Al Gore, America's only hope ...

[PLATO]

John Edwards for the Demoicrats!



I may just have to vote in the Democratic primary this time!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'd vote for Hillary, just to see every Republican go ape**** for 8 years (cuz barring assasination, she'd be re-elected).

Sorry...don't need a national dog catcher.


Hmmm...she might not even win that!

[Zkribbler]

Notice something. No one can articulate a coherent argument against either Sen. Clinton or ex-Senator Edwards. They just throw temper tantrums and begin name calling.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by PLATO


Sorry...don't need a national dog catcher.


Hmmm...she might not even win that!

Stop listening to talk radio for a moment and look at the last election.

Which state will she lose that Kerry won? I don't see any. If she wins all Kerry's states, she just needs Ohio, which Kerry lost by a handful of votes. Alternately, she could pick up NM and Iowa, which Gore won in 2000, and just need one other small state. Hilary, or any reasonable Dem, is very close to winning before the race even starts.

Now add in:
- an outgoing GOP president with a Carter-esque approval rating
- the implosion of the GOP in Ohio
- The GOP's recent alienation of Hispanic voters over the immigration issue
- Nostalgia for the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years

And what have you got? A candidate McCain can probably beat. But Allen? Frist? Jeb? Good freakin' luck.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Notice something. No one can articulate a coherent argument against either Sen. Clinton or ex-Senator Edwards. They just throw temper tantrums and begin name calling.

The objective argument against Edwards is that he has very little experience of government and no executive experience at all; the subjective argument is that he comes across as a smarmy little bastard, capable of oozing Bill Clinton's charm without projecting his sincerity.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The objective argument against Edwards is that he has very little experience of government and no executive experience at all....

True. But the counter argument is always: "Experience? Experience?!? Of course not! I am not a professional politician!! I am an everyday citizen!!!"

... the subjective argument is that he comes across as a smarmy little bastard, capable of oozing Bill Clinton's charm without projecting his sincerity.

Untrue. Edwards in one of the U.S.'s most successful trial attorneys. That requires an ability to get juries (i.e common everyday people) to agree with his position... that is, to vote for him.

[Kuciwalker]

... the subjective argument is that he comes across as a smarmy little bastard, capable of oozing Bill Clinton's charm without projecting his sincerity.

Untrue.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Untrue. Edwards in one of the U.S.'s most successful trial attorneys. That requires an ability to get juries (i.e common everyday people) to agree with his position... that is, to vote for him.

Being a successful trial attorney isn't at odds with being a smarmy little bastard. Just the opposite, in fact.

[Whoha]

What in particular is wrong with Edwards to you guys?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Whoha
What in particular is wrong with Edwards to you guys?

Just what I said. He's a smarmy, underqualified opportunist.

Oh, and Zkribbler? You're right: people love the rhetoric of "not a professional politician." But the last non-professional politician to win the presidency had been Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII. And the last non-professional politician who wasn't a general was...nobody.

[Zkribbler]

Or, depending upon your definition of non-professional politician: John F. Kennedy.

Being a successful trial attorney isn't at odds with being a smarmy little bastard. Just the opposite, in fact.

Well of course. But another quality is not having one's smarmy-little-bastard aspects show.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The objective argument against Edwards is that he has very little experience of government and no executive experience at all; the subjective argument is that he comes across as a smarmy little bastard, capable of oozing Bill Clinton's charm without projecting his sincerity.

Don't forget that little fun thing where in the primary debates he had no CLUE what the Defense of Marriage Act was. Indicates to me that he has the brains of a Quayle... Dan Quayle that is.

Hell, even Bush knew what DOMA was.

[q=Zkribbler]Or, depending upon your definition of non-professional politician: John F. Kennedy.[/q]

The John F. Kennedy was a Congressman for 6 years (so won 2 relection campaigns), then a Senator. Then relection for Senator. That's 5 campaigns he won before running for President. Edwards has won... one.

And Kennedy belonged to a very political family.

In addition Kennedy had two long term jobs before he ran for President... military and Congress. So his military servicve makes him a non career politican? He went right from the military into the House!

And Hell, since I consider JFK to be one of the worst Presidents of the 20th Century, he's not a good example to use for me .

But another quality is not having one's smarmy-little-bastard aspects show.

Which Edwards fails at.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


I've heard the same, but from what I can tell that's just inaccuracy on the part of the media. I can't find anything that confims the no-fly zones as UN proposed, backed, enforced, or anything else.

Of course, there is a general confusion over American vs. Coalition vs. UN from that time period, I'm not surprised that media organs would make honest mistakes.

So, in conclusion, Al Gore was America's only hope, but he's apparently not running, so we're screwed. Curse you, Al Gore!

I think the Dick Morris piece, and the recent NY Times piece on the Clintons does indicate the Dems are looking for an alternative to Hilary, one who opposed the war from the get go. That man, to them, is Gore.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned


I think the Dick Morris piece, and the recent NY Times piece on the Clintons does indicate the Dems are looking for an alternative to Hilary, one who opposed the war from the get go. That man, to them, is Gore.

Well, as somebody pointed out earlier, another alternative would be a politician who had no track record on the war; most governors qualify, which is why Mark Warner's name (and, to a lesser extent, Tom Vilsack's) is being bandied about.

Right now, I suspect, Gore looks "better" than they do because he has more name recognition -- but that's got nothing to do with how the horses would actually run. I know little about Vilsack and even less about Warner, so I have no idea what they would bring to an actual race.

But I do think that if the Dems can find a candidate who isn't on record supporting the war and nevertheless has mainstream appeal, they'd be in good shape.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And Hell, since I consider JFK to be one of the worst Presidents of the 20th Century, he's not a good example to use for me .