Okay DU'ers It's Done! Charlie Cook says Gore won't Run so "Hillary/Obama?"

this will be the ticket.

Cook said: (which I agree with) "There's a lot of interest in Gore but he won't run if he has to run as a Candidate."

So...I think it ends up with Hillary/Obama and we DU'ers need to get used to this.

It's an interesting ticket. Kind of "made in heaven" if one thinks about it. With Hillary we get Bill and all his TEAM and with Obama we get the "NEW JFK" and the Black Vote.

We are GOLDEN FOR '08 with this.

Boyda won by 4%.

There are plenty of Democrats who HATE Hilary Clinton, me being one of them.

She voted for an illegal war that has cost nearly 3000 American troops their lives. She will never get my vote.

I think she would make a good president.
Then again, after the incumbent, Yosemite Sam would look discrete.

claims and who didn't vote for the bogus war?

from their work after the Gulf War. They documented the destruction of about 97% of the WMD that Saddam had gotten from the West.

Also, chemical weapons have a short shelf life, so any remaining were useless by the time of the vote in Congress. Same for many biological weapons.

Scott Ritter, chief US weapons inspector told this to congress and to the American Public. I knew about it. Congress knew about it.

Saddam was in a box from the end of the Gulf war until the start of the Iraq war. We were flying over the whole country routinely. there was no evidence that he had WMD. Period. Well there was cooked evidence. Which I knew was cooked because it was reported that the VP had been pressuring intel and had set up his own operation to get what he wanted.

Obama is Kryponite to Hillary. Obama is gonna take Hillary out. She won't be on any ticket

What is the purpose of a post in which you state that you hate someone, and say there are others who hate someone? have you ever used the word hate with regards to anyone else? Do you hate President Bush and every person who voted for him? Do you hate the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed during this war?

Hillary, a novelty as the first woman nominee, will not pick Obama to run with because he would also be a novelty, the first African-American VP nominee. But Gore would pick Obama.

each and every time he speaks at some event or other.

Hillary would pick a Joe Lieberman type. Someone known, but dull, and as far right in the Democratic party as she can get.

what does that mean?

as a runner

Fighting Shape!

of not seeking the nomination if you have to lower yourself to campaigning in the primaries?

And I am shocked to see anyone urging a board full of Democrats to abandon the democratic process because someone has decreed what they think the results should be.

Oy.

He's on my short list.

When Gore gives an offical presser on this subject I'll believe it.

Not a ticket I'd support. Hey let's off-shore more jobs thats what this country needs. Let ban net neutrality and give big cable and telecoms anything they want. And that's just for starters. No fucking thank you. Oh yeah and fuck Vichy Dems.

on edit: abortion rights would also be in serious jeopardy with Clinton. See Nancy Keenan of National Naral. IMHO.

Flat and flatter.

With added flavor reducers. Yum :sarcasm:

And I'm not sure I mean that sarcasically. :)

Hillary is just a republican pretending to be a dem. If she is the nominee I will not vote at all. I cannot stand that DLC, no position, inside the beltway bubble girl.
I can think of many better than her. Alot better.
Obama is not running for VP. He said so on CNN the other day. Said you do not run for vp. I think it should be Obama and whoever else he chooses as long as it's not Hillary.

:rofl:

And I am sick of being told that this is the ONLY ticket that can win in '08. So, no. This DU'er is not going to "get used" to this until I have absolutely no other choice.

No. No. No.

So there!

:hi:

what the winning ticket has to be. Many, many things can happen between now and the primaries, and those media-appointed front-runners and party "rock stars" have an interesting way of running out of steam. I, too, have no intention of "getting used to" Hillary as the candidate for '08; in fact, I'll do what I can to ensure that it's somebody else.

Well said and I am with ya

:toast:

Most of us have been railing against the GOP and their dirty mismanagment and warmongering ways for a reason.

I'd like to think that the Party understands that. They are going to lose and lose big if they pull this sh*t. Enough of the middle can't stand her and enough of US can't stand her that she doesn't stand a fricking snowball's chance in hell.

Of course just ask the pro-Hilary crowd the kryptonite question: "Why should I vote for a hawk?"

No damn answer...

Dean, Hart, Tsongas, so there is a track record.

Not. Backing. Hillary! - Molly Ivins

We Democrats will not have Hillary Clinton shoved down our throats! Don't even try it!

I can take Obama, as second banana.... but as time has gone by, and as one who was extremely excited about Hillary, I now find my support for her to be completely lacking. So much so that at the present time I would say that if the election were held tomorrow and she was the candidate... I would truthfully sit it out. I don't care who is running against her, and I know this is a position I don't actually endorse in most elections, but I have such negative feelings about her that it doesn't really matter to me.

I live in Florida and in THE DISTRICT that is still UNDECIDED because of election irregularities, District 13 so for me it's all about fighting for what you believe in. To me Hillary is "playing the game" and I do understand the realities of what she is doing, but she could easily fit into such a DINO right now that it doesn't matter all that much. Having lived through all the upheaval I've seen these past 6 years, to me going "middle of the road" just doesn't cut it anymore. Some say she would govern differently, but the fact that she isn't really speaking out in an extremely LOUD voice shows me that she's more interested in getting elected than standing up for "we the people" no matter what the bottom line is. She of all people should be a "firebrand" for Democrats, but instead she has decided to "play it safe!" Playing it safe while others suffer does not garner much respect IMO!!

We need voices to be heard loud and clear, and what she is saying isn't very loud OR very clear! And I know my opinion is bizarre, even to me.... but HILLARY would be my VERY LAST CHOICE!!

That's just one strike that I have against Hillary.

No more Bushes, no more Clintons.

Hillary is no Bill.

Lets put an end to the Royalty/Presidency and elect someone
who is smart enough, ethical enough, moral enough to
not to have voted us into the Iraq war.

I agree totally. No more dynasties. No more Bushes or Clintons. I'm sick of it.

Very little experience. Very little leadership. Business as usual.

We can do better than that.

McCain (or my RW dark horse Chuck Hagel) wins over that Hillary/Barak ticket, IMHO.

Ahhhhh, that's nice.

Because I see nothing that would make me believe that. Neither wanted an examination of the Downing Street Memos, so why would one believe they will open the books on BushInc that NEEDS TO HAPPEN?

We are still going to have Diebold/ES&S to worry about in '08, if that other corporate Democrat, Diane Feinstein, has anything to say about it. (And she will--she's head of the Senate committee on elections, alas.)

So we need somebody to beat the machines. And I think that's Gore.

Obama has been a lightweight on the war. I really disliked his carefully worded DLC-type statement about it at the Dem Convention--pleasing to all parties. He has other things going for him, but I don't see him beating the machines.

Gore has experience and maturity and great integrity on Bush/war issues--called Bush out early on all his shit. But, most important, he has the magic of most Americans believing that he should have been president all this time. I had a big difference with him on NAFTA/FTAA (under B. Clinton), but I've followed Gore's speeches these last two years, and he is extremely intelligent and has evidently thought hard about many vital issues. I would expect a different and much better trade policy from Gore (than from either Clinton). He is also solid on Constitutional government, and on decency and ethics in US foreign policy. And, again, most of all, I think he will blow the machines out of the water and win by a landslide. It will be like the Restoration of King Charles II--dancing in the streets! --a release of Americans' creative energies, a repudiation of the fascist past, renewal, rebirth.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me on any major issue. I find her unadulterated ambition and game-playing with the Bush Junta disgusting. What has she done to merit being our candidate? Nothing, that I can see! I think her candidacy--if Diebold/ES&S decides to favor her in the primaries--will rip the Democratic Party to pieces. I won't be part of that dismantling of our party. I am too worried about Germany 1932 (the fracturing of the center/left, and the rise of Hitler). And if her wads of money, and rightwing/corporation/Bushite connections, get her nominated, I will support her against any Republican, and then work harder, after that, on election reform. She did vote against HAVA--one of only two Senators who did (her and Schumer)--so there may be hope that we can reform the election system and restore our democracy in the future. But I will feel completely unrepresented, disenfranchised and disempowered, with H. Clinton as president. She makes me feel much the way that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies make me feel--like a slave, like cannon fodder, like a citizen of Stalinist Russia.

We shouldn't trust anyone's word but Gore's--and not until about a year from now--that he won't run. IF he said what Cook says he said--that "he won't run if he has to run as a Candidate," he might have meant that he won't run unless he is drafted by the party and/or by the people. He is in a tricky position, as a former candidate who actually won. If he wants to run, and he jumps in too early, he might stifle debate. I do think he wants to run. He has highly developed positions--presented in major speeches--on many issues of national importance (not to mention his work of global warming--THE most critical issue of the 21st century, in addition to nuclear weapons and threats of nuclear war).

The primary system was created so that the people have a say in who the nominee is--rather than politicos in the "smoke filled rooms" at the Convention (how it used to be). But Diebold/ES&S changes the whole seen. These rightwing corporations can prevent us from nominating who we really want. I think that a Hillary Clinton candidacy, coming out of Diebold/ES&S-run primaries will be extremely divisive, and may result in a brokered convention. What will Howard Dean do, if Clinton gets the nomination and the left-wing (majority) of the party rebels? I think most primaries only bind the delegates in the first vote--and I'm not sure of their legal situation, as to that. I could see a divided party turning to Gore as the only person capable of pulling people back together. That's one scenario. I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope we have a transparent enough system by the '08 primaries to end up with the best candidate. And I do hope there is "draft Gore" movement that gets him into a position to BE the candidate.

What, exactly, would he run as?

he would accept nomination at the convention if there were no conensus candidate after the primaries were completed.

I don't really see that happening, though. With the primaries set up to favor those who come out ahead early, and the PR machine geared up to bully primary voters into "getting in line," it's unlikely that there would not be consensus.

If he's not the presidential nominee, he needs to be Secretary of State (and he can't be Def. Sec. because of the 10-year rule).

won't be voting for it - not that it would matter in my state. My vote wouldn't change the 20 percent that ticket would lose by here.

My vote wouldn't change the 20 percent that ticket would lose by here.

Bingo. First woman and first African-American at the same time? Can you say "slaughter"? Sure, I knew you could.

Julie

She's just been so vilified, female or not.

I know Democrats down here who hate her.

I don't hate her. I think she's smart and capable and would make a much better president than Chucklenuts (well, my dog would make a better president than him), but so many people, Republican, Democrat and Independent, simply hate her because of years and years and years of the Right Wing Noice Machine.

And, outside of Memphis, all we have here is conservative talk radio, moderate to conservative newspapers and perfectly lousy television news.

First off, Hillary has way too much opposition to her own proto-campaign as it is. Second, Obama doesn't have enough experience at the Federal level yet. Together, this team would be all hat, no cattle. A strong Republican team could actually defeat them without any help from Diebold.

It is an utterly foolish notion to start declaring anything done before anything has even started. If you remember, our last two Democratic Presidents were long shots out of nowhere, defying all of the conventional wisdom of their day.

Besides, Hillary, no matter who is going to run with her, is going to face a tough, tough primary battle. Too many people out here on the left are completely disenchanted with her record on the war, and she will not be corinated without a fight.

So I would suggest that you would refrain from calling any ticket as a done deal. Way too many things can happen between now and then:shrug:

I was really hoping for someone who was opposed to the Patriot Act and the Iraq quagmire...

Thanks for letting us know 2 years in advance that your mind is made up.

Sometime soon after Trajan saw Albert Gore in Portland on October 24th .....

Who needs Charlie Cook when you have Trajan ? ... (oh .. and Al Gore telling us directly .. )

Sounds like someone wants to help along Hillary's coronation through power of suggestion.

I meant it so much I said it twice.

Maybe some should get used to the idea that many, many Democrats refuse to vote for anyone who supported this war. And if Hillary IS crammed down our throats as the nominee, I will not vote... period. I, and many other Democrats will stand by our principles, and some Democrats might should 'get used to that'.

I don't really see a ticket with Hillary on top of it winning. Obama's definitely a solid choice for VP, but there'd have to be a less polarising figure as the Presidential nominee.

She'll win enough primaries to be the Democratic candidate, IMO. And she'll be our next president.

The VP choice is rarely important to the election, but Obama would help a little (the African-American vote is not exactly up-for-grabs for the Repugs - with or without Obama on the ticket.)

Never voted for anyone but a Democrat so I may have sit this on out since there will not be a Democrat nominated.

I mean why bother even having an election? :shrug: Let the media just give us who we should have! Mediacracy at its finest! :eyes:

Al Gore will not make any move until after he picks up the Academy Award for Best Documentary and that's still time away. He also will not announce anything there, either.

But IF he has decided to run, it will be after that point and not before.

Also, if he doesn't run, there are still the primaries and they will be very contentious. Hillary will be the first out of the gate, but primaries are very unpredictable.

In any event, I am bookmarking your prediction.

Obama won't be on the ticket with Hillary. They both are from Illinois and that state is in the bag. VP choices are about winning electoral votes (except with Kerry's lousy choice in '04). Hillary will reach to the West (Gov. Richardson of New Mexico, Sen. Reid of Nevada) or back to the South (Gen. Clark of Arkansas, Sen. Nelson of Florida).

If Hillary's not on the ticket, then Obama might have a shot at the VP choice.

I'll have the factory send you an RMA for your crystal ball.

credibility with the MSM AND...he did Predict a Dem Sweep including the Senate with the House.

Not my prediction...but what Cook is alerting to as what it's gearing up to be from the Pundits and MSM.

I'm an Al Gore supporter. My post on this was because what Cook said was astute in picking up what the "Powers that Be" were Orchestrating.

That's why I posted it.

My Crystal Ball says: Gore Wins...if we grassroots work hard enough.

Put that in your predictions. Gore WINS in '08 from me. :D

But if Cook thinks that Hillary would choose Obama, he's hallucinating.

A double Illinois ticket won't happen.

However, as a Clark supporter, I will tell you that should Al decide to run (after the AA as I said) then he will become the giant in the primaries.

I just can't read Al at this time.

I can tell you that Hollywood wants him to run. Seriously.

if "Grassroots supporters" FORCE HIM on the ballot. He won't run because they will laugh at him, mock him and do what they did to him before.

He's better than that...and savvy. He's running "silently" and if he doesn't catch on with much support...he won't do it again. He will not be a candidate to put himself through MSCorporate Media gauntlet of ridicule.

We who support him need to start a movement to write him in just like Ross Perot supporters did with his name. If he can see that folks work to get his name in he can either do a Lieberman and run Indy...or see that he has enough "base support" from his supporters efforts to come in late and run Dem after the early Primaries select Hillary/Obama and he becomes the "Come Back Kid."

That's my prediction based on much hope....much hope...

case you have forgotten) get going so we can assure the democratic nominees for Pres/V Pres win in 08 whoever they are.