I found it very useful. Thanks for the knowledge. I am personally trying to follow the advice & try to be independent….

I would imagine if you track down Cockburns get Gore book, a lot of this same stuff is in there, re: the enviorment. As to the rest, yes, I’ve heard the “Clinton was Impeached for the wrong reasons” line from many Progs. A novel appoach to justice and fair play, but as we know when it came to Clinton(s), anything goes.

Even 2004, Kerry wasn’t able to say he was against the war and would leave. Even in 2006, few Dems, and I think no new Dems, were in favor of immediate, unconditional surrender, er, relocation out of Iraq.

Mavis, the problem of principals is this: most voters are moderate on most issues, but extreme on a few (pro-life/ anti-war/ pro or anti- guns/ etc.) Taking a stand on any issue means those against that stand will be against you; but those for that stand might be against on some other issue.

Reagan, like Bush, had tax cuts and a huge deficit — but along with tax cuts Regan actually did cut some gov’t programs, and cut the growth rate of many programs. Bush hasn’t cut much of any gov’t program, but only increased gov’t spending.

Even in Iraq, Bush & Rumsfeld sent in too few troops, according to many of the generals against Rummy.

Oh well, Dem anti-war Left will see much less Iraq change than they want.

I share your disappointment with the milquetoast war opposition the Democrats came out with for the first two years, but I’m still not sure what the proper political move was. Certainly for an individual (especially one running for President) to have been able to say that he opposed the war would have been beneficial. But I’m not sure the Democratic Party didn’t benefit from riding the same public opinion path as the rest of the country. I just don’t know. And I also wonder what the party elders think. Do they feel they rode the wave well and were victims of circumstance and a bad candidate in 2004? Or do they wish they had taken a stronger stance on Iraq earlier? I want very much to believe that principled stands can pay off politically (not that they always will, but that they can), but sometime it feels very much like the evidence points in a different direction.

There is also a pretty decent argument that’s been made that the folks who voted for Nader would have just stayed home if the only options in ’00 were Gore and Bush.

And there is also good reason to believe that Gore himself deserves most of the credit for enabling Bush’s victory (great choice of running mate, Al).

It seems a bit extreme to say that supporting Clinton’s impeachment negated all the impressive work that Nader performed but there were plenty of reasons to impeach Clinton that didn’t involve Monica Lewinsky or Whitewater:

> for the first seven years of his presidency he
allowed the Indonesian generals to continue thier destruction of East Timor,

> bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory (people are stiil perishing as a result of that war-crime)

> ended the meager welfare and food subsidies to the poor without putting anything in its place such as childcare provisions for single parents.

And no, I can’t remember CounterPunch expressing a preference for Bush over Gore – no doubt they’ve ‘purged’ that one from thier archives also.

What Gore does not have on his record is enabling the worst, most retro President in Modern history to take power. The damage said has done, alas, cancels a lot of good to great works. When could we have seen Ralph was losing his way?

I’d site his endorcment of the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, a call which negated everything he’s ever put forward consern legal fair play and basic common sense. Unless you know about another case were he took a posistion that someone, after years of harrasment by a politicaly motivated prosacutor, should have been stripped of his job on “purgery” ; which seen in context was barely a legal technicality.

Florida was just down the road…..

Wesley Clark should not be forgotten either and Edwards will do well early although his advantage in Iowa might be diluted by Vilsack.

But what the hell. I like our bench a lot!

My primary concern is that the candidate be someone I’d like to have a beer with. Which is why I could never support a teetotaler like Bush.

http://tinyurl.com/uhgpo

Get used to it.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=139759

“Try white enough.”

Bob is partially correct, Elijah is way off. Besides patronizing voters with his constant name dropping of Jesus, Ford positioned himself to the jingoist right of even his own challenger Bob Corker on a whole host of issues, most particularly immigration. As Richard Kim points out in an article on the Nation website, Ford used some of the same kinds of race baiting against what he called “illegals” that were used against him in RNC and Corker sponsored ads. Similarly, Ford uses his opposition to gay marriage and gay civil unions as a kind of business card disclaimer – it is one of his bragging points at the beginning of any of his debates or campaign stops.

Yet, since he’s a black man, we as Democrats are just supposed to run right out there and vote for him. Sorry to disappoint you, but Ford never even came close to passing the smell test.

Let me help, in order of priority, so we can conclude the talk and get back to real work:

1. Rahm Emanuel fielded centrist candidates that stood a chance of actually winning. Duh.
2. Americas disatisfaction with a three year old war of attrition, as predicted by the suicide crazies.
3. The Reps failure to follow the principles they were elected on…..speaking of suicide.
4. The historic trend of the ruling party to lose- seats at the mid-term of a second term presidency.
5. Last but not least, in my unbiased opinion. Dean and Emanuel reads Marc’s Blog and took my winning advice to drop the loser socially devisive issues of late term baby killing, boy-boy and girl-girl marriages, attacking the word ‘God’
on the face of America, and talk like you really do have spines. In short, keep your crazies rocking on the back porch until after the elections.

Now if you want to keep winning, continue following Rahm, Bill and me. . If you really want to fuck-up what we and the hapless Reps just helped you win, pursue the agenda the rocking chair crowd here are suggesting for Congress. ie, begin to act like your old selves again.

I’ve done all I can. Ann and I are off to church……to confess our sins of course. You guys should try to find a nice Christian girl for yourselves.

Are you saying that there isn’t a “…dime’s worth of difference…” between Nader and Gore?

Let’s see, one has spent his life compiling an incredibly effective record championing causes such as consumer safety, health and the environment, fearlessly taking on very wealthy and powerful interests.

The other has spent his life shamelessly ‘sucking up’ to many of those wealthy and powerful interests and now wants us to believe that he’s ready to ‘stand up’ to them.

Wall, I spent about 20 minutes searching the CounterPunch archives and couldn’t find any ‘junk science’ reference. I think that possibly you misread what was a facetious use of the pejorative term or are you just makin’ shit up…

I wonder who would get more votes, Al Gore or George Clooney.

“…given (Gore’s) new found credibility with progressives…”

You’ve GOT to be kidding! Any progressive that falls for Gore’s ‘I got religion…its the environment stupid’ new ploy probably has forgotten how quickly Clinton caved in to ‘political realities’ in ’92 on one of his central platforms: universal healthcare (He folded quicker than a drycleaner from Des Moines sittin’ next to Cooper at a a Vegas poker table).

I wish that making a hit film would prove to be a reliable predictor of what a pol is going to do once in office but I can’t come up with any precedents (maybe my fellow bloggers can help me out). I wracked my brains for a few minutes trying to come up with any Gore- the- Veep did with regard to the environment (bloggers, throw me a bone since this is a much more reliable prognostic tool).

A pres candidate can’t swim wth the energy/manufacturing sharks while crying save the dolphins (unless, of course Gore assures the sharks the he feels that programs such as the ludicris ‘pollution credits” are ok with Mr. Gore etc, etc… )

How’s Gore going to compete for campaign funds from the energy/manufacturing sectors etc.

Gore has a history of caving and being a team-player (the ‘team’ being the gov’t-business nexus, as in Fla 2000 when, despite massive evidence of voter intimidation, voting irregularities etc he decided that for the ‘good of the Country’ he would, well, cave…

Listen, I had a friend once named Chris Hooten that preidicted that politicians would never make any significant, meaningful attemts to address the environment unless there was a significant manifestation of environmental collapse.

Let’s hope that:

1. my friend Chris was wrong

2. that we, as a species, survive the initial environmental collapse

3. progressives, and everybody else for that matter, have longer memories than David…