We know Gore wants out of Iraq. So do the others. What distinguishes his Iraq stand from the others?

[bigtree]

Do we even have a current stance from Gore on Iraq? Doesn't it matter? We've been picking these candidates alive on the nuances of their plans; out now, partially out, redeploy, leave troops behind, etc..

Don't we deserve an up-to-date, definitive position on Iraq from Gore or his supporters before we seriously consider him for president? I can't just rely on old statements and speeches to determine where he stands. The other candidates deserve credit for, at least, being forthcoming on their plans for Iraq. I'd expect the same from Gore before I seriously considered him.

Is there something like this out there that I've missed? Or, are Gore supporters expecting us to project whatever we want on a potential Gore candidacy?

[gateley]

1. It's my very unpopular view that he doesn't WANT to be President. If I'm

correct in my belief, that may be why we're not aware of any statements he's made. The Gore supporters will know for sure, but like you, I just don't recall hearing anything.

[bigtree]

6. I've got the statements, they're out there, but they don't make for a policy

The most recent I could find was on the release of the Iraq Study group's report.

Giving reactionary statements to developing events doesn't make for a credible platform. If that's all we're going to get than I'd have to conclude that Gore (or his supporters) doesn't really take any of these detailed points of policy that we've been holding these candidates to seriously. I'd expect a plan which is, at least, as detailed as the others'.

[gateley]

14. Well if he does decide to join the fray, that's when he'll explain his plans. nt

[melody]

2. Read his books -- all will be revealed

He has said a lot about his thoughts on those issues and more.

[bigtree]

7. That's no substitute or equivalent of what the other candidates have presented

or have been made to detail during this phase of the campaign. I don't expect that many folks will allow themselves to be patronized or pacified by Gore pointing to that book as a policy document.

[melody]

15. Well, first of all, he's not a candidate yet

Secondly, I think two major books and an Academy Award winning film together is more than the equivalent of what
has been mobilized/produced by any candidate to date. In a constitutional democracy, we're expected to do some
reading. I don't think anyone is trying to patronize or pacify anyone. If you don't want to support Gore, don't.

[bigtree]

16. I think that the other candidates have put their CURRENT views and positions forward for months now

I'll decide to support him when and if he does the same.

[melody]

17. Actually, his last book was written a LONG time after the first of Obama's position papers

But as I said, I don't particularly care for whom you vote ... vote your conscience.
Having read all of the material, I know where I stand, should he choose to run. You
choose your own place.

[bigtree]

18. That book is not a substitute for putting out a position on an Iraq withdrawal

We see the varying degrees of the other candidate's positions. It will be interesting, and perhaps, revealing, when and if he does decide to spell out just what his intentions are.

[melody]

19. Well, he was loudly, vocally and passionately *against* the war in the first place

That should tell you something. ;)

Would that all the candidates could say that. And would that they all were for a single-payer health insurance
for all Americans, come to that.

Don't worry, though, I'm sure your embrocated nominee will do okay anyway.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. He really means it?

:shrug:

[bigtree]

9. That's like the Obama 'vision' thing. Trust his judgement, and the like.

Those projections often fall apart when candidates provide details of their commitments and are forced to defend those details.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Start here:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

[EVDebs]

5. If he becomes the first candidate to mention Peak Oil he might make it

hopefully Edwards beats him to it. Hmmm. Edwards/Gore sounds like a good ticket or even Gore/Edwards

[bigtree]

8. Well, there's my point. A speech from September 23, 2002 is not enough.

Most of these candidates took positions in 2002. Those past statements and speeches have been measured by the definitive stands they have taken in their current campaigns. I'd expect for Gore and his supporters to present a policy position based on current events. It would be an insult to the definitive stands these other candidates have taken and expect us to take Gore's past statements and project whatever folks want us to on top of them.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Well, while others voted FOR the IWR, Gore opposed it...

and opposed it publicly and with more careful reasoning than those who voted FOR it.

As for a DETAILED candidate's position statement, IF AND WHEN Gore announces, I'm sure you will get all your (or my) wonky little heart desires.

[bigtree]

12. It's not my heart that I'm concerned with. I just don't like these faith-based candidacies

In my view, he (or his supporters) needs to tell us where he stands before he gets consideration as a candidate, not afterward. Why should he be held to a different standard than the others?

[Junkdrawer]

13. He's not. I want desperately for him to run, but I could imagine voting for...

someone else if he stakes out a position I disagree with. But everything I've seen or heard to date beats the hell out of the ACTIONS of the other candidates. And as I said, he was on the correct side of this thing from DAY ONE i.e. PRIOR to the IWR vote. That counts for a great deal in my book.

Others are saying, "Had I known then what I know now." or "Bush/Cheney lied to me, so my bad decision has to be excused." Well, Al got it right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. I'd like to hear a clear and definitive statement from him if he runs.

I'd like to see him run. But, I'd have to know more about what his policy would be re: Iraq and the whole region.

And, much more.