HardWorkingDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:55 PM
Original message |
Should Al Gore and John Edwards do the right thing? |
|
My view is Al Gore and John Edwards should hold a joint press conference and endorse Obama. I do not think it is helpful at all what the Clinton machine is starting to do and that it will only get worse because they are playing a scorched earth game.
But what really baffles me is how oblivious they are to what they are doing - they are clearly showing winning for them, is all that is important to them.
|
LisaM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I woudn't consider that the right thing. Are you just trying to rile Hillary supporters? |
|
I think they are doing the right thing by NOT endorsing. Let the voters make up their own minds.
|
Blue_In_AK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I think Al Gore and John Edwards should stay out of it |
|
and let Hillary and Barack stand or fall on their own merits.
|
emilyg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
blogslut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I would rather both of them stay out of the endorsing business |
|
...until we have a nominee
|
BlackVelvet04
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message |
4. They both should do the right thing and endorse Hillary..... |
|
we don't need a rookie senator as president.
|
LSK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. why would anti-corporate Edwards endorse corporate Hillary?? |
|
Have you lost your sense of logic?
|
BlackVelvet04
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. Like Obama is anti-corporate..... |
LSK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
17. what an EMPTY ACCUSATION |
|
Edited on Thu Feb-21-08 01:07 PM by LSK
Care to comment about Obama approaching 1 million donars???
Check with your DLC candidate...
|
jackson_dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
40. And Edwards is well aware of that |
|
He mentioned Obama had received more money from the drug industry than any other candidate in either party during the Nevada debate. Edwards' campaign manager also spoke of Obama carrying the drug and insurance industry's water in Illinois.
It is funny how Obamites remember his criticisms of Hillary but forget his criticisms of Obama. He did target Hill more but so did everyone else. The front runner is always the prime target (look at the rethugs. The top target changed from McCain to Giuliani to Romney and then McCain again. It wasn't that they started to like Giuliani. He just became less important and they shifted focus accordingly). When he began the race, though, his chief target was actually Obama since Obama messed up his plan as running as the anti-Hillary. He needed to knock Obama down in order to continue the plan and it didn't work.
|
HiFructosePronSyrup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
I suppose you think Clinton's been running a better campaign too?
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
26. better a rookie Senator than |
|
having Hilly with her bad judgment, lack of leadership and inability to so much as run her campaign, as our nominee. Anyway, you've already announced that you won't vote for him if he is the nominee, and that makes you just another blinded partisan.
|
Skoods
(210 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message |
|
How is that the right thing?
Just because you support Obama, doesn't mean everyone else has to.
|
SammyWinstonJack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
Lucinda
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
Skoods
(210 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
|
I'm glad I came about this site, because I was utterly sick of Huff Post and the other sites that were obviously biased.
I am a Democrat, and will always support the Democrats. But it's starting to get really disheartening that we are breaking in two because of this race.
The two candidates, while different in their methods, are basically the same when it comes to the issues. I'm just so sick of both sides attacking the other sides supporters. We founded this country based on the principles that all citizens could make their own decision and choose based on who they believe is the best candidate. The Democratic party is supposed to be the party of the people. Let's start acting like it and show our support for both of these fine candidates. We have not had two dynamic and popular candidates like in quite a long time.
Obama preaches that he can "unite" the nation. Yet his supporters seem to be doing everything in their power to divide our party.
|
Adelante
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I don't think it matters at this point |
|
Gore will be more needed if an agreement needs brokering.
|
LostinVA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Why is that the right thing? |
|
Personally, I think neither should enorse anyone for Party peace, but HRC is closer to Gore and even Edwards on most issues than Obama is. There's a reason why RFK, Jr. and the sibs endorsed HRC, and no, it's not because of the Senate seat.
:eyes:
|
doni_georgia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Ed Shultz said something similar yesterday |
|
He said Gore and other party leaders should meet with the Clintons to find out what their agenda is. In other words, is it worth doing whatever it takes to have a shot at the nomination if you bring the party down with you? Personally I have said all along I will vote for the nominee, but I do not see how what the Clintons are doing is helping the Democratic party.
|
HardWorkingDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
13. This is how I feel.... |
|
When it comes to the scorched earth practice, which I see starting to happen, I don't see any of this helping the party. I don't think HRC will pull in all the new voters that Obama will, or the independents.
|
K Gardner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
24. Not only will she not pull them in, she will push them away. What a nice WELCOME to the Democratic |
|
party for millions of new voters... a ringside seat to Hillary playing Karl Rove.
|
doni_georgia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
27. This is what has turned me off of Hillary |
|
I see her attacking Barack Obama for the same things that could have been said (and were said) about Bill in 1992. Bill was a Washington outsider. He was an eloquent speaker who inspired people to believe in hope again. He was someone who attracted first-time voters and people who had deserted the party in 1980. The Clintons of the 90s stood-up and spoke out against the Republican attack machine and the dirty politics of Lee Atwater, but now they are acting just like them, in my opinion. I'm a life-time Democrat. I'm not naive - I have worked on several campaigns in the past 25 years. I know what politics is like. I just don't get the Clintons in this race.
|
Kazak
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 12:59 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Not sure why Gore would endorse Obama,... |
|
Edited on Thu Feb-21-08 01:00 PM by Kazak
considering their respective stances on coal liquefaction.
:shrug:
|
onehandle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:02 PM
Response to Original message |
12. The race is too close. They should stay out of it. nt |
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:05 PM
Response to Original message |
14. I think that both Gore and Edwards would be happy to see this election |
|
be the last hurrah of the DLC.
If they stay out of it, it will be all the more obvious when Hillary's campaign collapses - they are not necessary to push it over the edge.
When Obama gets the nomination, they can buttonhole the DLCers and point out the benefits for abandoning that failed strategy, bring them to the same realization that they themselves came to after 2000 and 2004, respectively.
|
Cameron27
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message |
15. I don't think that would be the right thing, |
|
and I'd be surprised if Edwards endorsed someone who attacked the mandate proposals in Hillary's universal healthcare plan.
|
niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message |
16. the right thing is to let the voters decide. I personally do not give a tinker's damn about |
|
endorsements. and gore basically said he was staying out of it.
|
Prefer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:07 PM
Response to Original message |
18. The fact that Edwards has done nothing makes him irrelevant |
|
Edwards has played a sitting game to see what was to his greatest benefit. In doing so, he has shown that his interest is only in himself, not the party or progress.
|
SammyWinstonJack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
calico1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message |
22. The right thing for them to do is what they feel |
|
the right thing to do is.
|
displacedtexan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:12 PM
Response to Original message |
23. After Gore's Dean endorsement, I don't think either Gore or Edwards... |
|
will jump in until they think there's a clear winner.
Of course, I could be wrong.
|
polichick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message |
25. If msm reports are correct... |
|
Edited on Thu Feb-21-08 01:23 PM by polichick
|
Beaverhausen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:19 PM
Response to Original message |
28. A Gore/Edwards ticket works for me |
|
oh, that wasn't what you were suggesting. Nevermind.
|
mnhtnbb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
38. YES! There's a ticket I can support. Third party, anyone? |
Seabiscuit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message |
29. Gore and Edwards in my opinion should stay neutral. nt |
book_worm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message |
30. They should do what they want to do and endorse whoever they wish. |
BenDavid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:24 PM
Response to Original message |
32. There is something that maybe edwards and gore see in |
|
obama that is not right and they have not warmed up to obama nor ingested his words and got inspired and got that sensation running through their bodies like chris matthews says he got.
Still no endorsement from John Edwards? Is he playing both sides, looking to make his best deal?
You watch, when he finally decides, I'll bet he says, "I chose _______ because the difference between these two is hueueueuge,"
...but funny it's taking him so long to see that very hueueueuege difference.
|
Uncle Joe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
37. I suspect after the Supreme Court decided the will of the people was irrelevant in 2000 and |
|
an arbitrary date was more important, that Al Gore has come to the opposite conclusion and is currently giving the American People the maximum amount of time to make their decision as to who they want for the most powerful job in the land. Ultimately I believe Al Gore will support that decision unless the race ends exceptionally close with neither candidate having enough delegates to win out right, in which case I'm not sure what he will do.
|
libodem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message |
|
They should run! They would make a hell of a team.
|
balantz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message |
35. Should Al Gore and John Edwards do the right thing? |
|
Yes, I think they should be elected as president and vice-president and help to save this country from ruin!
|
Sanctified
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 01:43 PM
Response to Original message |
36. It would not be doing the right thing. |
|
I would not mind if Edwards came out and endorsed a candidate after the March 4th primary but Gore should not endorse any candidates even in the General. My reasoning for this is I think Al Gore is bigger than the President of the United States and by endorsing a candidate he is putting himself under them. I think Al Gore has an important mission for our environment and needs to be able to work closely with whoever gets elected, if he endorses one candidate and the other gets elected then there could be some issues with him getting the elected Presidents support for environmental change.
When I look at Al Gore I see a man who has evolved passed simple party politics and is entirely on a new level with world environmental politics. Were talking about a man who holds more power than any other leader in the world when it comes to Environmental matters, when Al Gore speaks leaders listen.
|
HardWorkingDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
39. What bothers me about Gore and the environment is this.... |
|
I'm concerned it is again in just another cyclical popularity spike like in the past and next year we will be back to shark attacks off of Florida or some other theme of the year cycle.
Don't get me wrong - I believe the environment and Gore are very important, but that the attention span of the world waxes and wanes and soon we will all be talking about something else.
|
Uncle Joe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #39 |
42. Honestly, I believe we've reached the point where the environment itself |
|
Edited on Thu Feb-21-08 05:37 PM by Uncle Joe
will not allow that to happen. Global warming climate is becoming too big for them to hide anymore and it's tragic effects will become increasingly apparent to even the most cynical skeptics, whether it's flood, drought, increase in forest fires, more tornadoes in the winter and in areas which hadn't experienced them before, the melting of the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland, the cat is out of the bag regarding this issue.
Also the movie An Inconvenient Truth and subsequent Nobel Peace Prize is too much water under the bridge for the corporate media to dismiss with the same lack of public awareness which existed before. Not to say some won't try, Neanderthals such as Limbaugh, Inhofe etc. but by doing so they will become increasingly irrelevant as a result.
|
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-21-08 05:37 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:30 AM
Response to Original message |