A Gore/Clark ticket in '08 makes me feel *hopeful.*

[Guaranteed]

And I mean that in a very strong sense of "hopeful."

Al Gore and Wes Clark are two extremely intelligent men with impeccable characters. Their "presences" and resumes are not surpassed in our party today. They both have courage, and political and world visions that have helped to keep our party afloat in these rather unhopeful times. Both men have evolved considerably over the past few years, and almost entirely for the better, in that regard. They have always demanded respect, but, now, deserve *honor,* more than respect, for their courage, leadership, and intelligence and adaptability.

The two of them would be a winning ticket in a time for our party where there seem to be very few possibilities, where there doesn't seem to be much hope. They are two of the most valuable leaders we have that could presently run for our country's top position, and I would give anything to see them lead us into the 2008 presidential election, together.

[Racenut20]

1. Why on earth would Gen. Clark want Gore on his ticket?

He may as well have Donna Brazille as his campaign manager too.

[Guaranteed]

3. Gore was Vice President during eight of the best years our country

has ever seen.

Gore is intelligent, and his vision for our country is broad, in both foreign and domestic issues. His leadership within our party has been unsurpassed in the past three years.

I think the question you should be asking is, who WOULDN'T want Al Gore on their ticket, running to be elected POTUS?

[Racenut20]

8. If Gore was so proud of those eight years why didn't he want Clinton

to campaign??? At the very very very least, it St. Louis and Arkansas. And if Gore was so good, why did he lose Tennessee?

[Guaranteed]

11. Clinton got impeached.

While it might have been a tactical/strategic mistake, one can at least understand why Gore might have wanted to distance himself from Clinton.

Gore's mistake was that he didn't pay attention to Clinton's approval numbers. We all pretty much know this stuff.

However, let's not forget that Gore beat Bush by a half a million votes nationwide, even running such a "horrible" campaign, that was basically deliberately sabotaged by the media, for no reason.

Again, though- this is all irrelevant, even the fact that Gore beat Bush in the popular vote. The political landscape has changed DRASTICALLY since 2000. What's important now is LEADERSHIP, vision, character, trust, reliability. That is what people vote on.

That's exactly what Gore brings to the table. And, with our problems regarding oil, right now, he has an unprecedented opportunity to take advantage of the economic and environmental sagacity he has shown in the past.

[Adelante]

33. How has Al Gore shown leadership?

This is a serious question.

[Guaranteed]

37. Watch some of his MoveOn speeches:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4861295

They're INCREDIBLE.

He's been doing them for well over two years, now....

They all show unbelievable vision and precision, and he is certainly not afraid of taking the Bush Administration to task. In the strongest possible terms.

[Adelante]

72. I've seen some of his speeches, and yes, he is good

I was particularly wondering about his ideas in the current debate about how to end the war. What is saying about that?

[drummo]

89. Irrelevant.

The war will be over by 2008.
And Gore doesn't have access to on-the-ground info which would be
necessary for any thoughtful exit plan. And he is not the type of person who will give you a "plan" that may sound good to amateurs like you but which he himself would think to be insufficient.

That's why I can't take seriously Clark's "plan". Overly general statements are not enough. The issue if far too complicated for soundbites.

[drummo]

87. No you are wrong about Clinton.

There was an extensive debate about this issue on Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/25/19349/8314


Read the comments by stardate and lando.

That Gore would have somehow won more votes if he had "used" Clinton is just another myth about the 2000 campaign unsupported by the actual data.
Contrary to Democratic conventional wisdom Clinton was not popular in 2000. His job approval rating was high but his personal approval rating was below the frong's ass. And he was losing to Bush, yes losing, in every poll except one in Oct, which was within the margin of error just like the Gore-Bush polls, which, by the way, turned out to be dead wrong as we now know since more people supported Gore than supported Bush.

Gore, if he wanted to have any chance to win, HAD to separate himself from Clinton. Don't believe me? Believe Rove who obviously knew what was good for Bush. And he took a look at Clinton's numbers and concluded Gore has to be linked to Clinton, if that is successfully done Gore cannot win.

[drummo]

86. Because Clinton was a loser in 2000

He was losing to Bush in every poll except one in October taken by ABC and even that was within the margin of error and not among likely voters but registered voters.

Clinton's favorable rating was 42% in Aug 2000 while Gore's was 50%. Why would he have risked losing the support of more voters just because you wanted him to play the role of Clinton's second banana?

In 2000 the majority didn't want Clinton to be around anymore. Gore was absolutely right to separate himself from him. And when he did it successfully with his convention speech and picking Joe and kissing his wife Karl Rove didn't like that at all and tried to re-link Gore to Clinton in the fall when Gore was leading Bush by 8-10 points.

Then came the media again and came up with a bunch of lies about Gore while claiming that he was the liar, so his poll numbers went down.
But Clinton never led Bush in any hypothetical poll by 10%.

Why was he losing to Bush as an incumbent president during peace and prosperity? How do you explain that?

[Arkana]

99. Exactly--especially now, with all Al has done to help

the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

[msongs]

42. Al was elected president, clark was not and I like gore/clark nt

[melody]

2. I think this would be a great ticket, also

I stand second to no one in my respect for Al Gore.

[Fridays Child]

57. Same here. He is an extraordinary public servant.

[countingbluecars]

4. Gore/Clark

sounds like a winning ticket to me.

[daninthemoon]

5. Sounds great and maybe a winner.

[indie_voter]

6. This would be my dream ticket

Gore is a changed man, he has gone as low as a person can go (the presidency stolen from him), this time if he ran, I bet he would run a very very different campaign.

He saw what the media has become, he experienced first hand how biased they can be.

Clark was my choice last time and will be again if Gore doesn't run.

But I would love to see a Gore/Clark ticket!!

[win_in_06]

7. Can Clarkies swallow their collective pride and get behind Gore

for the good of the country? After all, Clark is young and inexperienced politically.

In other words, Gore/Clark would be a long term (16yr) strategy.

[Clarkie1]

9. Clark is neither young nor inexperienced.

And I doubt he wants to spend a big chunk of his later years being VP.

I will "get behind" whatever dem is nominated.

[win_in_06]

13. I meant "relatively" young and only politically inexperienced.

Of course he has vast leadership, foreign policy, business and defense-related experience.

[Guaranteed]

18. Understand that Clark is going to bring a WHOLE LOT to this ticket.

Everything I listed above, in fact.

Both men are outstanding leaders.

[Clarkie1]

27. Honestly, the VP never really brings much if anything to any ticket.

Voters look for the leader at the top of the ticket, because that is who is going to be doing the leading.

In my opinion, the only time the VP becomes an issue is if the choice reflects badly on the top of the ticket. In other words, if it's someone voters don't see as qualified to be president if necessary, but most voters don't even think much about that...they are focused on the top of the ticket.

[Guaranteed]

30. I actually disagree, there.

I think what the V.P. brings to the ticket is personality. A little "color," character, to the ticket.

It's important, because the V.P. gets a lot of attention/airtime from the media.

[win_in_06]

31. One Red State would help

and Clark would bring Arkansas.

[Guaranteed]

34. Or Oklahoma, which he won in the 2004 primaries.

I think Clark would be a HUGE addition to the ticket, in either the presidential or V.P. spot.

[drummo]

106. OKLAHOMA???

Are you kidding? Noone who is pro-choice and pro-civil union can win Oklahoma.

The general election is not the Dem primary. OK is as red as possible.
They sent an inquisitor to the Senate. He even looks like one.

[Clarkie1]

54. Perhaps, but...

Do we want a squeaker we hope to win by one red state we pin all our hopes on, or do we want a landslide?

Who is able to bring more voters to our side, Gore or Clark? Who are they more likely to LISTEN to, even if both are delivering the SAME message. Which one does it make more sense to put at the TOP of the ticket?

Who are voters on the edge more like to TRUST as a DECISIVE leader. Which candidate at the top of the ticket would send America the message that the Democratic Party values BRINGING AMERICA TOGETHER and REACHING OUT to the other side?

Clark as VP. Even if he wanted the job, I don't think it would help the ticket much. Voters would likely see it as an attempt to give Gore more national security credentials, which would that Gore somehow lacked national security credentials and needed Clark to fill that void.

When it comes to national security, Democrats have a tougher time of it than Republicans because of old sterotypes of Dems as anti-military, soft on national security, etc. That's why Republicans can get away with nominating someone like G.W. Bush. Republicans have national security credentials (in the minds of voters) just because they are Republicans!

Many voters on the edge would ask themselves, "Why not Clark?" and what that says about Democrats. It might end up reinforing stereotypes about Dems, rather than undoing them.

[Guaranteed]

59. Well, Gore's national security credentials are pretty darn good.

After all, he was Vice President of the United States for eight years. He's had his share of foreign policy experience.

And, as has been shown in other threads, Gore was against the Iraq War, in the STRONGEST of terms, as early as September of 2002. He said it would weaken the war on terrorism.

In any case, if one is thinking about the future, it's important to think broader than just how we should invade one country or another. Domestic policy- energy policy, in particular- affects foreign policy. And that is where Gore has been quite strong.

I'm sure that Gore will listen to all of his military advisors with regard to military (as opposed to foreign) policy, which Bush has obviously failed to do.

But, if what this is coming down to, for you, is who is at the "top" of the ticket, maybe you just need to wait awhile. Our country needs leadership- broad, strong, experienced leadership. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Wes Clark, and he would bring a huge contribution to the ticket. I DREAM of seeming him on this 2008 ticket. But he doesn't have the experience that Al Gore has.

Give Clark more time. He would make a great President, but we need Al Gore right now.

[Clarkie1]

53. "the v.p. gets a lot of attentionn/airtime from the media"

WHAT??????!!!

You mean like Edwards got all that attention from the media shortly before the election?

You can't be serious...

[Guaranteed]

56. He got quite a bit of airtime. Not all of it, of course, but it adds up.

He had the debate with Cheney, which was heavily covered, as well as a number of speeches that were covered by the MSM.

[Clarkie1]

58. And who won North Carolina? or was it South Carolina? n/t

[Guaranteed]

60. That doesn't address the issue.

Are you saying it doesn't matter who is picked for V.P.?

[CJCRANE]

70. If it had been Kerry/Clark in '04

I bet Clark would've got a lot more attention. Clark could've been used to counter-attack the SwiftBoatVets while Kerry stayed above the fray and looked presidential.

Clark would've been a good counterweight to Cheney too, as Edwards came off looking a bit too young and lightweight compared to him.

[msongs]

43. LBJ got Kennedy the white house...............nt

[drummo]

102. Hm Clinton got 11 point jump in the polls after he picked Gore

and never looked back.

Few people remember now but in 1992 many considered Gore not Clinton
the right presidential material. Gore was a nationally and internationally known and respected Senator (no back that the press did not wage war against him) and Clinton was a nobody from Arkansas.We now know they were right, Gore would have never got himself into that silly Monica business which hurt the entire Democratic party at a time when the country was becoming more culturally conservative and Clinton in his first years was a very undisciplined decision-maker and a poor negotiator because he wanted everyone to like him and was not able to see the enemy where there was an enemy. He wanted to cave in to the Reps on the shutdown! How could he be that naive?

I'm not sure Clinton would have won without Gore or someone else with equal stature and expertise on the ticket (first he wanted Colin Powell but he said no), himself lacking any foreign policy experience and being already perceived as a Casanova.

[drummo]

90. Yeah I doubt that too.

We have no idea whether Gore likes Clark or Clark likes Gore
but based on Clark's remarks about Gore after the Dean endorsement I would suspect they are not particularly fond of each other.

Gore is such a loner, and has always been I can't imagine any politician as his veep. Maybe he should pick himself.:shrug:

There are a few not very well known people who were close to Gore while he was still in Washington because they, too, were policy wonks. Leon Fuerth had been his national security advisor for 17 years, he is a brilliant guy who predicted before 9/11 that the US would face serious threats from individuals who blend in the population and attack us even while bringing destruction among themselves. Fuerth would be an ideal veep for Gore -- except that he is not a politician and he hates the spotlight.

[sweetladybug]

10. Gore/Clark is a sure win in 2008

This is an excellent ticket
Gore/Clark 2008!!!!!!!!

[Clarkie1]

12. Except that all the voters we need to pull over to our side...

Would wonder why the hell the clueless, self-annihilating Democrats didn't have the names reversed.

"They could have won."

Gore's intellect and character impress me, but he won't bring America back together.

[melody]

16. Gore was against the war and is staunchly pro-environment

He's the perfect candidate, and has the background behind him to do the job to the satisfaction of most people. He also legitimately won the 2000 election.

We'll be blessed if he agrees to run, though I doubt he will. :(

[Clarkie1]

24. I agree partly.

"He has the background behind him to do the job to the satisfaction of most people. He also legitimately won the 2000 election."

I agree.

However, I don't believe he can win an election decisively, and definitely not an election post-9/11.

This is coming from a Gore supporter when he was running in his first presidential primary. Keep Gore out there speaking loud and strong, but unfortunately he now has baggage and a polarizing image. That hardly makes him the "perfect candidate."

If he is nominated I will of course enthusiastically support him, however dubious I may be of final victory.

[melody]

25. I'd have said the same thing a year ago

But based upon the current political climate, with how bad things are now versus the Clinton years, I think he would win decisively...he did the last time, unfortunately he wasn't allowed to take office.

[Clarkie1]

28. He didn't meet my definition of a "decisive" win.

I want a Reagan-era type win for Dems.

I want the whole map blue, and I think we can do it. I'm serious.

[drummo]

93. Re:I want a Reagan-era type win for Dems.

Not gonna happen. We have to accustomed to close elections.
We are no longer the "United states of America".
This is red and blue country. God, Gays, Guns will not go away and don't fool yourself that Clark somehow can make rednecks forget about those things. If a Dem wins in 2008 it will be about luck not about the candidate's ability to "bring America together". The last thing which could do that was 9/11. And 9/11 was hardly a politician, right?

[drummo]

92. Bush had a polarizing image in 2004.

Did that hurt him?

[sweetladybug]

41. I disagree. Gore/Clark ticket could win and I think Gore has the

character and leadership qualities to bring this country back together.

[drummo]

91. While Clark will, huh?

Good joke.

[KC21304]

14. Clark is 4 years older than Gore nt

[drummo]

94. Is that true?

Gore looks much older than Clark.
Then again it was not Clark who was robbed and Gore aged a lot since the Supreme 5 decision. Who can blame him?

Do you think he didn't think after 9/11 those towers in New York would still stand if I am president? And he believes he won that damn election.

Imagine that you have to live with that thought for the rest of your life. As David Remnick wrote in a New Yorker essay about Gore "a lesser man would have done far worse than grow a beard and put on a few pounds."

[xultar]

26. I don't like Gore. Never did. I had to hold my nose in 2000.

Don't get me wrong. I would have never voted for chimpy. Gore was nothing to jump up and down about for me.

I don't like how he distanced himself from Clinton. CLINTON is the BIG DOG! Clinton would have helped Gore with the black vote.

[drummo]

95. Nonsense. Clinton was a loser in 2000. He was not the big dog

Clinton was losing to Bush in 2000 and until Gore separated himself from Clinton's immorality and lies he had no chance to come up in the polls. After he did that he led Bush by 10%.

And Gore actually ran better among black voters than Clinton. Facts are facts, sorry.

[Adelante]

36. It's not a matter of Clarkie pride for me

It's a matter of having the commander in chief in the oval office. We're still going to be digging out of where we are in 2008 in one way or another.

[drummo]

96. Clark knows no more about geopolitics and

national security than Gore does. In fact Gore has a much more impressive record of getting it right with military interventions and arms control than Clark. What does Clark know about arms control? What does he know about counter-terrorism? What does he know about counter-proliferation? He never dealt with those issues. I don't know whether he has any expertise on asymmetric warfare at all. When he was still in school that was not a hot topic.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. I will support Gore if he gets the nomination.

I will support Clark until he indicates that he's not interested in running, or until he drops out, should that happen.

I have no objection to other people on here supporting their choices. I would appreciate other people respecting my right to support my own choice, just as I respect as much as I respect them.

And it has nothing to do with "collective pride". Just my personal beliefs about who would be the best leader for this country and the best candidate. Again, that's my opinion. I respect the fact that others have different opinions.

[faithfulcitizen]

88. absolutely!... if I thought he could win. nt

[1932]

15. because you're a wall street investment banker?

win or lose with that ticket and you win.

[Guaranteed]

17. Who do you want to run? nt

[1932]

47. Someone who isn't corporate and is progressive.

I'm not sure who's running though, so I can't say specifically who I'm definitely going to support.

I'm also not sure if you're asking me so that you can attibute (for psychological or rhetorical purposes) my criticism of one candidate to my support for another candidate, or if you genuinely want to know who are some candidates I perceive as having solutions for the problems Americans face. I suspect it's really the former.

However, I accept the risks of having this distract from my critical posts in the name of giving credit where credit is due for politicans I think would make good Presidents. Here goes:

I'm not inclined toward Hillary, so far, because of her attempt to mitigate the DLC rift, and because I'm a little suspicious of her, but she might be a real progressive after all. The best way to put it with her is that she has to prove herself. I'm not saying she can't, but it's going to take some work. Barak Obama would make a fantastic president, but something dramatic would have to happen with his career soon to make him a good candidate for 2008. I'm interested in hearing more from Feingold. It would be incredible if Antonio Villaraigosa suddenly became a national figure, but that's not likely. I have to say Edwards doesn't upset me and he's a couple ticks above neutral for me right now. Katrina has sharpened his message. I like the Kooch a lot, but I'm realistic. I wouldn't cry if Kerry were nominated again. He didn't have either the best biography or the best non-biological family for a Democrat, and he didn't have the best campaign strategy, but I'm very confident that his allegiances are with the people and not with Wall Street. Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano start off on the upside of neutral for me too. I like Chuck Schumer because I suspect that if were not from NY he'd probably be Paul Wellstone. If he ran for president, it would take a leap of faith that he wouldn't be as pro-corporate a president as he is a Senator, but I'm more willing to take that leap with him than with Hillary. I also like Eliot Spitzer, but it would be amazing if he became a good presidential candidate by 2008.

I'm not big fans of anyone who's with the DLC on trade policy, or with Wall Street on tax and business law, or who has cheered on economic neoliberalism in developing countries.

Basically, I want a president who cares about how most Americans live their lives and is willing and able to do the things necessary to alleviate their misery. I think the tax code is a bigger part of the solution to that problem then many liberals realize (because, even during the Clinton years, it has been one of the biggest tools used to shift the burden off the wealthy, and therefore, increase their power). I think international trade is a big part of that problem, because corporations are getting immense amounts of money (and therefore power) from exploiting people in developing countries, increasing the polarization of wealth all over the world AND within the US. I think increasing wages for working people is also a big part of the solution. There is so much wealth concentrating in the top. Just about any policy that makes people at the top share America's wealth with the people who create it with their labor is going to help alleviate the serious social and political problems were having right now. Other important issues cascade down from these three. I'll be looking for a candidate that is good on those issues.

[Guaranteed]

48. I almost entirely agree with you.

I think that looking to Gore, and probably Clark, as well, would lead you to very similar positions on global trade.

Dean was heavily anti-NAFTA, and while Gore was a DLCer for quite awhile, it's pretty clear that he has broken with them quite cleanly, and is with Dean in his support of increased wages and environmental standards in other countries.

That IS, after all, the best way to keep jobs in our country.

It's just solid, Democratic thinking.

[1932]

49. I don't think those two cut it.

Clark for these reasons:

But while a powerful military has been vital, the chief means of our influence has been an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements, from NATO to the World Bank to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This network of mutual interdependence, though marginalized by the Bush administration, was largely devised by America, which has also been its chief beneficiary. It is, for all practical purposes, a kind of empire--but to use a contemporary term, a virtual one. Properly used and expanded, it can be the secret to a secure and prosperous future.

{snip}

For decades, the United States has been at the hub of this network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called "globalization." Heavily influenced--some might say dominated--by us, globalization reflected the American values of free-market economics and popular democracy. Enabled by modern communications and transportation, this network facilitated access to markets and investment opportunities abroad, assisted the flow of talent and intellectual property, and fostered the spread of market forces and democratic processes around the world. The major beneficiary of all of this was the United States itself. In short, this "globalization" was the new American empire.

{snip}

But this shift {by the Bush administration to military agression in Iraq}--rather than promoting the emergence of the new American empire--put all that we gained with "soft power" and the virtual American empire at risk.

{snip}

But if leadership is defined as "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do," as Eisenhower put it, then American leadership is failing. We simply aren't persuading others to align with our interests--we are coercing and pressuring.

-Wes Clark (Winning Modern Wars, Chapter 6)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.clark.html

And Gore doesn't cut it for reasons you can read about in The Roaring Nineties, by Joe Stiglitz, and in Arthur Levitt's book about his time as head of the SEC.

Dean was a privatizer of energy utilities, not a Keynesian, didn't go far enough on tax issues, and had a lot of friends and advisors from Wall St over the years, but I admit that he's given some indication that he's changed. In terms of leaps of faith, he's behind the people on my list above but ahead of many others.

[Guaranteed]

50. Well, the thing is that global trade is important, for everyone.

 + %Py clear. The question is how it is carried out.

I'm not sure why you'd think that working with the rest of the world is a bad thing. It's a fairly standard Democratic value that we need to have strong diplomatic and economic allies. We don't want to be isolated, in any sense. We want to get along with and work with other countries. That's how we will be our strongest.

But, we need to make sure that other countries are getting a fair shake. If they don't get that fair shake, the only thing that will happen is that our own jobs will be outsourced. We have to make sure that other countries are paying their workers fair wages, and maintaining strong environmental standards. By bringing them "up," we will simultaneously protect our own middle class, as the backbone of our economy.

I think what Clark said was right on. I hope that you see the distinction that he was making between his own position and the Bush Administration's. He wasn't saying that we need to take advantage of other countries- he was saying the opposite- that's it's not even to our benefit to try to do that, if we were so unscrupulous as to try to.

[1932]

61. We're not trading with countries. We're exploiting countries.

We shut them out of the markets they can compete in, and we force our products on them so that their indigenous industries disappear.

"Working with the rest of the world" -- you really think that's happening? We haven't done that since the end of WW2. We work with a few rich families in foreign countries to exploit everyone else. We don't work with countries. We work with families against countries.

Have you read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man? Perkins describes a three step process: (1) economic hit men force loans and projects on a country that are only designed to make rich people rich and put the governments in debt and when they inevitably default on the loans, we demand concessions, like their UN votes, land to give to US corporations, and military bases; (2) if the countries resist, we send in the jackals (as we did in Chile and Venezuela); (3) if that doesn't work, we send in the army, as we did in Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan.

Clark looks at the same set of facts and idealizes step one (he calls it persuasion/you call it "working with") and pretends that Bush is the first person to ever go to step three. He says step three jeopardizes step one.

As for Clark lauding the product of step one, I say, what country is he talking about? The difference in GDP of wealthy and poor countries has increased since WW2. Africa is poorer today then it was in 1970. There are more people living in poverty every year. OBVIOUSLY the post-WW2 model for promoting development is failing miserably if your measure is how people actually live their lives. If your measure is how much wealthier it has made wealthy people, then it has been an incredible success.

I'm looking for a presidential candidate who talks about making life better for people, not one who claims that we have to get back to (or, more honestly, continue) doing things that don't work. If Bush's legacy is that he's normalized steps one and two of exploiting foreign countries (as Clark would have it) I might be inclined to believe that that would be his most dangerous legacy.

Turning back the polarization of wealth at home and globally should be the primary concern of the next president of the united states.

[Guaranteed]

66. I'm not sure what you're saying, here.

Are you saying that we shouldn't be trading globally, at all?

What I said in my previous post is that we *shouldn't* be taking advantage of other countries. And that is what Clark was saying, it sure sounded like to me. He was saying that it doesn't even work to *try*- again, like I said before.

I AGREE with your point about turning back the polarization of wealth at home. I believe in *extremely* progressive taxation. No one- I mean *no one*- needs to be making more than a half of a million dollars per year. There should be, in my opinion, a maximum income. Maybe it could be higher, but the idea is clear. There is a point where no one is doing so much work that they deserve to be making that much money. There comes a point where wealth becomes so accumulated that it is detrimental to the entire economy.

On the other hand, we could just stick with and increase progressive tax rates, so that the incentive remains to be "successful." I don't know. Take your pick.

But what you're saying is that trading with other countries automatically means exploiting them. The alternative, though, is communism- literally-, which is, unfortunately, extremely detrimental to not only our country, but the rest of the world.

Trade is important- but it's FAIR trade that must be practiced in order to keep our country strong. Because- and this is what must be emphasized- our country is strongest when our MIDDLE CLASS is strongest. A strong middle class means a *strong job market," and a solid consumer base (which may sound "evil," but is actually the basis of such a strong market).

To think that we should cut ourselves off from trade with other countries is pretty unrealistic. If that's not what you're saying, I invite you to clarify.

[1932]

75. I'm saying we shouldn't be exploiting.

Are you aware of what is wrong with the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements?

Do you know what the issues were that developing countries wanted addressed at the G8 conference and at the recent UN meeting?

They don't want to be shut out from trade. They just don't want to be exploited.

You should read Globalization and its Discontents, The Health of Nations, and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Maybe also Jeffrey Sachs' last book, but I haven't read it so I'm not sure what I'd be recommending. You should watchy the documentaries Life and Debt and The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

[Jai4WKC08]

77. Too bad you don't read what you quote.

Or if you read it, you obviously don't understand it.

A few key lines from your quotes out of Clark's book:

But while a powerful military has been vital, the chief means of our influence has been an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements, from NATO to the World Bank to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This network of mutual interdependence, though marginalized by the Bush administration...

{snip}

For decades, the United States has been at the hub of this network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called "globalization." Heavily influenced--some might say dominated--by us, globalization reflected the American values of free-market economics and popular democracy. Enabled by modern communications and transportation, this network facilitated access to markets and investment opportunities abroad, assisted the flow of talent and intellectual property, and fostered the spread of market forces and democratic processes around the world...

{snip}

But if leadership is defined as "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do," as Eisenhower put it, then American leadership is failing. We simply aren't persuading others to align with our interests--we are coercing and pressuring.

The "we" Clark is referring to as "coercing and pressuring" is the American people under the leadership, such as it is, of the Bush administration. Clark wants us to return to "persuading," "mutual interdependence," and "the flow of talent and intellectual property."

How on earth you equate "persuading" and "interdependence" to what Perkins describes in step one of his process ("demand concessions, like their UN votes, land to give to US corporations, and military bases.") is beyond me. It's pretty much the exact opposite. And that you say Clark is "lauding the product of step one" is completely ludicrous. Clark is not even basing his analysis on the premise of Perkins' 3 steps, much less lauding anything Perkins describes. You're comparing apples to oranges, making up an association that isn't there in order to make a point that isn't supportable with logic.

But where you totally re-write Clark's words to make him sound like advocates something he doesn't, is when you say he "pretends that Bush is the first person to ever go to step three. He says step three jeopardizes step one," and that he "would have (us) expoiting foreign countries." Bullshit. Clark never "says step three jeopardizes step one." In fact, Clark very specifically says that Bush is screwing up from the outset, by "marginalizing" the international institutions that promote "mutal interdependence" and thus benefit all of us. MUTUAL interdependence is NOT exploitation.

I won't argue, and I'm sure Clark wouldn't either, that the transnational corporations haven't taken advantage of the developing nations, even under the best of American leadership. But they have done so by going around the provisions of international law (and in most cases, US law as well). Clark has been pretty clear, both in word and deed, that he believes in strengthening international law, and using it to make the lives of people around the world better.

You will not find a potential '08 presidential candidate who has done more, in real terms--not just talk, to "make life better for people" around the world than Wes Clark.

And if you really think the poor nations of the world would be better off without US trade, the regulation of international law, and the exercise of US influence WHEN IT SUPPORTS THE VALUES WE ESPOUSE, then you really do live in a fantasy world.

[1932]

80. However Clark describes post WW2 US diplomacy, the proof is in the pudding

Poverty, wealth polarization and instablility have increased. The difference between poor and rich in America, between America and other countries and within the countries we've "persuaded" has increased because of our trade and diplomatic policies.

I have a hard time finding a development economist, politician or reformed profiteer who's willing to characterize what clark praises as being good for America or the world.

We've made a few families wealthy, but we've spread misery for everyon else.

And none of this suddenly started with Bush. And the invasion stage is not something that jeopardizes the "diplomacy" part -- it's the natural extention of the diplomacy part, as Perkins argues.

As for step one, just read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (or any book about development economics, post WW2 politics or foreign policy that is honest) -- the IMF, the World Bank, NAFTA, CAFTA -- almost none of what they do helps anyone other than oligopolists. Corporations aren't going around the law to do this. The law is written to do this, and the corporations are writing the laws.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man very bluntly argues that what the US has down in the world since WW2 has been the OPPOSITE of American values.

[Jai4WKC08]

81. That's code, right?

"...any book about development economics, post WW2 politics or foreign policy that is honest..." means any book that agrees with you.

Nope, sorry. The post-WWII world is a better place for more people (percentage wise) than it ever was. Yes, poverty and hunger are rampant, but they always have been. And worse than now, for greater percentages of the people.

There are probably hundreds more developing nations than there were in 1945. All you have to do is look at India, South Africa or most of Latin America and Eastern Europe to see the positive changes.

Can you name me one nation that's worse off than it was? With the possible exception of those being devastated by AIDS. You gonna blame the US for AIDS too? And say Clark supports it?

But let me pretend for a moment that you are right, that the US is guilty of impoverishing the world... why do you save your criticisms for discussions about Clark? Because he has written about trends in global economics? And in a book that was written to convince people that Bush is taking us back in the other direction, toward a 19th century imperialism? Because you conveniently leave out the parts where he says precisely that.

All those evil policies you think pre-date the Bushies, they were voted for by Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Feingold, Bayh... probably every potential candidate who's ever served in the Senate. And probably would have been voted for by the others, if they'd had the opportunity. This is important, so I'll put it in bold: You won't find a single mainstream Democrat of national stature who doesn't support using US influence to further US interests. The difference lies solely in whether it's thru coersion and force, or thru negotiation and cooperation. Even those in Congress who voted against NAFTA, for example, did so because of its effect on US workers, not because it would hurt anyone in Mexico or Canada.

Fact is, Clark is probably one of the few who has the breadth of knowlege and vision to write about it at all. So tell me when you find a potential candidate who has written or said something you agree with, and maybe we can discuss further how he or she differs from Clark. Until then, I'll continue to believe you're just grasping for ways to attack him.

[1932]

83. Amartya Sen, the authors of The Health of Nations, Joe Stiglitz,

Hugo Chavez, Ronald Wright (author of A Short History of Progress) all are trying to wake us up to the reality of the post-WW2 world: the world is more polarized in terms of wealth and the way people actually live than ever before. It has gotten especially bad since the early 70s. The New Deal closed the gap between the wealthiest and poorest in America, but neoliberalism has oppened it between America and the rest of the world, and the same tools for exploitation abroad (debt, wealth concentration, disappearance of the middle class, making a few powerful families more powerful, sabotaging true progressive political impulses, destroying the idea of the government as the entity that looks after the welfare of its citizens) are now being turned on Americans to undo the gains of the New Deal.

Who in the world are you listening to (besides Clark) who lauds the exploitation of the developing world as being good???? Yes, as Clark says, globalization is good for America's bottom line. It's not good for security, however. You can only use the military as the police force for capitalism for so long before society makes a massive shift towards justice (think, Gandhi, Venezuela, Bolivia, and watch where Nigeria is going).

If that bottom line at which Clark is looking is being improved by ruining the rest of the world, it's ultimately NOT good. Polaraization of wealth is not good either within a society or across borders. If you don't believe me, PLEASE READ THE HEALTH OF NATIONS and DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM.

I can't believe you're willing to accept poverty as always being with us. That statement alone sets you apart from the vast majority of progressives who see misery not as an ineluctable fact. They see misery and its alleviation the purpose of political activity. Jim Wallis talks about this very issue in God's Politics. He has a section of his book that harshly criticizes people who cite the bible to make that exact same argument. Given that you just subscribed to it, it would probably be worth your while to pick up Wallis's book and see what he has to say to people who share your attitude.

Poverty is nothing new, you say. Poverty getting WORSE, and it that sense, for many people it's a brand new experience.

I'm glad you named at least one country: India has a very polarized society. Only half the population is literate today -- the same percentage, roughly, as at the end of the colonial era. India has made economic progress, but not as much as China, and Amartya Sen argues that it's because China started off with high levels of litteracy and universal health care. India is a perfect example of how polarized wealth and a two-tier society (cultivated and strenghthened by the british during the colonial era) holds everybody back. India is an example of the opportunity costs of freedom polarization, according to Sen (read Development as Freedom). It's hard to say that India is an example of how things should be when so many people live so miserably there, and when China (which is, by no means, perfect) is providing an example of how that doesn't have to be the case (Stiglitz, incidentally, spends time in his book on Globalization explaining what China is doing right). There was a debate on the BBC yesterday about this very issue. They had pro-business people trying to say that everything is great, and they had people who actually care about the lives people live saying that India could do much better (and must do better) by addressiving the vast polarizations of power.

Notwithstanding India's problems caused by wealth polarization, I'm curious how you think US foreign policy has benefitted India. We're not talking about the idea of cross-border trade in the abstract. We're talking about exactly what the US has done through the mechanisms that Clark lauds. For years, India had nothing to do with us. They kicked the soft drink companies out and alligned themselves with the soviet union. More recently, they dabbled with US development projects -- specifically, I'm thinking of Enron's energy plant, a massive failure underwritten by American taxpayers through the loan guarantees of the Import-Export bank. When the US tried to throw its weight around with the Indian government ("working with"?), India said fuck off. India mostly takes our jobs (because even with half an educated population, they have enough people willing to work for low wages doing things we used to do). But I'm not clear how you think India is an example of the wonderful post-WW2 Washington Consensus development policies.

As for those Latin America countries and the rest of the world where you say they have benefitted from the Washington Consensus, who are you thinking of? Chile? Argentina? The Washington Consensus has never proved itself a success. Yet this is exactly what Clark is lauding. If you don't believe me, read Globalization and its Discontents. I think even Jim Wallis writes about the Washington Consensus.

Can I name one country that is worse off????? Africa is poorer today than it was in 1970. South Africa is better off in the sense that it no longer has apartheid (which was an accomplishment that wasn't supported by Republicans, in the 70s and 80s) but it is still exploited by multinational corporations and is still poor and still has a powerful business class. Many of the economic projects that Mandela planned on implementing were put on the back-burner thanks to American, uh, "persuassion." I believe that Nkrume writes about this in his biography, but I'm not entirely certain. If it's not him, then maybe it was Stiglitz.

Africa is the richest continent in the world, measured by natural rescources, but it's getting poorer thanks to the exploitation by the west.

Why don't I shut up about Clark because nobody is better? There are democrats who voted against trade bills with countries that exploit labor and the environment even in the late 90s. There has been huge progress within the democratic party between the NAFTA vote and the CAFTA vote. Many Democrats are getting on board with the idea that when we exploit labor abroad, we're exploiting it at home, and thanks to people like Jim Wallis (who gets a lot of attention) and Ronald Wright (who I hope gets more attention) I think this issue is going to come on like gangbusters, and I want to be someone who helps open people's eyes.

Your logic that nobody cares about this issue (that everyone is a neoliberal) is the kind of logic that, if followed over the course of history, would have meant that we'd be living today in a british colony where slavery was legal and the fourth reich would be 60 years into its 1000 year reign in Europe.

Like Richard Perkins says, if you want America to change policies, write down your ideas. Keep pushing for change. Ideas start as candles and then turn into wild fire.

And why do I talk about this issue in relation to Clark? Because he keeps talking about it and because he gets discussed at DU a lot. He wrote an entire chapter -- Ch. 6 of Winning Modern Wars -- about this issue. In many respects, the entire book is about this issue. When he defends the SOA, he's talking about this issue. When he says we shouldn't pull out of Iraq, he's talking about this issue. I think a lot of the things he talks about that don't seem directly related actually cascade down from this issue. If I had to summarize Clark, I would use this argument from Chapter 6 (which even Clark has pointed to as the encapsulation of his message): he doesn't like Bush because he thinks that by calling in the military in Iraq Bush is jeopardizing the ability of the US to influence and profit from foreign countries all over the world. He soft pedals on the mechanisms of profit and influence, but many other authors talking about those very same mechanisms do not; they call them exploitation, motivated by greed, which is putting the world in an awful situation by polarizing wealth so dramatically.

As for your last paragraph: even if there were no Democrat who ever talked about this issue, it would still be important to talk about it in terms of Clark, or of anyone else who discusses it. To me, this is THE ISSUE of the 21st century. It started in Seattle, it's resonating with Bono's demand for debt relief, Gordon Brown seriously cares about this issue, and Jim Wallis wrote a fantastic book that frames this issue beautifully for Christians. Politicians who are wrong on this issue need to hear about it.

[autorank]

19. You're no Loony! Since we'll need to save the world, they get the nod.

The Earth is truly "in the balance." We will be so screwed by 2008, we will only trust our leadership in the hands of intelligent people with vision. They have it.

Great post.

[pstans]

20. I would vote for that ticket

I think Gore could emerge as the right person for the job. He was a leader of our nation during some of the best economic times. He is an advocate for the environment. The economy is getting weaker, the middle class is getting attacked, and the environment is getting destroyed and we will have more and more disasters.

Gore is more progressive now than he was when he ran in 2000. He is a speaker on the issues that I think will be key in the 08 election.

[Clarkie1]

32. I would vote for this ticket, of course.

What real Democrat wouldn't?

Could it win? I'd like it too, but I have to many doubts, and 08' is too important to take a chance. It's the top of the ticket that will make the only difference.

Edit: And I gotta tell ya folks, it's never gonna happen.

[Guaranteed]

35. Why don't you think it would happen?

Senator Clinton is too strong?

[PSPS]

21. Sorry, but I disagree

Even though Gore actually won the 2000 election, his decision to roll over and give up makes him a loser in my book.

Clark is unelectable as president. Let him run for another office first and get some experience governing, then he has a chance. The landscape is littered with the carcasses of old campaigns by people who wanted their first election win to be that of president.

Even as VP, I'm uncomfortable with Clark. We don't need a "khaki" election in the US. It's so ... so ... bush-ish.

[Totally Committed]

38. "Even as VP, I'm uncomfortable with Clark.

We don't need a "khaki" election in the US.

It's "Bush-ish"? Well, personally, I think that is just bigoted bullshit.

Wes is the Anti-Bush. He's everything Bush is NOT. He's intelligent, compassionate, courageous, kind, knowledgeable, involved, can speak in sentences with more than three words, and with words with more than one syllable. He once wore Khaki - yes - because he also was not a chickenhawk. He is against pre-emptive war, and espouses diplomacy. He is against this huge deficit, and is for against Bush tax cuts. He is for affirmative action and equal education for all children.

HOW DOES THAT SOUND BUSH-ISH?????????????????????

Please reconsider your position or admit you just hate the military because they are the military. There are a lot on the Left who are. You won't be alone... but they will be as wrong as you are about this.

TC

[Guaranteed]

44. I don't understand that, either.

I think Clark has been a solid progressive, and is worthy of all Democrats' support.

[Totally Committed]

46. Thanks, BullGooseLoony...

I appreciate that.

TC

[drummo]

103. He has been a solid progressive SINCE

he decided he wanted to run for president. Sorry but that's just too opportunistic.

[FrenchieCat]

52. No, Clark is the polar opposite of Bush, in every way....

Here was his take on how the aftermath of 9/11 should have been handled. Please note that it sounds nothing like what George Bush and his co-horts ended up doing. Also remember that congressional members were too busy 3 days after 9/11, when this was published, standing on the steps of the capitol singing some patriotic songs...meanwhile, Wes Clark was "thinking" about what we needed to do.

A Long, Tough Job
By Wesley K. Clark
Friday, September 14, 2001; Page A37
The Washington Post
snip
For the United States, the weapons of this war should be information, law enforcement and, on rare occasions, active military forces. The coalition that will form around the United States and its NATO allies should agree on its intent but not trumpet its plans. No vast military deployments should be anticipated. But urgent measures should be taken behind the scenes, because the populations and economic structures of Western nations will be at risk.

And the American public will have to grasp and appreciate a new approach to warfare. Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex, interlocking network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings and facilities but the people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other terrorist attacks.
snip
Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies around the globe. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given shape and identity.

In some cases, astute police work will win the day, here and abroad. In other cases, international intelligence collaboration may be necessary. Special military forces may be called on to operate in states that are uncooperative or simply unable to control their own territory. In exceptional cases, targets will be developed that may be handled by conventional military strikes.
But in the main, this will be arduous, detailed and often covert work to track, detain or otherwise engage and "take down" our adversaries, rolling them up cell by cell and headquarters by headquarters.

Some will call for full disclosure and near-legal standards of evidence before acting. Others will arm a hair trigger, seeking to use the most readily available information, even if scant. But we must not pose legality and expediency as opposite extremes. To be expedient, we must act within the bounds of international law and consistent with consensus among the allied coalition that is emerging. And maintaining this consensus will be one of the prime challenges we face.
snip
We must strengthen our protective measures at airports, at utilities and other public service facilities such as communications networks, and prepare necessary public health and disease control capabilities for the possibility of nuclear and biological events. And if we are successful in preventing further attacks, another challenge will be to maintain our resolve.
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/usa_attack1.htm

[Crunchy Frog]

65. Yeah. All those Bushies have so much military service

under their belts.:eyes:

[Apollo11]

74. Disagree with PSPS

"Even though Gore actually won the 2000 election, his decision to roll over and give up makes him a loser in my book."

This is plain wrong. Gore kept fighting for several weeks until he reached a dead end, with nowhere left to turn. He only stopped fighting when it was clear that there were no further options open to him that could prevent Bush being inaugurated.

The SCOTUS had ruled in favour of stopping the Florida recount. The majority of Democratic Senators were not prepared to take the fight further. The Dems didn't have the numbers in the House and Senate to block the Bush inauguration, and public opinion was strongly in favour of reaching some kind of "closure".

The media did not help Gore either. They made it look like either Bush had "won" Florida, or otherwise that the race was a "tie". There was also an implicit idea that the Dems had been in the Whitehouse for 8 years, and so it was the GOP's "turn" to have the Presidency. Maybe it sounds crazy now - but that's how the media were portraying the situation back in November 2000.

About 2008: I am for Gore, and let him decide who he wants as his running mate. If he wants my advice, I will put in a good word for Barbara Boxer. Just as long as he doesn't pick Lieberman again - but I'm confident that ticket will not be repeated.

Pro-Gore sites:
http://www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net
:)

[drummo]

104. I wonder whether Gore and Lieberman talked about Iraq

with each other during the campaign and if so what they said.
I'm sure as hell that back then Joementum did not push for invading the country. So I would like to know whether he changed his mind and why?

How is it that this was not asked from him during the primaries?

[drummo]

97. Gore didn't give up, exuse me.

He fought for 36 days virtually alone while a bunch of right wing nuts were shouting next to his home "Get out of Cheney's house" and much worse.
You would have given up after a day or two or just go crazy.
And did you go to his house to counter the idiots?

An election is not a two-man race. It a "war" between millions.
The Reps understood that so they did everything they could, collectively, side-by-side, to drive Gore crazy. Did the Dems do that in Texas at the Governor's Mansion? No. They were the ones who gave it up not Gore.

You can't win an election alone. Especially not when and army of Reps are against you.

[howmad1]

22. Do you really think the DLC would permit a Gore/Clark ticket?

C'mon. they have visions of Hillary becoming Ms. President and they will do everything in their power to insure Gore/Clark will lose in any primary. The fact that Hillary will lose the election by a landslide is beside he point. (Keeps the DLC loss record on track). The only way for Gore/Clark to gain any traction is to eliminate any primary fight and get the entire Democratic Party behind that ticket. Yea, right!

[Guaranteed]

23. Well, like you said...

If we get behind the ticket, they won't have a choice.

[AntiCoup2K4]

68. FUCK the DLC

They aren't picking the candidate this time.

[Guava Jelly]

29. Clark/ anyone

no need for gore

[Totally Committed]

39. Hold your Horses...

Wait just a cotton-picking minute... I go away to watch "West Wing", and I come back to find this thread???

Why does this have to be decided tonight? Just this afternoon, everyone was so convinced that Gore should hang back and let hills take the hots for a while. Now, tonight, not only is he he running but should have MY CHOSEN CANDIDATE on his ticket as VICE-President?

First of all, Wes hasn't decided IF he's running. Second of all, from all that he has said, not only has Gore not decided he's running, but he's actually said he probably isn't. Why should we hope Wes consents to the second place on a Gore ticket before a primary run, if there is one? You would think Gore (if he is running) would want to see Wes prove himself in the Primaries before he would have him on the ticket. And, Wes... what if he blows everyone away (like I know he will) out on the Primary trail?

Let's all wait and see how things develop after the 2006 elections. If there is a partnership to be forged -- one, it should come from the two men, and two, it shouldn't happen anywhere near this soon.

TC

[Guaranteed]

40. Of course a decision doesn't need to be made tonight.

This is merely my hope- it's only what makes me hopeful. It's only what I believe, in September of 2005, is the strongest ticket that we can put together.

Things can change even further. They've certainly changed since 2002.

However, that shouldn't prevent us from throwing around ideas for now. We have to look to the future. We need a long-term vision.

There are those in our party who don't want us, as "internet activists," to have much influence over our primaries. I disagree with and oppose them, politically. I think the sooner we at least start discussing these ideas, the better.

[election_2004]

64. People want a quick, easy fix...

...to the rancid shit Bunnypants has gotten us into.

People at Democratic Underground need to step back and realize that there are no "magic bullet" candidates or electoral band-aids. Context and long-term strategy are essential.

[Guaranteed]

67. I agree with that.

But, we should also identify who we believe to be the strongest candidates at this point.

We can't expect candidates to shift positions so easily. So many of them have made their bed, so to speak. We have to go with that, if we're going for strength.

So, which candidates are in the strongest positions, as far as the issues, as well as character, presence, etc.?

[drummo]

98. Clark would never blow Gore away in the primaries.

He doesn't have a consistent record on Iraq, he doesn't have a record on domestic issues, he has been timid about Bush&Co. all too often, he is not particularly visionary (in fact name one idea that came from him and was really original) moreover Clark is a horrible campaigner, worse than Gore. He is just not comfortable on the trail -- for which I don't blame him because I think a normal person would not be comfortable in that phoney business -- but even Dem voters seems to be more interested in charisma than in substance.

[Southsideirish]

45. I'll buy it!

[FrenchieCat]

51. But really, the important question is

What makes anyone think that Al Gore would pick Wes Clark as his VP if he were to win the nomination? It's not like Gore endorsed Wes Clark during the last primaries. :shrug:

Is there some kind of guarantee on this combo? I don't think so.

[Guaranteed]

55. I think that Gore and Clark are the two strongest candidates

we could run- at least at this point.

It's just my opinion as to that, and who I would run. I can't say who Gore would pick, but I imagine that he would pick someone who has shown similar leadership as he has.

[AntiCoup2K4]

69. Not a lot was known about Clark at the time Gore made his endorsement....

...and the General has to assume the responsibility for that because of his late entry into the campaign.

As for the guarantee about the combo, the "guarantee" that neither would have the endorsement of the DLC (or be obligated to do their bidding) is good enough for me.

Officially I'm all for tabling discussion of nominees until 2007 (as I've said numerous times) but I keep getting sucked in somehow.

[drummo]

100. I agree.

Based on Clark's remarks during the primaries after the Dean endorsment and also considering the fact that Gore didn't think Clark was against the resolution I find it very unlikely that these two would come together.

They do not even fit to each other. They are two very different people.

[election_2004]

63. Personally, I think a Clark/Feingold ticket....

...would KICK ASS, and pull in more numbers than any ticket headlined by Clinton or Gore during past election cycles.

I know that people are angry at Feingold for his Roberts vote, but on virtually everything, Feingold's votes have always been honest and principled. Because of his marital status, it might make it risky to put him at the top of the ticket right now, but he's excellent V.P. material.

[cbear70]

71. I couldn't agree more.. n/t

[MoonRiver]

73. If Clark decides not to run, I could get 100% behind Gore.

(I don't think Clark will accept VP status though.)

Gore was robbed of the presidency, and I want him to take his rightful place. Gore would have and would be a magnificent president. He, like Clark, would restore honor and world prestige to our shamed White House. Both would address environmental issues, including global warming, and would work to clean up corporate graft and welfare, which is now deeply embedded into Congress, the Executive, and SCOTUS. Again, my favorite is Clark, but if he bows out, I'm with Gore.
:thumbsup:

[Jai4WKC08]

78. Maybe, but only with two provisos

Let me say first off that I do like Al Gore. He's a good man, and would have made an outstanding president. And the opportunity to be one was stolen from him, so there's a certain justice to his getting his chance. And I'm old enough to remember Nixon, so I know a guy can come back from the political graveyard under the right circumstances.

BUT, before I'd support him (and then, ONLY if Clark doesn't run) first I'd have to be convinced Gore really has learned the lessons of 2000. He ran a lousy campaign, pure and simple. And we've never really seen him run a good one. He was lackluster in '88--understandable, since he was young--and had the nomination practically handed to him on a platter---and rightly so, being the incumbent VP. But it still doesn't prove he can do better.

What have we really seen since that's different except a few firebrand speeches? Well, it's a lot easier to speak with fire when you're not running for anything, or ever intending to. And from all Gore has said to date, he hasn't been considering a future run. Besides, I've heard him a few times that were not at all inspiring, same old Gore we saw in 2000. Might be the media filter, I'll admit. But I'd still need to see something more.

Now, some may argue that Clark made his share of mistakes in his campaign as well, and they wouldn't be wrong. But Clark was a political novice, and started late without the time to "shake down" a staff that the other candidates did. I've seen the change in him on the stump. I've seen the way he's building grassroots instead of turning to political hacks for advice. And ultimately, if he hasn't learned as much as I think he has, he won't be a factor in '08 so it won't matter anyway.

Gore on the other hand, is from a political family, with all the contacts and alliances that brings with it. He had his choice of staff from the entire "market" of professionals. He had been through enough elections at every level to know the ropes, the last one at the proverbial knee of a master. Gore is a very smart guy. If he hadn't learned how to run a campaign by 2000, why should I think he knows any more now?

The other thing I'd have to know about Gore is how he stands on quite a few issues that weren't around before. What does he think about Iraq NOW? I know he didn't think we should invade, but what do we do now? As far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong!), he's been completely silent on that. I consider it an issue of absolute importance, not just because of the horror of what's happening there now, but also because I believe it's critical to how Democrats fare in the 2006 mid-terms. No Democrat of conscience could NOT have an opinion. Where is his voice? I don't think I should have to wait to hear it until he actually declares a candidacy. It's just too fucking important for us all.

I'd also like to know where he stands on the war on terror. Again, it's an important issue in its own right, but I also believe no Democrat can win the White House unless he can convince Americans that he will keep them safe.

Like I said, I like Gore, and I'm willing to listen. But Clark has been all over, busting his ass to help us win in '06 and '08, no matter who's on the ticket. I want to see Gore doing that too.

[MoonRiver]

79. Good points, and like you, Clark is my main man.

I'll always feel pain for the stolen 2000 election, though. Frankly, I will NEVER GET OVER IT. But that, by itself, is not a good enough reason to support Gore 8 years after the fact. And, I really think Clark would make the best president this country has ever known. But whether either or neither will run is still an unknown. I hope both come forth soon with their opinions on a variety of issues.

[second edition]

76. Nope, I would rather see, KERRY/ CLARK any day!

May I add, it would be a nice looking ticket also.

[politicasista]

82. A 2006 Dem controlled congress and fixed voting machines makes me hopeful

[SharonRB]

84. I had a discussion in DC with some other DUers about just this

this weekend. A few of us thought it would be a great ticket.

[lateo]

85. That would be my dream ticket.

[BlueStater]

101. I really think we should have somebody younger on the ticket

Both of them will be relatively old by then. Gore will be 60 and Clark will be 64.

[drummo]

105. And Hillary will be 61. Biden, Kerry are even older.

Edwards is a boring thinker, lacks expertise and could age pretty quickly as it often happens with people who look younger for a while than their age.
Gore is a case study for that phenomenon.

So who should be that young guy who also has national security, government, economy and environment resume? Certainly not Obama.

[mithnanthy]

107. Gore/Clark ticket...

YES! I'll be able to have HOPE again.