?

Log in

No account? Create an account
hipstamirror

!

I thought that he wasn't going to decide until "after the holidays," but Al Gore says he won't run in 2004.

It feels to me like a sign that Bush will be president until 2008.

Comments

I don't think you should be so negative.
although i do remember that you've wanted al gore to be president since, like, 1975.
It was 1988.

And it actually wasn't a constant wanting him to be president. I pretty much forgot about him after the primary that year.

I feel like he's not running now because he doesn't think that any Democrat can win in 2004. If the guy who got half a million more votes that Bush doesn't have a chance, things don't look great for the party.
Well, i knew it wasn't 1975 (since you weren't born yet) but I thought gross overestimation was better than just getting it wrong.
yeah, I only remembered what year it was after reading that AP story on Salon.
i think in part he's doing it because he believes he'll have a better shot in 2008. damnation
me too.

It will be kind of funny if it's another Massachusetts liberal (Kerry) vs. a George Bush election.

i think last nights SNL would've secured him a run for the presidency

I think better candidates than Al Gore will rise up throughout the year. It may seem bleak right now.. but once the DNC finds their candidate or two that seems most able to challenge the Bush ticket they will inject the media with information galore to make the candidate well known/loved by their population. Of course the candidates' toughest job is to convince the moderates (leaning left or right) why they should not vote for Bush. Al Gore was more of a moderate than Bill Bradley, but he was not a people-person and moderate like Clinton.

I'm interested in seeing who's on the VP ticket for Bush in 2004. If Powell replaces Cheney.. then yeah.. 2008. Of course, (afaic) it's in the best interest of the country that Powell serve as the secretary of state.

Re: i think last nights SNL would've secured him a run for the presidency

Yeah. I really wish that I'd taped Gore's SNL.

A big Democratic field complicates things---both in terms of message and money. In the last election, candidates couldn't decide whether to run with Bush or against him. Kerry seems to have a good idea: running from the left and right. Using the word "security" in every possible context (which seems annoying, but also was useful in 2002).

The republicans (a.k.a. vast right-wing conspiracy :P ) settled on GWB and started putting their cash together very early. They really weren't happy with McCain running.

Re: i think last nights SNL would've secured him a run for the presidency

As a moderate (leaning more to the right).. I thought McCain would've been the most intelligent candidate in office (across all party lines). He also seemed to be the only candidate out there that wasn't 'pupetted' by a party.

idiocy vs. imbecility

Maybe there will be a major battle between Bush and LaRouche.
Bush will use his persuasion of old conservatives power against LaRouche's persuasion of stupid student activists power.

(excuse me for the bad grammar and the pokemon influence)

Re: idiocy vs. imbecility

What party is LaRouche, anyway?

Re: idiocy vs. imbecility

I think it's socialist
i disagree. i think gore is spot-on in believing another gore-bush election will be more about 2000 than the idiocy that bush has inflicted upon us since that time.

the cast of potential nominees looks interesting so far (kerry, lieberman, dean, edwards), and is far from complete. clinton came out of nowhere & did pretty well for himself :)

i think a clean start is a good way to go, and makes it possible to find the best candidate. while i feel bad for gore, the dems need to change it up.
you're probably right. the "liberal media" gave-up on Gore long ago (to the point of describing his popular vote winn and electoral loss by Supreme Court as a horrible campaign).

Maybe one of the new people will stand a better chance. However, I have little faith in either of the minority leaders (Daschle or Gephardt) who have been around forever.
quite right on putting quotes around "liberal". truth to say, however, gore probably did lose by his horrible campaigning. overall, it really was the economic coattails that helped him in most swing states. a better job in tennessee and/or west virginia would have nixed florida's importance. i think the west palm beach/supreme court debacle is a separate issue.

losing control of the senate probably cost daschle his best shot. also, politics being what it is, i'm not sure that the dems want a midwestern candidate. regionalism does matter.

gephardt, wisely, seems to have decided he'd much rather be majority leader. i think it's tougher for a representative to become a serious national player without appearing divisive & extreme (gingrich) or still completely unknown to the rest of the country (foley).

i spent a few years in north carolina, and i'm truly confused by edwards pushing it this early. the party of jesse is fading, and edwards could use another term or two before making a run.

kerry is a nice guy, but a massachusetts democrat is hard to sell, regardless of his vietnam background. by announcing a plan to push a bill that would repeal the tax cuts, he is definitely showing a willingness to attack bush
I think Gephardt is going to run. He gave-up being Minority Leader; Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will take over next year.
you're right; completely slipped my mind. i'm skeptical of pelosi being all that different from gephardt when it comes to crafting a party-wide message.

i'll wait on the polling numbers, but i'll bet that gephardt doesn't score high on voter recognition. he's going to have to do a lot of campaigning just so people know who he is & what he stands for. he's not a strong candidate right now.