

And I just watched that infomercial and smiled. There is something about this election I have not seen in the other two - we are voting for Barack, we are unified and Barack is the right one - he is the one that will take our country and the people within it to a new level of greatness. Where everyone will be counted and not just those with wealth who can influence.

I truly believe fate has dealt us Barack Obama because he is the one who will do things right.

Tuesday and give him a chance. That doesn't make me any less proud to be a die-hard Clinton-Gore Democrat.

Steve

government than Kerry.

Many citizens in this country and even some Democrats don't WANT the responsibility of open books and the knowledge of what their government has been doing for decades in THEIR name.

THAT is sad. And it isn't even CITIZENSHIP, imo.

I voted for Kerry in 2004, but I wasn't that enthusiastic. I voted for Wesley Clark in the Michigan Caucus.

for the citizen, but, one would think Democrats would be excited about the prospect.

Not surprising after a fact based post.

McAuliffe MADE SURE that there would be no legal evidence to make a court case.

He made sure of it for the entire four years he allowed the RNC to gain control of the election process.


And you are WELCOME to name ONE lawmaker who HAS done more to expose government corruption and protect the evidence of that corruption more than Kerry has, chimpy.....and, of course, you are welcome to name one lawmaker who PROTECTED the corruption of BushInc more than Bill Clinton.

COWARDS are convinced to protect the corrupt. Brave lawmakers pursue corruption even against their own party when the LEGAL EVIDENCE is in hand to do so.

but in time I learned to really like Kerry and I think he would have been an excellent president. I wanted Gore to run again this time out, but in the end I think we wound up in a better place with Barack and Gore is happy doing what he's doing.

:hi:

that the world would be a far, far better place today had Gore taken his rightful place as President in 2000. BushCo has been a complete disaster for America and every living thing on earth.

or was he the Clinton loyalist doing what Bush and his war criminal wife wanted and needed?

I really don't know, although I've heard ominous rumblings over the years. And I mean exactly, not vague innuendo.

>>>>>>

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?
B<r> James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>

Either of those men would have been one for the ages, given the situations they were running in. I don't think we realize just what a critical period the last eight years have been because our country has largely wasted them. I think in the future we will have a better picture of what Gore or Kerry could have accomplished had they been President. Gore would not have needed to save our country from years of RW mismanagement. Kerry would have ended the war in Iraq and, I think, been possibly the best Pres. since FDR. Obama, sadly, will have to spend so much time digging us all out of this enormous hole that I don't think he'll be as great as either Gore or Kerry could have been. It's not anything to do with Obama, but rather that he's inheriting such a bad situation.

On the other hand, if he manages to overcome all this crap we're in, then he'll prove himself that much better.

Gore would've helped us transition off the oil economy before 4 buck a gallon gas prices ever hit.

Kerry would've restored our image in the world, and stopped Afghanistan from falling into chaos.

Obama, as great I think he's going to be, is inheriting such a mess that he's going to be spending most of his time just trying to pull this country out of a ditch. Bush has spent 8 years poisoning this country, and it will likely take decades to get back to where we were before he took office.

Gore and Kerry should each get at least one term to compensate for W stealing the presidency from them

But Obama is a natural. He just has the ability to bring everyone together and to communicate his ideas effectively. Al Gore has actually said that about Obama. Gore and Kerry were naturally shy people and it was hard for both of them to really enjoy themselves while trying to sell yourself to the American people, which is what politics is. Obama does not have that same discomfort and comes off as more natural.

Take it from Obama. As much as we like him, this election is not about HIM

And Gore, Kerry and Dean helped lay the foundation for Obama.

them feel like their voices were being heard and at long last they were no longer invisible. She made them feel that the Democratic Party could bring about change and a new direction. And then she passed a lot of that on to Barack.

She may not get credit for all that she's done, but that doesn't make it any less the case. I'll always be grateful to her for keeping her promise to help turn this country around.

Steve

Rationalizing that it was for the best or god's will or karma or whatever that Bush became president or stayed president is a non-starter.

And people actually wonder why some find religion repulsive.

or would have. JAO.

But let's get real....Obama is a once in a generation type of candidate. Gore would've been a very good president...no doubt about it. But Obama is just on another level in terms of appeal and how to run a campaign.

Yes, Gore did win the popular vote and lost in the court, but Gore did lose his own home state and he picked Lieberman for a VP. He could've picked Gov. Shaheen and would've won NH and would've been president. Gore made some lousy decisions. I love the man, don't get me wrong, but he shares responsibility in not getting to the WH.

Nope. Bush's disastrous presidency is the ONLY reason that the Dem nominee was expected as far back as fall of 2006 to win big in 2008.

Barack has been quite able in maintaining that edge, but the edge was definitely alreadty there, so that even a black man in a racist country like America could GET a fair hearing for his campaign for president.

Media had to get out of its 24/7 protect Bush mode, too.

You sound just like the sore losers on Morning Joe who are blabbing that Obama is only doing well because of the horrible economy and because Bush is so unpopular.

FYI, Bush was already considered disastrous in 2004, but for some reason, Kerry just couldn't connect like Obama does.

I'm not taking anything away from Obama's personal endeavors here, but the 2008 Dem nominee was EXPECTED to win since 2006.

and notice who he is pretty much keeping in moth balls for good reasons. lol

Kerry who dispatched his national network to organize for Obama LONG before Kerry endorsed him publicly.

Dream on if you think Obama needs Clinton at this point - Clintons just need to jump in front of a fast movng parade and claim they were leading it all along. Obama is giving them the room to bolster their image once again.

Too bad someone of your wit sides with the Dem wing of the party that did so much to protect BushInc all these years. Really....Goddess of Peace and all that.

but he doesn't trust Bill at all, so that must have been someone else out there with Obama last night that was dressed up in a Clinton Halloween costume, eh?



You know you love it when I call her the Goddess of Peace. :smoke:

for Obama all across the country, even while he's running for senate.

You're not very observant, are you? Clinton event was NECESSARY for the less-informed Dem voter. That's all. It was Kerry who Obama turned to throughout 2007, who advised him on his campaign financing decision, who turned over his 2004 national team(minus the Clinton players)to Obama so he COULD defeat the Clintons, who advised Obama on his VP decision, and whose wife is a close confidante of Michelle's.

Parade jumpers may impress you, but, not those familiar with the backstory.

right?

McCain chose Thompson.

Your powers of observation are still lacking. Of course, you have sided for years with Clintons' protection of BushInc over Kerry's efforts to expose them, so it's not difficult to assess your tunnelvision here. About as observant as the corporate media. And about as honest.

You trying to hurt my feelings or something? And here I thought we were chums. Hey now, snake is as honest as they come and you know it. Just remember, the "t" in mtnsnake stands for truth...but I think you already know that. Anyway, as always, just tellin it like it is, blm, nothing more and nothing less :smoke:

PS: Congratulations that Obama finally tapped Kerry to do something. It's about time Kerry started pitching in. Maybe he can tell a joke or two (snicker)

:) :hi:

this weekend. Tomorrow and Sunday respectively.

And if bush was the right one in the game of fate, Satan was the dealer. :evilfrown:

Time and Obama share the winning strategy. John Kerry in a brilliant move chose Obama as the keynote speaker in 2004. Al Gore has gone on to fulfill his destiny of greatness. There is something very special about Obama, and I think both Kerry and Gore graciously agree.

It's a good time to be a Democrat.

I believe that we really have choices and there is nothing preordained. I do think because things are so bad, Obama will have a chance to make real fundamental changes in many areas. Back in March 2007, after Kerry opted not to run, my husband and I went to see John and Teresa Heinz Kerry at a book event in NYC where Charlie Rose was the moderator. When asked about the 2008 race, Kerry spoke of how there were so many real major problems, that the person elected would have the potential to be a President as great as FDR - and that he/she would have to be to meet the challenges. He then said that he did think of that when he opted not to run.

Kerry is brilliant and has a huge range of issues where he is unbelievably insightful and able to construct good, pragmatic solutions. He has enormous foreign policy expertise (I know Biden out ranks him on the SFRC, but Kerry's vision is more coherent and has a stronger theoretical basis), his economic speech this week was exceptional http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7643891 His 2004 alternative energy/environment plan was copied by all Democrats and McCain in the speech he gave when Arnold endorsed him stole lines of it. Remember the debates in 2004 - Kerry has been proven right on everything he said - even things like NK where the media was not willing to side with him. I seriously thing he was likely the best prepared person to run for President in my life time - and I voted for McGovern. In addition, his temperament is as little prone to anger as Obama's. Like Obama, he is a fundamentally decent person. He also is an extremely warm , kind person - once people see him. (I think a 1/2 hour like this showing Kerry and his family would have made the difference - he very nearly won without it - there of course was no money for it) He is also a very eloquent person.

Having said that, I come back to the Kerry comment that he thought of the likelihood that the President elected in 2009 would likely be a great President. Now, he has said he thought he could win the nomination at other times (whether accurate or not, is a moot point) and he clearly does not lack confidence in his abilities. Thinking of that now, I wonder if he saw that someone new with the ability to reach everyone was needed - and that 2004 had resulted in too many people unwilling to listen to him. This fits with what he said in his awesome endorsement of Obama. To actually make the changes needed, Obama will need to heal the sharp partisan divide. He has the brilliance, the eloquence and the creativity to do this. In 2004, I thought of the message electing Kerry, the man who spoke out on Vietnam and the arming of the Contras, would have. He had the standing to make people believe him when he said that the US should never torture and must abide by the Geneva Conventions. With Obama, the number of messages to the world are even greater.

So, given this I am with you in that although having Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 would have spared the country and the world much pain - Obama will be in a position to create more change than either or them would have had the chance to do.

...that Kerry, at a critcal moment in our history, chose country over his own personal goals. He will always be a hero, in my book, for doing that.

The success of this election is BECAUSE of what was built upon after the 2000 and 2004 elections...and many Dems, including Gore, Kerry, Dean, Obama...deserve our thanks.

NT!

...for the country to swing back toward sanity. If everyone had coasted comfortably out of the 90's, there might have been no incentive to change. Presidents Gore and Kerry, with their enlightened ideals and forward-thinking intentions, might have been fought every step of the way. Just look at how the rethugs tried to thwart Clinton at every turn during "the good years."

I also love Al Gore and John Kerry - they are both brilliant, and both would have made excellent leaders. It's not their abilities or their leadership that's at issue, but the nature of their moment in time. Make no mistake, part of me will always feel outrage on their behalf that their rightful place in history was stolen. I felt in 2000 that we had taken some horrible wrong turn, that history did not happen as it was "supposed to," and we've been slogging through the mire ever since; just when we thought it couldn't get worse, it did, every time. There's no question that my life would have been better, and the lives of millions would have been better (and countless lives would not have been lost) if either Gore or Kerry had taken their rightful place. But as a collective, we won't change until change is forced upon us by circumstances so dire that they can no longer be ignored - just like a species doesn't evolve until selection pressure forces it to adapt or die. And maybe these last 8 years of hell were necessary in order to shift the collective consciousness back toward the course of sanity. Now the majority is ready for it. In the face of every horror and agony, I'm none the less coming to believe that "things happen as they should."

because the last two elections were stolen. I dont think they would agree with you. Nor would the children who are prostitutes now because of our invasion and occupation of a sovereign country. Nor would the FOUR MILLION who have been forced to be refugees from their own country. Yes, I love the man, but get real.

ready board a bit too long, you are starting to sound like them with this "fate" mumbo jumbo. :crazy:

I think that Obama is going to do amazing things for our country but if Gore had won then Kerry wouldn't have been the nominee in 2004 and perhaps Obama would have never been asked to be a keynote address speaker. AND if Kerry had won then Obama wouldn't have been running this year.

I think something really big is going to happen in the next 4 years - I don't know what it is but it's fate. Fate wanted Obama as the nominee and our president because something amazing is going to happen. I just feel it!

this year has shown, sad to say, what a piss-poor campaign he actually ran in 2004 in comparison with what we've been witnessing this year. And STILL, he would most likely have won had it not been for Rovian trickeration in Ohio...

Luckily, Obama is the perfect candidate to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Obama isn't running with Bill Clinton on a high profile book tour supporting and defending Bush vigorously, is he?

Obama isn't running with a DNC that sat on its hands for four years while the RNC and GOP officials gained control of the election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted, is he?

Obama is running AFTER Katrina, Iraq Civil War, and Record Home Foreclosures.

He's running AFTER Dean took the party infrastructure that had been collapsed for years under previous party chairs and REBUILT that infrastructure state by state.

Please explain to us how you concluded that Obama would have won in 2004 under the same circumstances - would he have miraculously had a different DNC and more secure election process? Would Bill Clinton have NOT used his booktour then to support Bush? Would media have allowed Obama's speeches the coverage it gave Bush and his constant terror alerts?

I think there is a LOT of pisspoor analysis going on.

YOU are too silly to be believed - in fact, I never believe you even believe your own posts, but just like to poke for the sheer fun of it.

Save that nonsense for someone more naive than me. :smoke:

The naive here believe you're serious. Goddess of Peace, anyone....hahahahaha.

and Kerry had fought for what was rightfully theirs. The Bush Cartel stole those elections and that family and their sycophant hanger ons need to seek refuge in a big hole in the ground.

just saying

He wanted to be our VP. :puke:

1) Gore could have lost 2004 to whomever the Republican was. If you assume that his reading the CIA memos would have led him to tighten airport control among other things, 911 might not have occurred So, what would have been the big stories? The economy would have been a big issue - the dot.com boom was already deflating and it would have continued. Bush kept the economy up because of the huge deficit spending, primarily to fund the war and his administration pushed loans, the Democrats tried to end, that kept the housing boom going. Under Gore, the economy by 2004 would possibly have been in what appeared to worse shape - even though in reality it would be healthier. It is possible that Gore would have counteracted this with a huge alternative energy/environmental effort, but it's affects might not be seen.

2)It is very rare, in modern times, that one party hold the Presidency for 4 terms (the end of 2 Gore terms).

3)Leiberman might not be seen as we see him now. In fact, given that global warming was an area where they were in agreement, Gore might have put the VP as his right hand man in charge of all the national and international efforts (after he worked to restart the international effort and sell it to America (remember there would have been no Al Gore/Inconvenient truth to do it. Our perception of Lieberman would be completely different.

4) If Lieberman's annoying side had surfaced, he would have had a primary challenge - as Gore did - and he might have not won. My guess is the challenger might have been HRC, more because I can't imagine Kerry would if there had been a big effort on global warming, where he would very likely have been the top ally in the Senate. Under Democratic leadership, I don't see Edwards having become the "outsider" he was in 2008, assuming he even won his 2004 re-election.

It is called what the hell does it take for us Americans to wise-up to the Republican bullshit.

The answer was... quite a lot actually.

over having Bush in office. The greatest reason we are in this mess is because they had their elections stolen from them. It never had to be this bad, I just hope that our nation's problems can be repaired sooner rather then later. Obama just happens to be the one in line for it now. I just hope that both of these other men continue to support their party as they always have and therefore Obama if he makes it into the White House.

:bounce:

I respect you as a poster, but I truly don't think you realize the implications of what you're saying.

Gore was absolutely the right man eight years ago. The people and our flawed system made a deadly, shameful mistake eight years ago, and there's not a damn thing anyone can say to convince me that arriving at this point in time is due to some kind of fate, or a divine or otherwise supernatural plan. The election was stolen by a combo platter of corruption (Republican powerhoarders), laziness (people who didn't vote) and stupidity (those who thought there was no difference). No, fate didn't gently steer Gore from the tiller of our ship so we could eventually find the glorious beacon glowing in Obama's eyes -- the Republicans jerked Gore away from us and we all let it happen by not realizing just how important that election was. Tell the Fate theory to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, or four thousand dead soldiers, or the several thousands who died in Katrina and 9/11 all thanks to Bush's criminal negligence.

I find this "Obama is our destiny, he'll save us and maybe it's all to the good that Bush won two elections because it allows us to find Obama" leitmotif (which I've seen a few times around DU and other communities) rather grotesque. It's only a few steps removed from the nauseating religious ferver behind the "GOD-APPOINTED / GOD-CHOSEN" Sarah Palin. (Without the hellfire and hatred, that is, which I admit is a big difference!)

Obama is a great candidate and he'll be a fantastic president, of this I have little doubt. He'll have a tremendously difficult task ahead of him, and I believe he's the right man to solve it. He was the best candidate of those running, and clearly he possesses a remarkable talent for uniting and inspiring others.

But he's not the only man who could do the job, nor is he the only inspiring leader we could have had. Maybe you weren't inspired by Gore, but lots of us were. Frankly, I would rather have allegedly dull but definitely humble, intelligent, compassionate, visionary President Gore for eight years than require a President Obama to rescue us now. And as much as I'm looking forward (knock wood!) to Obama's leadership, I'd rather do without it than have suffered along with the rest of the world through the past eight years of Bush/Cheney.

I agree with every lucid point you made.

Fate didn't lay Cheney-Bush on us; Karl Rove did. Personally, I'd prefer a scenario under which we were emerging from two terms of President Gore, anticipating two terms of President Obama.

Obama has all the right tools to build a great presidency, even with the difficulties facing him. To attribute his rise to the vagaries of fate is to diminish his talents and his potential. He'd have made it to where he is now without the dire straits we've suffered.

The grace with which both Kerry and Gore, and the Clintons, have supported Obama is an inspiration to me. Just as Obama's half-hour last night brought tears to my eyes, so does the announcement that Al and Tipper will be his closers in Florida. I wept as I watched Bill Clinton's fiery introduction of Obama late last night. We have come together in solid unity -- a situation brought about by the greatness of all these men and women.

Fate had nothing to do with it

That's just how fate is.

Here's fate in my life recently

I have a hair appointment tomorrow to get my hair cut and I was going to get it colored too. But looking at my finances I realized I had been spending too much and I cancelled the appointment for the coloring and kept the hair cut.

But when I got home from work there was a check in the mail from my insurance company for ironically the same amount that it was going to cost me to cut & color my hair.

Mind you, I didn't add back in the coloring appointment (I can't - it's too late) but it's the concept that I was willing to make a sacrifice and the money came in the mail. I call that fate.

but, neither of us can empirically prove things one way or the other. It is interesting that there are philosophies and religions that take either side. To me if everything is fated, there is no reason to work so hard or care so hard to try to make a difference. Nothing you do matters. It also means there can be no real blame for anything - if what you do is what was fated before you had the choice, did you really have the choice?

My comment though bothers me because it more addresses whether I WANT fate to exist and control everything, than whether it does. If it does exist, I can't see how it exists without a superior power of some type having set it up - and if this power existed, you would have to believe that everything that ever happened was planned to happen by this power. It is very hard to believe that and to conceive of any reason why. Though I understand the presumptuousness of a mere mortal being able to see a grander plan, I can not suspend disbelief. If who passes and who fails the moral test is preordained, is it even a real test?

Obama-Biden has been awesome, and they'll win.

And Bush won't be there to steal it from him.

Fate my just have it written out that us dems may never have the oval office again..

If McSane wins the presidency this time, you know it was complete robbery!!

It wouldnt surprise me.

This would convince me if Obama cant win it, nobody will in the blue.......

Fate my just have it written out that us dems may never have the oval office again..

If McSane wins the presidency this time, you know it was complete robbery!!

It wouldnt surprise me.

This would convince me if Obama cant win it, nobody will in the blue.......

What if the stinking hellish cess-pool that Bush has dug us into will make it clearer to everyone how right the Democrats were all along.. a very clear example has been made of what happens when the richest old men have total control of our military and our economy.

On the other hand though, I can't help wondering every day what Gore could have done to bring our country in line with the rest of the world on climate change.. what if we'd managed by now to educate Joe the Plumber about all we're doing to fuck up the Actual Future? Joe Plumber might have risen above greed by now, all it would take is a little education.

Maybe it took the horrible last few years to show people what's clearly WRONG. I just wish we hadn't had to go through it.. but that's human nature, I think. This is about the best I can expect :) This election has been a nice surprise for me. I hope some people are learning a lot from it.

business of choosing the right person, Obama would be 45 points ahead in every poll right now.

Why didn't Fate help Bush win even ONE debate?

All are good men. Gore was screwed over big time and Kerry should have fought more. But to say they weren't the right ones is a bit off.

I do agree Obama is very special and we need him, but it's not necessary to say the other two weren't the right ones.

McCain is going to lose because he's erratic and awful... and Palin... yikes.

.

They didn't win.

Gore lost a close one. FL was a mess, but the claim that the courts gave it to Bush cuts both ways. Also, if Gore hadn't alienated his own state (when was the last time someone's own state didn't vote for him) he would've won.

It wasn't the best campaign.

Kerry is awful. Listen to him talk. The Daily Show points it out constantly.


They're both examples of people that use 30 words where 10 will do.

Calling Kerry awful and saying Gore lost?

How about you get lost.

Reality is reality. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings about either Gore or Kerry. My assessment of them is they made some critical tactical errors which are reflect poorly on them as candidates. 2004, in particular, shouldn't have even been close.


Personally, I'm glad to see the Democrats finally have given us a good candidate in Obama and I look forward to voting for him.

him on the biggest issue of the election - or did you forget that Bill Clinton used his summer2004 book tour vigorously defend Bush's decisions, PUBLICLY undermining Kerry's attacks on those decisions. So did Biden, unfortunately.

You honestly think post 9-11 election was easier for a Democratic win than a post Katrina, post Iraq Cvil War, and post Record Home Foreclosure election?

You honestly think McAuliffe's DNC was operating a strategic plan to strengthen the party infrastructure and win in 2004 the way Dean's DNC has since 2005?

I think if Kerry ran the campaign some of you CLAIM, then BushInc wouldn't have HAD to work for four years to set up the steal, purge and suppress Dem votes, and rig machine counts all over the country.

He's also the most HONEST and best advocate this nation has seen for open government.

If so, you need to come to grips, blm. As qualified as John Kerry was to run for president in 2004, and as good a president as he would have made, he ran a very weak campaign, just like what the poster above said, and that's being generous.

Obama is where he's at because he's as good a campaigner as he is a candidate.

he?

Katrina happened in 2005, didn't it?

Iraq Civil War started in early 2006, didn't it?

Record Home Foreclosures became news in 2006-7-8, didn't it?

Kerry won with BushInc and GOP at its STRONGEST point. The 2008 Dem nominee has been expected to win since 2006. The 2004 nominee was NEVER expected to win, and that is why high profile Dems like Clintons and Biden spent more time on TV supporting Bush in 2003-2004, even publicly disagreeing with Kerry's criticisms against Bush's decisions and disagreeing with his vote against the 87 billion for Iraq.

Please show me where the situations are ANYWHERE similar for 2004 and 2008 elections.

in place to sabotage whoever the Dem nominee would be.

Observed by historian Douglas Brinkley in April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Apparent during Clinton's "Support Bush" booktour in summer2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Noted by Bob Woodward at the WH on election night 2004:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

Put your fingers in your ears.....doesn't change the facts.

but Kerry, as qualified a candidate as he was, just couldn't connect to save his life. Obama connects as well or better than anyone.

when Kerry pulled ahead (without DNC or Clintonites helping) because they were already invested in Hillary2008.

theft was apparent.

In YOUR world, the DNC performed well, Clinton did NOT use his summer2004 booktour to support and defend Bush, and the left media overwhelmed the right media....Bush DIDN'T have to steal the election because Kerry was so bad he lost every debate and lost 10million votes from 2000.

In MY world, the DNC sat on its hands for 4yrs after 2000s theft and LET the RNC and GOP officials gain control of every level of the election process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted - Clinton used his book tour to VIGOROUSLY defend Bush's Iraq war decisions from the criticisms of the left being led at the time by the Dem nominee - the left media was practically nonexistent and the RW dominated them almost daily - Kerry beat Bush anyway, and the RNC was able to drag him to victory because of the negligence of the DNC after 2000s theft and the undermining of the 2004 Democrats by Clinton loyalists intent on protecting 2008 for Hillary.

And the links I posted above back me up.

but you're the only one who's buying it. :)

How did DNC do in your own words?

How did the left media do in your own words?

And did you side with Clinton's support and defense of Bush during his summer2004 booktour or did you wish he sided instead with Kerry's criticisms of Bush's decisions on Iraq?

Were you supportive of Clinton loyalists who backstabbed Kerry throughout that election and even sabotaged Ohio Dem voters on election night?

Your answers in the past indicate you support Clintons in everything they do and that only the top of the ticket needed changing in 2004, because that was the Dem's only problem.

So....give a straight answer for a change. I always do.

And he did lose no matter what you say. If he "won", as you always insist, he would have fought for his victory instead of rolling over and throwing in the towel to the little imbecile, Bush. Thank goodness we have a presidential candidate this time who knows how to campaign. No one does it better than Obama, especially not your idol, Kerry.



That's what I always do, despite any false allegations by you to the contrary. :)

.

In order for Dems to believe that only one Dem has won a Presidential election in 30 years, it must be understood that the GOP ran great fraud-free elections in 2000 and 2004. Never mind that Kerry got more votes and a higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton in his first run.

Look at who is in the WH. See, Bush won. :sarcasm:

was so boring and didn't excite people. Obama is a saint.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

there is mountains of evidence on that.

And I believe that Barack Obama is the right one today.

Al was right then, Obama is right now!

If I didn't get where you were coming from by your past posting history I would find this OP really creepy.

I wish the last 8 years had never happened. I would gladly take Gore in 2000 over Obama in 2008 and so would all the dead people that would have lived in the middle east.

Interesting thought...I like Obama, Gore and Kerry, so I truly think it's a wash. We just need to stop the darkness, and fast.

...I totally wished for a president Dean - it didn't work out. But Howard knows that the fight for the middle class is multi-generational, and his big idea is arguably the core of Obama's success. Howard loses, Barack learns a lesson.

I resented Hillary's tactics early on, but now I'm thankful for her - she inoculated Barack against much of the smears before the GOP pulled them out. Hillary beats on him, Barack learns a lesson.

Some heroes believe in destiny, some believe in simple cause-and-effect. Either way, we need to make sure our heroes don't ever go into battle without us again!

Speaking of which...It's phone bank time!

Quote du jour:

Morpheus: You've never believed in The One.
Niobe: I still don't.
Morpheus: Then why are you doing this?
Niobe: I believe in him.

He would be just finishing up now and passing the baton to Obama.

We had no idea how voiceless we were until Bush stole the election twice. Now we are at the point where rethugs cannot say any smear they want to about us or our candidate without catching hell. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the 8 yrs in the wilderness gave us time and motivation to organize.

After 8 years of stupidity, may be people in this country will understand that we cannot continue for 4 more years. It is not Gore or Kerry being somehow at fault, it is people in this country being STUPID (remember that even now people fall for the socialist thing).

Now, if you mean Obama will be a great president, I agree, but I think Gore and Kerry would have been as great. If only people could think a little bit, we would have avoided 8 years of suffering.

I don't think it was fate. I think it was political failing on the part of the citizens of this country. We became complacent and that allowed the elections to be stolen.

I wouldn't blame fate or God for our short-comings.

Fate hates 4500 American troops and it's not too fond of the 30-50,000 more that it gave life altering injuries to.

Fuck you, fate.


Fuck you right back, Bucky

then everyone and their dog become The Right One.

that the election had to be stolen from them, once in Florida by George W. Bush's brother and state campaign co-chair and the Supreme Court of the United States, and then again four years later in Ohio by Ken Blackwell.

would stand the chance he does of winning this election if Al Gore hadn't of empowered the American People's voice by championing opening up the Internet, thereby democratizing information and subsequently paying the price for it from a spiteful, vengeful, petty ass corporate media.

...that fate was holding out for barack, when their son/daughter/father/mother/brother/sister died for senselessness.

loss by curtailing the rights of American citizens.... of course, most 9-11 families are still in the dark about how more than 3 DECADES of Bush family agenda led to the deaths of their loved ones.

Gore & Kerry were screwed by the same Rovian election games that threaten Obama's election today.

Hopefully Barack, Howard Dean & Schuman have mobilized enough Americans to make the difference this time around.

And it's a slap in the face to the soldiers who have died in Iraq for nothing, the citizens of Iraq who have died for nothing, and for Al Gore and/or John Kerry to not be President right now to dismiss it as "fate".

"Fate" had zero, nada, zilch to do with this.

before most of the country could overcome the relentless propaganda of the past 25+ years.

Nothing like an economic meltdown, the drowning of a great city, a costly and disastrous war and seemingly endless rounds of contaminated food (and even kids toys) to get folks thinking that maybe Republicans weren't what they were made out to be.

Nothing like fretting about jobs and retirement accounts- or whether one's bank is solvent to overcome ambivalence.

Seems to me the mood this go round has been driven more by abject failures on the far right (Palin being the punctuation mark) than by anything Democrats have done.

In an "ordinary" year, all things being equal- we'd probably have been in for yet another nail biter on November 4th.

Something to think ahead about for 2010.

I think they will, once again, use the corporate media as their tool. They'll be able to get away with it as the inevitable Obama win they could NOT control will provide them the cover to be fascist tools after he takes office.

I am not much of a believer in fate etc. etc. I am delighted that Obama looks poised for a big win, but there is a lot of damage that has been done during the Bush years and we haven't even seen the worst of it and I don't want to gloss over that just because we are poised for the big win.

Not putting words in your mouth LynneSin-so I am not saying that this what you are saying but my point about this is this-we as a country fucked up big by putting **** in the WH for 8 years-a useless war based on lies, lies and suppression regarding climate change, general inattention to scientific/environmental issues, ridiculous deregulation, stoking fear of gay people,Muslims etc., running up huge deficits...these are not minor things and this isn't a Hollywood movie. I will never see the net impact of the Bush years as anything but a giant step backwards.
To put it a bit crudely, the lesson of the Bush years (at least for me) is not that Gore and Kerry weren't the right ones, but that we the people weren't thinking straight as a whole-when you really, really fuck up as a country and vote for a complete asshole/loser because large swaths of the public wallow in their own ignorance/shallowness, there are REAL consequences to that.

The good thing that I hope comes out of this is that we as a country learn a real lesson from the Bush years and learn to not vote for people due to the sort of sophomoric thinking that makes one want to drink a beer with the prez, have a real connection to the guy etc etc.

The one thing I really hope to see come out of all this is increased respect for real abilities and intelligence in a politician.

nt

There is no such thing as "fate".

Think of it this way: we've had only two Supreme Court vacancies since 2000: Rehnquist and O'Connor. A conservative and a moderate. Both in 2005-06 (Bush's second term).

In the next 4-8 years we'll have most likely have THREE Supreme Court vacancies: Ginsburg, Stevens, and Kennedy. Two liberals and a moderate.

As previously mentioned, had 9/11 not happened under Gore's watch, other circumstances (plus a charismatic Republican challenger) could have made Gore a one-term president who didn't get to appoint any SCOTUS justices. Had that Republican president-elect gone on to serve a full two terms (2004-2012), he would have most likely gotten to fill 4-5 vacancies over that time period.

Had Gore served two full terms and appointed liberals to replace Rehnquist and O'Connor (although I believe he would have picked moderates), Lieberman would have been the Democratic heir apparent in '08. I have a hard time imagining Lieberman getting elected in his own right after two terms of Gore, given the type of person Lieberman is (and don't be naive -- Joementum WOULD HAVE showed his eventually true colors, even after serving as Gore's right hand for so long). Had someone else defeated a Vice-President Lieberman in that alternate universe General Election of 2008, assuming popularity on the part of that individual, he would probably get to appoint solidly conservative replacements for Ginsburg, Stevens, and Kennedy...swinging the court to a 5-4 conservative majority with no moderates.

Had Kerry taken the White House in 2004, it probably would have been under the specter of winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote via Ohio. Kerry would have been targeted as "illegitimate" by Republicans for four years...he would have gotten to appoint liberals/moderates to replace Rehnquist and O'Connor, but still could have lost to a strong Republican challenger when running for reelection in 2008...with the risk that the Republican president-elect could have gone on to appoint staunch conservatives for Stevens/Ginsburg/Kennedy over the next 4-8 years.

If Obama becomes president and is reelected in 2012, he'll most likely get to appoint liberals/moderates to succeed Stevens, Ginsburg, and Kennedy. It's a good bet that two of them will be women, and two of them will probably be justices of color or biracial/multiracial.

So, assuming Obama wins, and assuming the Democrats have control of the White House for the next eight years, in terms of SCOTUS's future this could have been the better scenario.

That doesn't excuse any of the war crimes Bush and his regime have been responsible for, but hopefully it puts things in perspective.

Obama may have the better opportunity to shape the future of the Supreme Court, compared to what Gore or Kerry could have had.

This is not about Obama personally, or any perceived "superiority" of Obama -- it's about circumstances (and how different scenarios could have played out) affecting the makeup of the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS will be the ones ruling on the future of abortion laws in this country.

SCOTUS will be the ones writing legal opinions about same-sex marriage and how such basic types of spousal rights should apply to LGBT people in all 50 states.

SCOTUS will be the ones ruling on what oil/energy corporations can and cannot do.

SCOTUS will be the ones making decisions on the scope of regulation (and deregulation) policies coast-to-coast.

SCOTUS will be the ones handing down legal guidelines on the future of free and fair elections in this country, and making sure that the purging, manipulation, theft, and disenfranchisement of people's votes aren't allowed to persist.

I don't want right-wing shills replacing Ginsburg, Stevens, and Kennedy -- and under Gore or Kerry Administrations, I'm not certain that a popular-yet-corrupt Republican WOULDN'T have been in place by 2008 to go on to appoint right-wing shills to those likely vacancies.

and the American people, and not many Republicans would have been left unscathed for their constant support of Bush - neither would a few POWERFUL Democrats who used their positions to protect Poppy Bush and his fascist cronies throughout the 90s.

Kerry's devotion to open and accountable government is the reason that the DC powerstructure, including wellknown Democrats, was united against him.