Damn it, there's a massive difference between 200/2004 and now.

[PlanetBev]

Gore and Kerry just didn't inspire young people the way Obama does now. They didn't particulary inspire me, either. Obama is really something quite different and special. Plus, the country didn't have eight years of Bush/Cheney in '04. I think that the same people who are all pumped up about Palin and the same people who voted for Cheney.

Think any of these people voted any different four years ago?

[slackmaster]

1. It may come down to the turnout of Necro-Americans

(PC speak for dead voters.)

[seabeyond]

2. we seem to forget kerry and gore won. election stolen. n/t

[PlanetBev]

7. I agree with you, Seabeyond

But I think we're a little more prepared for it this time. I take hope in the fact that we don't have Bob Schrum running the campaign this time.

[seabeyond]

9. the difference i see is there are a lot more DEMS supporting and standing with obama

also a huge plus is we have dean instead of the other guy. he was hurtful, not neutral, but hurtful to kerry campaign. and i am hearing the ground infractstructure is much better. still.... every year repugs comes out with new shit

they are cheats and liars

[blm]

11. Baloney - it wasn't Shrum's JOB to secure election process, it was McAuliffe's for FOUR YEARS

after 2000's theft.

Dean has been using his four years to rebuild all that party infrastructure that McAuliffe and prior chairs collapsed so that Dem candidates in 2000, 2002 and 2004 could not get their votes allowed, cast and counted.

Shrum actually DID his job as Kerry won. McAuliffe's negligent stewardship of the party for four years assured that RNC and GOP officials state by state would have total control of the election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

[gateley]

3. That's what gives me encouragement, too -

the sheer numbers and level of enthusiasm regarding Obama. Look at how they dominated Iowa. It's my belief (and hope) that those people who aren't being polled will turn out in DROVES to vote for Obama.

[treestar]

6. And another thought regarding enthusiasm

Gramps has apparently just rallied his base; Obama's has been for a year or more - in fact even RWers admit it when they complain about the crowds or call Obama the "Messiah" to make fun of the enthusiasm.

[treestar]

4. Very True! People were still sort of OK with * in 2004 and the war

was newer and most people weren't tired of it yet. The bit about not switching horses in midstream had some effect.

Macabre but true: the old people who have died since them probably would have voted for McOld, and the people who were 14-18 who now can vote will probably go for Obama.

[blm]

5. Then I say shame on you.

Gore was a KNOWN VISIONARY, IF you bothered to know your nation's recent history and his role in it.

Kerry was KNOWN as the lawmaker who uncovered and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history. If not for Kerry's efforts the last 35 years, this nation would be in its second decade of full-on fascism by now. But, then, you would have to BOTHER to know something about your nation's actual historic record to be 'excited' about that, eh?

The real DIFFERENCE is that Gore and Kerry couldn't claim their victories because of a failed DNC that had collapsed party infrastructure in too many states since the mid90s, whereas the Dean led DNC has been rebuilding party infrastructure in those states long neglected and we are in a significantly better position to get our votes allowed, cast and counted than we were in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

[PlanetBev]

8. You don't have to attack me.

I'm just saying the Obama is a little more exciting to young people.

[blm]

10. That wasn't all you said. Your attitude is WHY corpmedia gets to revise history and get away

with it.

[LisaM]

14. But why?

I agree with BLM on this. Was Gore just too far ahead of the curve? It's hard for me to fathom why Gore didn't excite people. Of all the elections in my lifetime, he was by far my favorite candidate ever.

See my other post; if Gore as a candidate was not intellectually exciting to people, it says something about those people, not the candidate.

[LisaM]

12. I think that in the election of 2000 we lost a chance

to have one of the finest presidents this country has ever known, present company included.

It still boggles my mind that anyone thought otherwise. What a jewel. He just exuded calm and intelligence. How that isn't attractive to people is mystifying and IMO it doesn't say much about the people who are/aren't inspired. I don't mean this as a knock against Obama. I just find it unusual that anyone who loves Obama and his policies didn't get excited about Gore.

[AtomicKitten]

13. It was Gore/Obama for me for a long time.

I completely agree with your assessment, in fact, to this day would still applaud Gore/Obama. Al Gore is the best of men and IMO deserves a shot at the title if he wants it. Cheers.