If Gore endorses Hillary, I would expect these boards to explode

But when he didn't support impeachment, people seemed fine with that, so what do I know?

Because that's how long it will take many here to call Gore all sorts of things.

I think it will be Hillary, and it will be after she has locked it. I also think he'll campaign for her if she gets the nomination.

There's a thread somewhere about McGovern endorsing Hillary. Same sentiment, incredibly.

:wow:

He's being labeled a corporate sell-out as we speak.

I saw him interviewed recently. Senile is about the last thing on earth I'd choose to describe him.

Another classic responce from the "young and hip".

I have noticed that. It goes quite nicely with the "he must be senile, because he's 85" meme.

I'm still stunned someone called him senile
Don't know why it should have surprised me so much...but it really did

"run, Al! Sign the internet petition, make him run!"

what is the significant difference between Gore's assumed political positions and Hillary's?

I'm simply not getting this disconnect here. How is an HRC Presidency a continuation of the Bush/Clinton legacy, but Gore isn't? In what ways has Gore evolved and Hillary hasn't?

These are serious questions, because I haven't been following Gore very closely.

etc.

what time-frame was the speech? Also, do you think if he did run, he would completely shun corporate money? Again, serious questions. I just can't see getting any more or less excited over a Gore Presidency than a Clinton Presidency, but that's just me.

He does state opposition to Bush's policy of pre-emptive strike, but he also states that he supports Bush's goal of removing Saddam and WMD, and also that if there was perceived circumstances leading to an imminent threat, then it could be justified. This is of course the justification that many Democrats used in voting for the IWR, after Colin Powell's speech to the U.N.



Re-entering America's foreign policy debate, former Vice President Al Gore warned Monday that President Bush's doctrine allowing for a "pre-emptive" strike against Iraq could create a global "reign of fear."

In his first major speech on the situation in Iraq since February, Gore said he's "deeply concerned" that Bush's stated willingness to proceed without backing from an international coalition "has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

"Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another," Gore said during a 55-minute speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. "We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama bin Laden" while simultaneously building an international coalition against the Iraqi president

-snip-
While backing Bush's overall goal of ousting Saddam and eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Gore questioned the timing of a military strike, as envisioned in the proposed resolution he's sent to Capitol Hill.

"President Bush now asserts that we will take pre-emptive action even if we think the threat we perceive is not imminent. If other nations assert the same right then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear -- any nation that perceives circumstances that could eventually lead to an imminent threat would be justified under this approach in taking military action against another nation," Gore said.

"An unspoken part of this new doctrine appears to be that we claim this right for ourselves -- and only for ourselves," he said.


http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/gore.iraq/

He came out strongly against the war in September of 2002.

He came out against Bush's policy, but I'm not convinced he would have voted against the IWR. He supported the removal of Saddam.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm

Excerpt:

By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network - - much as we manage to squander in one year's time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine - - of preemption.

The doctrine of preemption is based on the idea that in the era of proliferating WMD, and against the background of a sophisticated terrorist threat, the United States cannot wait for proof of a fully established mortal threat, but should rather act at any point to cut that short.

The problem with preemption is that in the first instance it is not needed in order to give the United States the means to act in its own defense against terrorism in general or Iraq in particular. But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq if the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

The Bush Administration may now be realizing that national and international cohesion are strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet. From the outset, the Administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among Americans and between America and her allies.

On the domestic front, the Administration, having delayed many months before conceding the need to create an institution outside the White House to manage homeland defense, has been willing to see progress on the new department held up, for the sake of an effort to coerce the Congress into stripping civil service protections from tens of thousands of federal employees.

Far more damaging, however, is the Administration's attack on fundamental constitutional rights. The idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the say-so of the President or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale.

Regarding other countries, the Administration's disdain for the views of others is well documented and need not be reviewed here. It is more important to note the consequences of an emerging national strategy that not only celebrates American strengths, but appears to be glorifying the notion of dominance. If what America represents to the world is leadership in a commonwealth of equals, then our friends are legion; if what we represent to the world is empire, then it is our enemies who will be legion.

At this fateful juncture in our history it is vital that we see clearly who are our enemies, and that we deal with them. It is also important, however, that in the process we preserve not only ourselves as individuals, but our nature as a people dedicated to the rule of law.

I just don't think that if you put it into context, had he been a sitting Senator from Tennessee, that he would have acted any different than Kerry did, or Edwards did, or Hillary for that matter. Lots of Dems were saying those things, that's why the Bush Admin went to work cooking up false evidence. It's neither here nor there, because we'll never know.

in that time frame. Whether he would have voted for the IWR or not, the important thing was that he was willing to be a loud public voice against Bush's war talk. It would be hard to find any Democrat, who was NOT on record as being concerned about WMD and Saddam.

Gore was willing to be the top Democrat, loudly and publicly speaking against Bush - and taking flack for it. Bill Clinton was NOT there with him. This is the problem in using the IWR as a dividing line. A President gets to define the policy - here it is clear that Gore would not have gone to war. In the worst case, if Gore were in the Senate and after all the changes decided it was a "yes, but" vote - he would have spoken out as Bush broke all the promises - and that is the worst case. Gore absolutely did not trust Bush at that point - so I think he might have voted no to both Levin and IWR - knowing and warning that Bush would misuse anything.

In fact, he blasted some language (worse even than the passed resolution) that Senators were got changed. The IWR, when Gore spoke of it, was not limited to Iraq and limited the reasons. His speech may have helped those trying to make the IWR less bad. As it was going to pass, it was good to have a better bill, but as was seen it was not able to constrain Bush. (Somethings Gore objected to remained in the bill.)

This should be a warning re: Kyl/Leiberman - the changes did get rid of the worst language, but we are negotiating with a side that then uses signing statements.

Not wanting to get flamed by a Senator Clinton supporter but this is what Gore is for based on my reading of his latest book and from my observations over the past several years:

He was against the Iraq War when it was most unpopular to be so. He continues to be against this war.

He has correctly identified the crisis of the day to be what the hell is going on with the planet.

He has called on the world leaders to create a Global Marshall plan to address poverty and climate crisis issues as he sees those to be linked.

He is big on the Constitution - liked it when we had it. Has worked to create tools for the masses to maintain our democracy such as it is. Current TV is his latest project to address the need for two-way communication between the powers that be and us little people.

He has no love for the corporate welfare we have developed in this country. Wants it to be changed.

He personally took it upon himself to quietly charter a plane and fly people to safety after Katrina hit NO. Didn't want publicity and as far as I know has never acknowledged that he personally rescued over 300 people. There are pictures showing him in action though.

And those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. Would encourage you to pick up his Assault on Reason at the library or purchase one personally. He lays out all the horrible things that have happened to our democracy and urges us to take charge again.

that is not my point, I'm just not getting the Gore good/Clinton evil dichotomy. I think it's made up and overblown.

I just posted about his Iraq War position, it's not as cut and dried as people make it out to be I don't think. It's a great possibility if he had been in the Senate that he would have voted for it IMO.

I'm glad he's taking a position against the war, and I applaud all of his environmental activism. I think he's doing good, and I hope he continues to do so.

I don't enjoy making the comparisons. Senator Clinton is certainly not evil but I don't agree with her stances on a number of issues...

She voted for Iraq and this week she voted for Iran. I don't understand her reasoning in either of those decisions as information that I have access to points to faulty intelligence given as pertinent reasoning on both.

She has said little about the climate crisis. She does have a plan but it is very seldom discussed or addressed. It is a nebulous plan with no teeth or innovative thinking - which is what we will need to survive this crisis.

She hasn't impressed me with her love and support of the constitution and our former civil rights.

Her healthcare plan revision is amazing to me in its support of the insurance companies and her lack of understanding just what the average person's life is with the current health care crisis. Suggesting that 'proof' of insurance be required when applying for a job. Come on. And suggesting that insurance companies won't take you if you have a preexisting condition and she will change that. It's already been changed. They will take you - you just get charged through the nose for minimum coverage.

I am unclear how she will address the corporate welfare system. My fear is that she won't change a thing but I don't know that to be a fact. If she has addressed this somewhere, I would appreciate a link.

I do not see her taking any courageous stand on any issue or caring deeply about the common person. Her husband was hugely supportive of civil rights and the plight of the underprivileged but I don't see that as part of her concern.

Overall, I think she is at best tepid on the issues I care deeply about. I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. But I won't be wildly excited to do so.

I would rather she stay as Senator in New York as she is appears to be doing that well.

but again, he has the luxury of not being in politics right now. And one other point I wanted to make, I think that his book is one of the strongest cases that he will NOT run for President. It's one thing to present grandiose plans on how to change Washington, and a totally different thing to try and implement them. He knows this as well as anyone. I hope that *IF* HRC wins the nomination and eventual Presidency, that she will have Gore in some sort of important advisory position, and I think he will do it. I thought that it was significant that Gore was at the CGI yesterday.

universal single payer health care. He was against the war to begin with and would never advocate war with Iran. He's changed his views and perceptions on NAFTA significantly. He's aggressively combating global warming. He has written a book that shows he understands what is wrong with the system and outlined a plan to fix it...not taking the stance that you have to "work with the system you got".

Right... he and Hillary are just two peas in a pod. :sarcasm:

link to his views on NAFTA? I had to hold my nose and vote for him in 2000, largely because of it. That and the Telecom Act of 1996. Not to mention Lieberman as V.P.

His position on Iraq is not that clear, IMO. He said he opposed Bush's policy of pre-emptive strike, but supported the removal of Saddam and the "WMD". He also said a pre-emptive strike would be justified if perceived circumstances might lead to imminent threat. This was the excuse many Democrats used for voting for the IWR after Colin Powell's speech at the U.N.

he had no clear indication how deeply the * admin was lying to the world. But by the following year (August 7, 2003), he had it figured out. And said so in no uncertain terms:



And given the economic eggshells we are all walking on these days, read what he had to say later that same day regarding what Greenspan was doing:



All bold emphasis above is mine own.

I agree about NAFTA and would add a few other programs of the Clinton Admin (esp Welfare to Work) ... but I think he has revised his thinking since that time given what I read in his recent book, Assault on Reason. I would urge you to pick up a copy. I don't know of any online link regarding his change of heart regarding NAFTA but that book should clear up most concerns you would have in that regard.

I agree, he probably has revised his thinking, but IIRC, HRC has claimed she has too.

At any rate, I view a Gore Presidency as a pretty slim prospect at this point, but I do think if there's another Clinton Presidency, they will include him in the fold again.

As I said in another thread I think his book is one primary clue that he won't run. It's one thing to come up with a grand plan to change Washington, and an altogether different thing to actually be expected to do it.

N/T. But just for the record, when he endorsed Dean in 2004, the DLC apologists around here called him every name in the book.

and that is likely.

Brace yourself.

was referring to the primaries. I don't need to brace myself. I've resigned myself to the demise of America a while back. But enjoy your imperial Hillary presidency.

Please reconsider your opinion of it, and remember the last seven years.

change anything from the present corporate whores and their rape of America, you are in for very rude awakening.

bombing Iran is just a peachy idea? :crazy:

That would be an interesting twist.

candidate? If his choice were to lose the primaries, he would have jeopardized his relationship with the eventual winner.

Besides, Gore has been in politics long enough to know endorsements aren't worth a bucket of warm, shall we say, spit -- despite all they excitement they generate on Democratic Underground.

around, he should have done it sooner.

The days following the October 12th announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize should be interesting.

He knows a Republican when he sees one.

it's not happening. Gore appeared with Clinton (Bill) yesterday at the CGI. He's not going to war with the Clintons right now, they're kissing and making up.

:~(

of course anything could happen, but my advice is to work like hell for Obama or Edwards, and start getting your mind wrapped around an HRC Presidency. Alternatively, I hear Canada's nice.

:hi:

They minimized Clark's endorsement, suggesting that he wanted to be VP, that it was political--rather than reading Clark's statement and understanding his reasoning.

People have made up their minds and will not back down--no matter what evidence comes before them. I truly believe that many here internalized the decade of hate and lies spewed from the media about the Clintons and just cannot see them for who they really are. It just goes to show you how powerful the propaganda machine is--especially when they have the media on their side.

Some very vocal people here hate Hillary, but many here support her who are quieter than the haters. It would be very interesting times here, I agree.

and if it did, I'd tear up my voter card for good.

then he will endorse the likly nominee and urge others to get behind him or her.

unless she's nominated. Why burn bridges with other candidates, if there's chance one of them will be the next president?

I think he knows better not to make enemies, if he wants to be in the political arena over the next 4-8 years.

I think McGovern has nothing to lose, and honestly likes Hillary. I think Clark probably made a deal with Clinton for a position in her administration.

:shrug:

I'd assume discussion. Where the hell do you think you're at?

this thread exploded just by you bringing up the prospect..:rofl:

It's a great thread BTW, it's a thoughtful, constructive, respectful and insightful discussion, a pretty rare thing when the word "Clinton" is used in the OP.

is one of the better responses I've seen in a long, long while.

:toast:

We need some bravery. I find it hard to think he would do that. He doesn't seem to be much of a Clinton person.

I'm not a Gore worshiper so it won't affect me. In fact, when I read about the "primary wars" and "campain operatives" I am amazed. How can their be such a cult among free minds? How can you worship any one person that much? It's not healthy for this country. And as much as came to like Kerry and that whole debacle broke my heart, I got over it. I moved on. He's not president. He never will be. And neither will Gore.
And you know what? The Gore worshipers are living in nostalgic fantasyland. It gets tiresome. HE's not even a candidate people! Why not obsess about Brad Pitt or something? YES-I would kill for Angelina as first lady.

Brad seems more like a "first gentleman" type to me.

Gore's stuck his foot in his mouth before, but I think he's sick and tired of doing it. So I don't think it's going to happen. I think there's bad blood there. Gore's tired of selling out.

he said it himself that a 600 day campaign is outright stupid. If he was to endorse anyone it won't be for quite sometime. I predict he will be one of the last people to endorse anyone anytime soon.

First, I don't think Gore is going to run. Period.

And from what I've read, there's no love lost between the two of them. I don't think Gore will endorse anyone.

But of course, I could be completely full of shit.