We lost Gore. We lost Kerry. Are we gonna let

[Colobo]

Barack Obama go away as well? I would hate to see America let the chance of having Barack in the WH just because "he's not ready" or any other lame excuse. 2016 is 8 years from now, and who knows what the heck will happen then. I don't believe in "waiting"- the future is unpredictable, we don't know if this great man will be available, willing or in a good position to do all the great things I believe he can do as President.

Are we going to let him go as well?

[wyldwolf]

1. So lobby congress to cancel the democratic process and install Obama...or..

... let us vote for who we want.

[Colobo]

2. I'm just expressing support for my candidate in my own way.

You don't have to agree, dear Wyld.

[superkia]

5. Hey, Clinton already bought that position, he can have the vice spot.

[wyldwolf]

18. Your reply is a prime example of someone just wanting to say something..

..regardless of how silly it is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Before The Net He Would Have Said It To Himself

eom

[superkia]

25. You guys really impress me with your comments. Good Job!

You added so much more to the conversation than I did, don't you feel so special about yourselves now. I feel wonderful now that I have had the chance to interact with such great people.

Thank you.:yourock:

[journalist3072]

3. The original post makes no sense at all

Who is "we?" And exactly how did this so-called we "lose" Gore and "lose" Kerry? And how does that correlate to "we" letting Barack Obama "go away as well," as you put it?

I honestly believe that both in 2000 and 2004, most Americans went to the voting booth, intending to cast their votes for Gore and Kerry respectively. Obviously we all know what happened in Florida in 2000. And with respect to 2004, I believe that had all the votes been counted in Ohio, John and Teresa Heinz Kerry would be in the White House today.

But what the heck does that have to do with us letting Barack Obama "go away as well?"

Are we supposed to just engage in some monolithic group-think, and not even have a primary process?

And yes, I do believe that someone not being ready for prime-time; someone not being ready to be President, is cause for concern, and is definitely cause for letting that person "go away as well."

We have no time for on-the-job training. Bush had made a complete mess of this country. And that's understating it.

[bellasgrams]

6. If Gore had won

he would be in his 2nd term and Lieberman would be running for Pres.

[journalist3072]

7. And? eom

[Tellurian]

8. especially when the OP voted for Bush both times...

the thread title really doesn't make any sense.

[blm]

22. The LAST thing this country needs is a Clinton2 protecting Bush2 the way Bill did

for Poppy Bush throughout the 90s.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


We need someone who DOESN'T vacation with the Bushes out of office, and wielding a broom for the Bushes IN office.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. Obama's time is now. The time and the man meet.

[cboy4]

9. I'm not sure what Gore and Kerry have to do with your main

point about experience.

I'll vote for Obama if he turns out to be the nominee, but sorry... I find experience important, and don't view it as a "lame excuse."

[Think82]

10. Actually, I think it's BIDEN'S time

I know Obama fans might have mad eup their minds already, but please look Biden over. They are voting on his Iraq plan on Tuesday morning. Listen to Biden on friday:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_12&products_id=201086-1&tID=5&highlight=

Biden begins about 1 hr 48 min into this complete video of the senate. He speaksfor about an hour and fields questions about the plan. If there is one video everyone should watch, it's this.

[Colobo]

11. Biden is the most qualified candidate of the bunch. No problems admitting it.

[jillan]

17. Joebama time ?

[dugggy]

12. It's not just limited experience which keeps Barack down

Let us be frank and honest, it is also
race and a muslim middle name. Reality check
circa 2007 USA.

[BenDavid]

13. You just hold on to your ass and

ride the surf with HRC for the next eight years and then afterwards you will see why Obama could not have achieved as much as she will.
Obama, I perceive let his ego get the better of him....

Ben David

[LWolf]

14. We didn't "lose Kerry."

He's in the Senate, hopefully doing his job.

We lost, imo, when we nominated Kerry, who makes a better Senator than he did a presidential candidate.

We lost when we did not challenge the 2000 election corruption and selection all the way to '04.

We aren't "losing" anything by leaving Obama in the Senate, where he can back his rhetoric up with votes and legislation...or not. We gain some more comprehensive evidence about what we can expect from him, based on his terms in the Senate rather than on campaign speeches.

[blm]

23. Bad presidential candidates don't dominate debates or need elections rigged against

them so that 5 million of their votes get stolen.

Bad PARTY CHAIRS make sure election process is unsecured so the election CAN be stolen by the RNC.

[LWolf]

27. That's a valid point.

I wasn't happy with Kerry's candidacy or campaign, for numerous reasons, but I voted for him, and I don't think he would have been a bad president. I know you are a strong Kerry supporter, and I respect that.

My point is that we didn't "lose" Kerry, or Gore. Both are still working at vital tasks.

We won't "lose" Obama if he is not the nominee. He'll still be in the Senate, establishing a record that will determine whether or not he is presidential material, and doing an important job.

We lost JFK. We lost RFK. We lost Wellstone.

We haven't "lost" people who are still in office working, or outside of office working for the good of the planet.

[karynnj]

28. Good point - I agree - the "lost" terminology doesn't fit

[LWolf]

30. Agreement is good,

when we can. :hi:

[karynnj]

24. The bias iyour comments shines through

when you start the post with: "He's in the Senate, hopefully doing his job."

Is there any doubt that Senator Kerry is doing his job in the Senate. Are you believing the Republican nonsense that he misses most votes (though he voted 96% of the time up to 2003, when he started running for President)? Or, that he missed meetings of committees he was on? Ignoring the fact that he, like any other Senator, often has three scheduled simultaneously?

Are you ignoring that he is one of the leaders on two of the biggest issues? Iraq, where his Kerry/Feingold is the model for the current Democratic bill. Global warming where he is representing the Commerce committee working with John Warner, Bingaman, Joe Leiberman, and Barbara Boxer on what will be the global warming bill. (It was Kerry more than anyone else who negotiated the raising of CAFE standards in the energy bill - that the House and Senate need to conference on.)

I think Kerry was an outstanding candidate running in a year where it would have been exceedingly hard for a Democrat to win. Question that if you want, but he is a very good Senator.

[LWolf]

26. That's an awful lot of questions for someone who

has already made up her mind about "bias," lol.

I'll reiterate my point: We didn't "lose" Kerry. He's in the Senate.

I said "hopefully" doing his job, because I haven't paid attention to him since the '04 debacle. I voted for him with many misgivings, and I listened to his concession speech the following day. Based on his long history of positive work, I say "hopefully," because I hope his current efforts reflect his best, rather than his not-so-best, like his IWR vote and subsequent explanation, like his less-than-great campaign, and his really quick concession in the face of voter fraud. Those things do not negate his many years of great service in the Senate, of course, but they do lessen confidence. Hence the "hope." That lowered level of confidence is defined by you as "bias." Of course, your opinion is "bias" as well; that's what opinions are. Please note that I'm not interested in changing your opinion; keep it. It's free, and it's yours. I'll do the same.

I am not forgetting anything. Our "big leaders" on Iraq, imo, are those who didn't support it from the beginning, didn't enable Bush to go there, and didn't ever vote to fund it.

I hope I've answered your questions for you. I'm glad you got the chance to share what you think about Kerry, although it's really a side tangent not directly related to the point of my post.

I will continue to question whatever the hell I want, and I think I can decide for myself who is a "good senator" and who is not. Your opinion is noted, of course.

[venable]

15. with all due respect, I don't even begin to understand what this post is about

who is lost?

what do kerry and gore have to do with each other in this context?

where does BO fit into whatever pattern is discerned?

why not say, for instance, Edwards, HRC, Biden, Dennis, Richardson, Dodd? or Kennedy, Carter, Dukakis, Mondale?

you are really trying to create some sense of history, some false context, for a smart, moderately skillful at politics, and very inexperienced man.

you can like him, fine, but what in the world is the OP saying?

[DangerDave921]

19. I'll clear it up for you

In case you don't know, Obama is the 2nd coming of JFK and RFK. He will heal the divide in this country like no other can. He is our last chance for peace and prosperity. And if we let him go, the world will be dark for the next millenium. At least, I think that's what the OP is trying to say.
:)

[Orangepeel]

16. How did we "lose" Gore and Kerry?

Gore is doing a bang up job trying to save the planet (he might be about to win a Nobel prize for goodness sake) and Kerry is still fighting the good fight as a Senator.

The only way that candidates who lose the primary go away is if they choose to (and if they do that, they WEREN'T ready)

[SaveElmer]

21. Gore ran in 1988...he didn't go away after his first run...

People viewed him as arrogant and too young...

[ginchinchili]

29. Go away? Good lord, he's only been senator for a couple of years

Look, he's a smart, young, ambitious guy. He's not going anywhere. You're posting nonsense. He'll be good for at least the next 5 elections. He should wait until he has more experience. He simply doesn't have enough experience, and all the Republicans will have to do is talk about the threats--real and contrived--to our nation and every couple of minutes interject that Obama has very little experience on the big stage and Republicans have won themselves another election. America will not take chances on our nation's safety. He should have waited, but it won't keep him from running again in the future. If Hillary gets the nomination Obama will be able to run again in 4 years.