Kerry or Gore '08

Which of these two guys would you vote for (assuming you had to choose between the two (and yes, I know that's kind of phoney (for one thing it leaves Hillary out of the equation), but i'm curious)).

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

i think Kerry is over exposed, and gore comes off better on tv, for whatever thats worth....

But I think they should both run. A Gore/Kerry ticket. Their slogan should be: "We've already won twice. Now let us lead."

of being an angry out of control man who rants and raves now. I'm not saying it is a fair assessment, it is just how things appear to be. Kerry comes off as statesman like.

And he should use that anger to his advantage. He should say "You are damn right I am angry". "I am angry at where my country has been taken" "I am angry at the reputation that my country now has because of the Bush regime". "I am angry at the lies that have been told to our Citizens." He could go on and on and on at what he is angry at.

He should never apologize or back away from the anger that he has. Or any democratic candidate for that matter. Yeah, we are angry!

Gore all the way.

Olafr

Same thing with any other democrat they label "angry." Nah what gave them that clue? :eyes:

actions. He also couldn't even pull off winning his own state in 2000.

his home state, he won his home nation, also I believe most Tennesseans will not be brainwashed by the corpwhorate owned MSM as they were in 1999-2000. Too many events have shown Al to be correct regarding Bush's corruption/incompetence, global warming etc. also the presstitutes them selves carrying the neocon propaganda lie have become more exposed to the American People and it was the "mainstream" presstitutes that hurt Al with their slanders more than anyone else.

to renew the patriot act doesn't matter to you?

let it go temporarily, he will act to change it when the time is right.

i want them both...in a Gore/kerry or a kerry/gore ticket.

In both cases, it was theirs to lose, and they sank to the occasion.

Gore decided he had to run *against* the Clenis, and therefore couldn't actually take any credit for what the Clinton/Gore administration did right.

Kerry thought he was above responding to Swift Boat slime, a situation that absolutely required a fight. (And he still looks like a weenie, trying to promote the Alito filibuster from Davos.)

I don't know who I want, but certainly not either of them. Nor Hillary. Dean? Clark? Obama?

He won the popular vote and if all the votes had been counted in Florida he would have won the electoral college. But you knew that.

Kerry launched a defense against the swiftliars and broadcast media REFUSED to give it coverage. Only Cspan aired it.

him and Kerry is that I think Gore knows his mistakes and owns them.....

and I just haven't seen that Kerry has a clue about how he tanked the last few weeks of his run.

those facts or NO DEMOCRAT can win.

In the final week, most of the pundits were coming to a dazed conclusion that Kerry was pulling it off. The Bin Laden tape - that in addition to raising the fear level took attantion from the ammo dump issue that Kerry was using to very good effect hurt Kerry.

Kerry has a reputation of learning from his mistakes.

"I like to vote" because I will support the eventual nominee, no matter how pathetic he or she is. I'd just like it to be someone fresh.

Either one could be a great candidte and president. But they'd have to do some personal makeovers, both in terms of style and substance.

Both would have to learn how to use fewer words to make their points. Tht doesn't mean being unsubstntial. Just get to the point and take out all of the excess verbiage and digressions when they speak.

Gore would have to lose weight, and take some classes in yoga, and whatever else is available to help him loosen up and be more flexible in public. And find the middle ground between a droning monotone and yelling. And DON't be a 2000-style waffler. Otherwise he's fine on substance, as long as he doesn't backslide into "centrism." Also enagge the media and right wing spin machine and deflect their stereotypes of him directly with both humor and fire.

Kerry would also have to learn to loosen up, although he obviously doesn't have a weight problem. He could use a humor transplant. He also would have to come out swinging as a traditional LIBERAL, insted of running away from it. He has to take on substantial issues of Power and Money, break the corporate ties and stik to his guns.

Both of them should also stay miles wway from their former strategists. Avoid people like Bob Schrum and Donnal B. at all costs, and find someone who is more orienmted to grassroots populism to shape their campaigns.

Is pretty much the same thing he's realized himself, and he has done those things in the past year.

It was unfortunate that America didn't get to see the real Kerry in 2004, between the corporate media refusing to show any non-negative coverage of his campaign and his own handlers not letting him be him. In reality, he's a very down-to-earth, good-natured person with a great sense of humor. I know, because I've met him - I'm just an ordinary, middle-class college student, and I talked to him as an equal, and he to me. Not a pretentious bone in that man's body.

I couldn't agree MORE with your last paragraph. Fortunately, as I said, Kerry has learned that lesson - he acknowledged to my group that his campaign made mistakes and that probably the key one was not just coming out and being himself and allowing himself to be censored. As a result, in 2005 we saw fighting Kerry, and I guarantee that's the Kerry we'll see in 2008. Look at what he's been doing this year: http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

He also had a recent interview with Ed Schultz in which he completely called out the corporate media - questioning the motives of NBC which is owned by GE, etc... it was terrific, he was relaxed, and his words were hard-hitting. Interview here: http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/20906Kerry.mp3

Obviously, I'm partial, but you made some good points, and I just wanted to give you a little heads-up on Kerry's progress in those areas.

(BTW, that link kind of sucks - it only downloads the partial interview sometimes, I have no idea what's up. I hope it works for you.)

I've heard of good things he's done quietly -- like giving money to vets organizations without seeking credit -- that give me respect for him.

I hope you're right. I'm glad to hear he called out the media.

ties.

In fact, I'd like to see Kerry resubmit his Clean Elections bill that he worked on with Wellstone in 1997. Too bad McCain-Feingold got all the attention that Kerry and Wellstone's bill deserved.

he can pass the scrutiny test no problem

..we need someone new. I'm still not sure and hope to start examining candidates after the fall election.

You say they learned their lessons from mistakes they both made. Well, I don't think they did! You're hearing a Gore NOW who isn't running for anything, so he's saying what he thinks instead of worring about every spoken word! If he were again put into a candidate role, the OLD "controlled Gore would be back, and HE'D loose!!!!

Kerry is a very smart man, and does a pretty decent job in the Senate, but he STILL doesn't know how to speak to the general population! I'm POSITIVE he doesn't speak to his wife and kids the way he speaks to a camera! It's a NO WIN AGAIN!

You all sound sanctimonious to me. Most of you have never worked on a campaign. I think that both Gore and Kerry would be fine candidates so would Hillary. Get off of your high horses because Dean promised not to run and he is a man of his word. Gore also said he would not run. Clark would be a good vp but he is not a good politician . Lets all make an effort to get the votes counted correctly. That would be a major step in the right direction. It is always safe to criticize from the outside but it takes a lot of work to run for office so offer suggestions instead of Little people remarks I will take my ball and go home.

and thank goodness that Clark is a helluv a statesman and a leader!

:kick:

the books on it, either. That will work.

Gore has the experience and knowledge to turn this country around. I'd support him enthusiastically as long as he's learned to show the charm and humor that so many say he possesses in private in a public setting and that he begins to show some political finess.

I still like Kerry and would support him as a primary candidate, particularly if the other choices were unreformed, DLC, pro-Iraq war supporters like Hillary or Warner. He has his problems. He also has some problems in the finess category.

Go to CSPAN and type in his name in the video search engine and watch him speak on "Road to the White House" and things like that. He's going to be appearing on there on March 11th. Go to the Kerry forum for more.

I'm particularly fond of watching the politicians after the speech as they work the crowd. I once saw Kerry take the time to talk with a little boy. You can learn alot about a candidate that way. That sort of thing convinced me that Kerry is a really good guy at heart.

Problem is most people don't watch C-SPAN. They see their newsclips of the candidate and what most people saw of Kerry was him windsurfing & snowboarding while Bush was "working" on his ranch, acting as though he'd lived there his entire life (even though it was purchased in 1999) and giving the impression that he was just a downhome good old boy at heart.

Kerry let Bush get away with his fake cowboy populist everyguy schtick. He should have called him on it, frankly, saying something to the effect that at least he's not a phony.

"Yeah, I'm rich as Creosus but I'm honest about who I am. You wouldn't see me buying some old New England acreage and playing makebelieve farmer just to make people believe that I'm one of them."

"problems in the finesse catagory"?

I heard someone say recently on some program that ALL candidates kind of freeze up once they are presidential candidates. Every word they utter is scrutinized to the Nth degree. Not that you meant that--but I'm just saying.

I will vote. That was just the closest choice available. Not Hillary, either. Any of the three will lead the Democratic Party to a crushing defeat in 2008.

Clark's da man.

but is this the best we can do?????

I personally think there probably will be some strong names emerging over the next year - people who aren't on our radar yet.

Bryant

Like Leahy or Feingold. But of the two, I'd go with Gore. At least he fought the theft of the 2000 election to the bitter end.

Gen. Clarke would be an excellent choice.

If the nominee was Kerry, I would vote third party. No thank you.

I'm lukewarm on Gore, but he is preferable to Kerry.

LOL. See 2000.

"Third party" comparisons don't address the impact of a high profile, Independent candidate.

Dem Reps need to get their shit together and start representing the interests of their constituents.

Before the poll I would have guesed Gore by a margin of 2 to 1 - instead it seems the right ratio was 3 to 1.

Bryant

that it was Gore's team of people who were in place advising on the vote count in 2004. They only keyed on minority disenfranchisement and NONE of them took voting machine fraud seriously.

I actually had hoped that Gore would see the voting machine fraud isse after 2002 and worked to expose it. It seemed to be right up his alley.

But, I certainly don't blame Gore for staying out of targetrange of the GOP media machine. He had enough lies and crap thrown at him to last a lifetime.

positioned himself for the '08 race. The man is by far the most qualified of course but his staying above the political fray at this point in the game is just wonderful. Anyone who has paid any attention to him over the last year and a half, has listened to his speeches, can not come to any other conclusion than that he is the best hope this nation has for a future. I honestly believe that and it is why I intend to do all in my power to support him for the nomination and then the Presidency.

a "recovering politician."

we're in.

I like John Kerry as well. But I'd love to see Al Gore take back what is rightfully his.

I like Big Al even better now than when I voted in 2000

If I were to think strategically, I'd probably back Mark Warner

Picking between the two might be of meaning as (assuming Gore decides to run) it is possible that these could be the only two with the name recognition to raise money and be a credible alternative to Clinton.

Looking at the 2008 field, I not only prefer both over Clinton, but over most of the people being discussed as potential candidates.

I'd go with Kerry as he has been working at creating a credible opposition, and has shown evidence of learning quite a bit from 2004 to help in a future run. This gives him a big edge over Gore who dropped out after losing.

Republcians often have an advantage in running their more experienced peope while Democrats run newbies. Having gone thru the process gives Kerry and Gore a much better chance of winning a general election battle.

Would vote for him in a heartbeat. I think he would make a great President

but if I could vote again, I would vote for Kerry. This poll can't convience me otherwise.

I think that General Clark would be the first choice among all the Democrats out there as the foreign policy arm of our Executive team. I also think - and this is really another matter - that we should take an international breather, or more correctly give the world one, and making that the providence of the Vice President would give itbothu sufficient weight as well as proximity to the President in case of continued national threat.

In short we need to back down a good bit while still showing the world that we have a performance-guaranteed team in place. Gore/Clark meets that need exactly.

but I voted Gore.

to have their votes count? They didn't last time. What has changed?

I forget how many days between election day 2000 and when Gore accepted the decision of the Supreme Court to stop the recounting of votes in Florida - even though he "strongly disagree"d with that decision and made this point very clearly to the American people. Gore did the best he could with the cards in his hand - but Bush was holding all the cards (Jeb, Harris, Diebold, Supreme Court, GOP majority in Congress, FOX News and mainstream media).

As for 2008, Gore has not ruled out running for office again. What he is saying is that right now he has no plans or expectations in that area. This is the smart answer for him to be giving at this stage in the game. He does not have to take a decision about 2008 (never mind about announcing it in public) until after this year's congressional elections are over.

I'm not sure about Kerry. What kind of a person gets their first marriage annulled by a Bishop? Just so he can marry a registered Republican multi-millionaire widow in the Catholic church. What message does that send to his first wife and the kids they had together? OK so Kerry's personal life is none of my business - but it leaves a sour taste with me.

In Gore We Trust
www.algore.org :)

Dream team either way.

Just leave Hillary out of it.

Actually, would either of them want the veep slot? Because both ran for president. I think that puts both of them at the top of the pecking order.

Has anybody heard whether or not Dean plans on running again?

There are many possibilities out there, and I don't know whose camp I'll be in when the time comes.

For the sake of your "phoney" poll:

Al Gore. No contest.

Go Al!

enthusiastically.

They are intelligent, capable souls and it's not at all a reach to imagine either of them the party's nominee in 08.

We are due for a week-long media blitz by BushCo about the virtues of our Iraq involvement, and this only serves to remind me that President Gore or President Kerry would be far better stewards of of ship of state than the evil oil munchkin currently in the White House.

And both men were quick to give up on disenfranchised voters. NONE OF THE ^%t$@% ABOVE is my response because I care about voting rights. Besides, I cannot reiterate this enough: BOTH MEN LOST! America doesn't want to see the same people who lost already running again!

he understands the MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE facing us in this century, namely, the Environment.

Gimme a Gore-Feingold ticket, and I'll be a happy man.

:shrug:

I'm all for voting, but I'm not for voting for someone I don't believe in. And Gore, Kerry... I don't believe in either.

I'm not sure if he's going to run, but if he does I'm there. I think he's got a great chance of winning.

As much as I like Kerry, I don't think he'd win on a second try.