Al Gore will be TRASHED before he can be Drafted in 2008!

[KoKo]

Prepare yourself..those of us who still know he won in 2000, yet the Chimp/Puppet was "Selected." The "Mighty Bush/RW ATTACK MACHINE has Geared up and is READY TO BROADCAST why GORE IS UNFIT! And it's starts with his Moview about the Environment where we ALL are supposed to know and BELIEVE...he's just "CRAZY."

With Democratics lurking and "circling the wagons" to "Pull GORE OUT before he's even Declared as a Candidate...we can see that the ODDS ARE STACKED. It's going to take the Strongest, Best and Brightest of the Internet World to pull this one out.

Alternative? John McCain or Mitt Romney for EIGHT YEARS!! Maybe even if one goes down into the "darkest depths" George (Doofus) Allen could be the NEXT PUPPET!!

[Warpy]

1. Any Democrat who sticks his head up will be trashed

and the mass media will be part of it. The mass media are hopelessly corupt. Anyone who expects any thing different this time around is naive.

We just have to hope the anger at this administration counteracts at least some of it.

[KoKo]

2. I'm fast coming to the belief that it won't be our Dem Party who Saves Us

but the "Disenfranchised/Disillusioned Repugs" who ride as "white knights" to our rescue. And...that makes some "uncomfortable bedfellows" there for us Dems. :-(

[still_one]

6. It will be the Disenfranchised/Disillusioned Repugs

and the Disenfranchised/Disillusioned Democrats who will ride to our rescue

but only when there is enough pain that they are forced to

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. Names?

[regnaD kciN]

12. O.K. Now I see where you're coming from...

I first thought that you were pushing the "Gore can't win, so we have no choice but to go with Hillary" meme.

I agree that it won't be the current Democratic Party (or at least those entrenched in positions of power) that will save us. That is one reason why I'm leaning toward Gore, rather than any Democrat currently in Congress. As far as I'm concerned, they've already shown that they have no interest in fighting for us. (Except for Feingold, and you think Gore would get trashed? In Feingold's case, the torrent of "too liberal, too angry, too out-of-touch" would be coming from his fellow Congressional Democrats seeking the nomination. It would be like what happened to Dean all over again.)

[Samantha]

27. Specifically, anyone who opposes the DLC candidate will be trashed

After all, the DLC is the self-anointed brains of the party. We, the little people, are not smart enough to select candidates or to determine strategy for the party. Anyone who goes against the DLC will be trashed, and that includes Al Gore should he decide to attempt to wrestle the nomination from Hillary.

No wonder he says he's not running. No wonder he wants to be drafted .... The DLC put a lot of pressure on Gore not to run in 2004, so why should we think 2008 will be different.

This is going to be a big bruiser of an election season. Brutal, simply brutal.

[janx]

38. Maybe that's what we need.

Where else will anyone be able to find anything like political sanity if we don't go through this?

[heartofthesiskiyou]

3. The primaries are going to be the election

Who ever gets the nod will win. Except HC. There are so many that are automatically opposed to her out of the gate that she could loose even with the disgusted public toward republicans.

[blm]

4. They do it to EVERY Dem who sticks his neck out. The media IS what's wrong

and it's past time Dems with access to BIG DOLLARS finally put up the big bucks necessary to INVEST in media buys - the GOP has been doing it nonstop for the last 20 years, and THAT is the basis for their power.

He who controls the microphones and the airtime, controls the message and the issues.

[NCarolinawoman]

13. blm, I couldn't agree with you more! n/t

[Conker]

18. Yeah, it does not make sense....

for wealthy Dems not to invest in the media.What is the logic behind not doing so?!

[OzarkDem]

30. Agree, but its more than money

MoveOn and a lot of other groups made big media buys in 2004, but it wasn't enough to help Kerry.

Dems have to get better consultants, better messaging strategies and stay ahead of the game.

They need new blood helping run campaigns.

[blm]

47. DNC needs a whole team of smart, KNOWLEDGEABLE spokespeople

who actually KNOW the records of Democratic lawmakers - the old crew only knew how to defend Clinton and knew nothing about any other Democrat.

The left media has to learn a lesson from the RW machine - get on the same page. The RW stays on the same page with a lie better than the left media can uniformly state the facts.

[bobbieinok]

51. amen....... media and the voting machines: unless we stop repub control

there is NO WAY democrats will ever again win the presidency or the control of congress.......it will all be so carefully manipulated that it will look like it was fair

IMO, FL2000 was a big mistake that they corrected in 2002 and especially in 2004......the margin of W's supposed 'win' of FL was way too small, with the result that the vote was examined..... by 2004 the margin was quite large so that it was 'believable' that the results contradicted the polls..... also in OH the W win was 'so large' it was hard to counter

[Rageneau]

54. Absolutely! The Media IS the power behind the right wing.

[still_one]

5. All Gore needs to say, in 2000 you could have had me

instead look what you got. We have attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. When we should have been going after bin laden we have wasted 8 years, bankrupted our economy, offshored our jobs, slowed down stem cell research, reduced student loans, put social security and medicare in jepordy, screwed the enviornment, and endangered a woman's right to choose.

Can you honestly say you are better off 8 years ago then you are today? Perhaps if you are Haliburton or big oil

[regnaD kciN]

8. Guess again...

Prepare yourself..those of us who still know he won in 2002.

I didn't know he won in 2002 -- I didn't even know there was a presidential election that year.

The "Mighty Bush/RW ATTACK MACHINE has Geared up and is READY TO BROADCAST why GORE IS UNFIT! And it's starts with his Moview about the Environment where we ALL are supposed to know and BELIEVE...he's just "CRAZY."

Your inability to count quotation marks aside...what "Mighty Bush/RW ATTACK MACHINE? (sic) First of all, Bush isn't a candidate in 2008. Second, attaching "mighty" to anything related to the G.O.P. (except, maybe, the level of public disgust they have engendered) is "Chicken Little" thinking of the highest order.

And the notion that they'll be able to smear Gore over his film, which is already drawing rave reviews nationwide (most containing the general message that "he was right, and his critics were wrong, all along") is a pure example of self-defeating behavior.

If you want, you can sit cringing over how The Mighty Republicans Are Going To Smear Us!!! It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, as one who is certain they are doomed to lose from the get-go isn't going to put up a strong enough fight to win.

So, what's the alternative? Admit Gore will be TRASHED and settle right now on Hillary? (Here's a great campaign slogan: "A Return to Triangulation 2008"... :eyes: ) Because that sure seems to be the conclusion of those who are screaming the loudest about how Gore will be TRASHED. Of course, Republicans wouldn't even dream of using attack politics against her, would they? :sarcasm:

[Mabus]

9. Yes, but...

have you seen the comments on the recent Salon.com article? Many readers took exception to the characterization that the author Mr. O'Hehir made about Gore (Gore's southern accent is phony and Gore grew up in a hotel suite, among others). Mr. O'Hehir got taken to the proverbial shed for a beating and even one of the editors was getting a lot of heat. http://letters.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2006/05/24/gore/view/


In otherwords, the people are fighting back with their own brand of rapid response.

(edited for clarity, or at least my attempt at it.)

[Rowdyboy]

10. They've trashed Al Gore for 20 years and he still looks good....

I am concerned about his coyness. If he wants to run, then he should make his feelings known early-right after the 2006 elections. That gives him time to take on Hillary Clinton seriously. As long as he remains a "potential" candidate, others on the left like Feingold will be unable to effectively organize.

Yes, I know its too early to worry about 2008, but I'd really like to hear something DEFINITE from Gore very soon after the 2006 elections.

[janx]

14. That is SIX months from now. n/t

[regnaD kciN]

15. That's one point I was going to make as well...

With all the other Democrats, the G.O.P. has yet to attempt a national negative campaign, so who knows what kind of SwiftBoating they can make to stick? With Gore, they've already taken their best shot. (Result? Remember, Gore won the popular vote that year.) There's little else they can dig up, and "Gore claims he invented the Internet" will ring pretty hollow six years later.

[karynnj]

34. With all the other Democrats? You forget Kerry

The intenstity of what was done in 2004 was far greater than in 1992 or 2000.

[janx]

36. I think so too.

What else can they use? Al Gore is a giant. There's not much else in their arsenal--they've used it all.

Edit: Exquisite photos!

[Conker]

20. Still looks good?

I guarantee you that if he runs again he will not get elected.Conservatives and moderates don't like Gore.I am pretty sure they hate him almost as much as they hate Hillary.

[janx]

37. And you know this...how?

I'm a moderate, and other moderates I know now love Al Gore. They have seen what he's like sans management, and they like what they see.

[karynnj]

21. Gore was not trashed for 20 years

He was the first DLC endorsed candidate in 1988, when he ran a trouble plagued campaign that was extremely centrist. (He supported funding the Contras and raised the issue of Willie Horton against Dukakis.) He was given pretty good press as VP.

He was poorly treated in 2000. After he lost, his concession speech was highly praised. The other period of extremely negative press was 2002- 2005. This year, his press has been more positive than negative.

[Art_from_Ark]

24. Al Gore didn't raise the specter of Willie Horton

it was bu$h's father who did that.

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/ad.archive/horton.mov

For a run-down of how the media has trashed Gore and made their lies stick, look at this:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110402.shtml

[karynnj]

33. After Gore did in the primaries

It is true that Bush 1 went further than Gore - but it happened.

[Art_from_Ark]

40. I do not believe that Gore dredged up Willie Horton

The only "proof" that he did seems to come from people with an agenda against Gore. I would like to see irrefutable proof that Gore actually did that.

[sandnsea]

41. He brought up the furlough program

Not Horton specifically, but the furlough program. It's true and nobody is saying it because they have an agenda against Gore. I'd be surprised if anybody at DU had an actual agenda against Gore. They may think people have gone beserk with the hero worshipping again, but that's not the same as an agenda against Al Gore.

Here's the Horton article. Not what they were saying about him in 1999 as opposed to the very next year. That's how the media works, I wish people around here would understand how they get suckered into some of this stuff.

http://www.slate.com/id/1003919/

[Art_from_Ark]

49. So he didn't dredge up Willie Horton by name

He merely mentioned the furlough program and stated that he didn't think it was a good idea. That's a far cry from the bu$h 1 commercials which featured tough-looking mostly black prisoners walking through a revolving door and the name Willie Horton prominently mentioned.

[sandnsea]

50. That triggered the research though

As the article states, that comment is what triggered Republicans to start digging down that path. I don't think it was unfair politicing necessarily, unless at the time Gore knew he was going to lose and knew that the furlough program would hurt Dukakis in the GE. I don't remember, I liked Al Gore in '88 although I think I voted for Jesse Jackson, or maybe Pat Schroeder. But it's both true that the info came from Gore and - that that's politics.

[karynnj]

55. I stand corrected on this

I was writing based on memory of the 1988 campaign. I should have said furlough program rather than Horton, because the Horton ads played the race card that Gore didn't. I never intended to imply that, it was simply writing without thinking of the intent and I regret making the implication inadvertently. It also succeeded in destroying my point that Gore was of the DLC establishment and throughout his career was a centrist to conservative Democrat. If elected that is what he likely will be.

Gore did speak of the furlough program - actually initiated by a Dukakis predessor - to attack Dukakis as an out of touch liberal. In doing so, he ignored that MA's problems on law and order weren't worse, but better, than most of the country. As people said this is politics. (This by the way was more hardball politics than even Gephardt's attacks on Dean and way stronger than anything Kerry did.)

Between this and other issues, I had a negative opinion of Gore from that campaign, that was reversed when he was VP. I still preferred my home state Senator (Bradley) in 2000 primaries, because I though the 8 Clinton years were too centrist and saw no real to see Gore as to the left of Clinton. Bradley was more liberal. I did support Gore wholeheartedly in 2000 after he easily won the nomination.

[NYCGirl]

29. Well, at least 15 years, judging by this quote from Poppy Bush:

In the 1992 campaign against Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush mocked Gore as “ozone man” and claimed, “This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme we’ll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American.”

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060424ta_talk_remnick

[karynnj]

35. That was a not very effective campaign line from a losing opponent

not a media attack - the media at that point was very much on Clinton's side.

[NYCGirl]

46. It's obviously very effective since it's remembered vividly even now. NT

[karynnj]

52. At least in Madison, NJ where Bush used it

the local papers (this is a Republican county) really trashed Bush for saying it. The Clinton numbers were going up at that time. It reflected badly on Bush.

[IndyOp]

11. What happens, happens. He has to put himself out there, they all do.

This is not a time for shrinking violets. Step forward into the fray -

I think he know's already that he has been and is going to continue to be a target.






Now, this is what Al's and our future depends on - read the quote:

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Gore has taken on the 800 Ton Gorilla that "Owns" Bush

and that 800 Ton Gorilla is "Big Oil"-- AND "BIG OIL" WILL TRASH GORE

see today's Krugman column

A brief segment in "An Inconvenient Truth" shows Senator Al Gore questioning James Hansen, a climatologist at NASA, during a 1989 hearing. But the movie doesn't give you much context, or tell you what happened to Dr. Hansen later.

And that's a story worth telling, for two reasons. It's a good illustration of the way interest groups can create the appearance of doubt even when the facts are clear and cloud the reputations of people who should be regarded as heroes. And it's a warning for Mr. Gore and others who hope to turn global warming into a real political issue: you're going to have to get tougher, because the other side doesn't play by any known rules.

Dr. Hansen was one of the first climate scientists to say publicly that global warming was under way. In 1988, he made headlines with Senate testimony in which he declared that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now." When he testified again the following year, officials in the first Bush administration altered his prepared statement to downplay the threat. Mr. Gore's movie shows the moment when the administration's tampering was revealed.

In 1988, Dr. Hansen was well out in front of his scientific colleagues, but over the years that followed he was vindicated by a growing body of evidence. By rights, Dr. Hansen should have been universally acclaimed for both his prescience and his courage.

But soon after Dr. Hansen's 1988 testimony, energy companies began a campaign to create doubt about global warming, in spite of the increasingly overwhelming evidence. And in the late 1990's, climate skeptics began a smear campaign against Dr. Hansen himself.

Leading the charge was Patrick Michaels, a professor at the University of Virginia who has received substantial financial support from the energy industry. In Senate testimony, and then in numerous presentations, Dr. Michaels claimed that the actual pace of global warming was falling far short of Dr. Hansen's predictions. As evidence, he presented a chart supposedly taken from a 1988 paper written by Dr. Hansen and others, which showed a curve of rising temperatures considerably steeper than the trend that has actually taken place.


<<<snip>>>

Krugman asserts-

• Michaels' chart was fraudulent - omitted significant data points.
• the claim that Dr. Hansen vastly overpredicted global warming has remained in circulation, and has become a staple of climate change skeptics, from Michael Crichton to Robert Novak. (appender's note - also George Will).
• "There's a concise way to describe what happened to Dr. Hansen: he was Swift-boated."

[heartofthesiskiyou]

23. The oil companies will make a grave error if

they intend to make a push that they want to hang their hat on against fixing Global Warming. The vast majority of the American public gets it. Agreed they are pissing around trying to turn opinion around but they already lost that battle. They are going to have to come to the determination to be part of the fix or part of the problem. They better be right. If we have to do this AGAINST them it will be very painful to their interests. If they sour the publics good will and the public sees them as purposely presenting false evidence to manipulate the public for purpose of greed would be a big mistake.

Here's a comparison of 15 polls. The highest, a CNN poll, gives their argument(we're just making it up) 28%, with most in the teens. The whole world knows, "Houston; we gotta problem".

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm

[Coastie for Truth]

25. But people are still buying SUV's

and fighting raising CAFE and fighting transit bonds. I am no Jim Kunstler Malthusian - but he has some gems of wisdom in "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century" - and we should all be aware of the public finance, transit planning, city planning, and sociological implications of Kunstler's predictions. (As a technoid - I don't buy into his cavalier dismissal of techie fixes - but that's a personal issue with me).

[heartofthesiskiyou]

28. In terms of shear numbers

it is true that SOME are still buying SUV's. But those are probably the 29% backwashers as SUV sales have plumetted while hybreds are in high demand with many outlets reporting backups in supply. I think trends are moving in the right direction and will continue to move.

[Coastie for Truth]

31. You are right

In the "trend setter" neighborhoods it appears - just walking around on Sunday morning - that the SUV population has dropped by 2/3's, and there appears to be a Prius or Honda Hybrid in every drive way.

The other trend - lots of small station wagons, Scion Xbs, Elements, Matrixes, Vibes, etc.

[heartofthesiskiyou]

17. Three points

There's more but let's start with these considerations.

1) Hillary, leading the fight for health care, with here husband in the WH and one of the houses dems could not push through the bill. She's not really a leader.

2) HC would have never been elected to the Senate of her own volition. Only the name recognition associated with bill gave her a chance to even consider it.

3) The progressives came of age in the fight to put Dean at the helm of DNC with a new vision. The DLC (Democratic Devidership Council) pulled out all stops to not build the party precinct by precinct. They lost. WE won. We are going into the fight to take the party with two more years of building, organizing, and experience. We are stronger then we where in 2002. And we will win this fight also.

Edit: typo

[BlueManDude]

19. They fear Gore 2008. n/t

[johnaries]

22. They already shot their wad. No one will believe them.

The truth is coming out about how they trashed Gore in 2000. No one will believe anything they say in 2008, except for the 30% that believe anything Repukes say.

[kentuck]

26. Of course, they will try...

they are Republicans. That's what Republicans do. But we need a candidate that can put them on the defensive. And that means never, never responding to their attacks but responding with attacks of our own which are much more hard-hitting and honest.

[ladjf]

32. They will definitely attempt to "trash" Gore. However, the flow

of political events since 2000 has altered the situation to the degree that a candidate of Gore's statue will NOT be vulnerable to the regular "swift boat" tactics. Their "bullets" won't be powerful enough to damage him significantly. His time to lead has come.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. I think Al is fully prepared to defend himself, this time around.

Whether the media lets him, is another story.

They're going after him because they know he presents a real threat-- and he can win BIG.

Interesting, isn't it, when you compare that with how excited they get at the prospect of a Hillary nomination?

[Apollo11]

42. Gore won before. He can win again.

In Gore We Trust
www.algore.org :)

[blue4barb]

44. Al Gore is my #1 choice for '08, but I don't think he (or I) can survive

the fraudulent voting machines/manipulation or repuke tactics that gave b**sh the last two elections. Those central vote tabulators that flip the votes are very, very scary.

[niceypoo]

43. Gore cannot be "Drafted"

the RW will smear all and everybody who runs. It needs to be about COMPETENCE.

[mbee]

45. Me thinks it is time to start trashing the trash. That's the unfortunate

thing about Liberals is they let the DLC-types control everything and behavior is always squeeky clean. This is why the people on the other side have such a field day with their bullying and lies! We deserve what we get because we don't defend ourselves. We have these elitist snobs that can't seem to understand you have to get down and dirty with these pigs that commit election fraud, bully or do ANYTHING to win! We have yet to defend ourselves and it is high time we do. The easiest thing we could possibly do is boycott all pug businesses.

[zann725]

48. "Trashing" ain't gonna work...particularly in light of Gore's blockbuster

"Inconvenient Truth" movie. Aside from the standing ovations, and rave praises at Cannes...I saw it last night to sold-out crowd in a HUGH auditorium/theatre. A theatre that sold-out the show before AND after the one I attended. And this was NOT a major "chain" theatre, but an "art theatre" house which does NOT normally sell-out...or anywhere near.

The movie was chilling, with heavily science-based data and charts and visual proof, and interview with scientists. And overall visual and data REAL prediction that Global Warming is TRULY rolling along FAR QUICKER than MSM or our Admin. is informing us.

It IS a must see. And the impressiveness of Al Gore's narration, and dogged, sincere pursuit of this VERY IMPORTANT global 'Truth'...will NOT be easily diminished or laughed off by ANY Repug smear. Ain't gonna work.

Besides, Gore has stated he doesn't want the Prez nom, since he DOES want to work on the Environmental and other issues. But that does NOT exclude him from VP slot. In such, he won't be as easily 'trashed'... particularly when Gore stands-up and shows the popular-vote WIN he actually had in 2000.

I fear not for Gore's "smearing" by Repug's, but for their spineless, scandal-ridden, self-centered, lacking in morals image NOW and continuing into '06, '08 and for a long time into the political future. Considering we don't know half of the evil they've truly done while in office, History will definitely not easily forget THIS Admin!

[theabbot]

53. They don't have a lot of dirt on him.

The best they can do is make up a couple quotes to make him look a little bad.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

56. So what? If the party fielded a conservative Democrat, s/he'd be trashed

If we fielded Joe Lieberman, we'll be hearing how 'far-liberal' he is, and 'out of the mainstream' from the GOP spinomatic.

If the party fielded a conservative, a liberal, or a pragmatic, they'd still be trashed anyway.