Gore/Obama '08

[PSUstoekl]

Hello everyone! I just wanted to start a discussion on this topic: If a Gore/Obama ticket ran for office in '08, what would you make of it?

Personally, I think it would bring an era of great hope and credulity back to the executive branch and indeed, to the nation. What say you?

 

[Stunt]

Gore tried and failed to win the election in 2000; why would you nominate a loser? People want a fresh face and without partisan ties.
Obama is that fresh face, but nobody votes for a VP; the VP has to carry a swing state and Obama will not do that for Gore.
Too many similarities to mention; go back to the drawing board.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Nixon was the last loser to actually win afterwards.

Gore could not even carry his home state.

 

[Pabster]

Nah, Gore doesn't stand a chance. He's just blowing smoke looking for some free publicity for his new book.

Obama, I'm still not sure. I am starting to believe he really is a decoy to keep the heat off Billary as much as possible; If not, she's really in trouble.

 

[PSUstoekl]

I'm not sure why you guys are focusing solely on 2000 gore, I'm sure you're aware that a lot has changed in the interim. You'll recall him at the time running mainly on a lockbox of social security while Bush countered with "compassionate conservatism". The rules of the game have changed substantially, and I'd think his odds of running on a platform of "pragmatic leadership" would stand up well, particularly with the new celebrity he's achieved.

 

[techs]

Campaign slogan for Gore/Obama '08
"We can't do any worse than Bush/Cheney"

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: techs
Campaign slogan for Gore/Obama '08
"We can't do any worse than Bush/Cheney"

Now see, that's a campaign slogan I'd vote on.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: techs
Campaign slogan for Gore/Obama '08
"We can't do any worse than Bush/Cheney"

That is what should have been used in '04

Will not work in 08 - implies that the Dems had to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Gore tried and failed to win the election in 2000; why would you nominate a loser? People want a fresh face and without partisan ties.
Obama is that fresh face, but nobody votes for a VP; the VP has to carry a swing state and Obama will not do that for Gore.
Too many similarities to mention; go back to the drawing board.

Why do you care about Democratic candidates/combos in the U.S. anyway?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: techs
Campaign slogan for Gore/Obama '08
"We can't do any worse than Bush/Cheney"

That is what should have been used in 06

Will not work in 08 - implies that the Dems had to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

No matter what Democrat ticket emerges this is what you resident Republicans will say anyway.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No matter what Democrat ticket emerges this is what you resident Republicans will say anyway.

The truth hurts, eh, Dave? :laugh:

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Gore tried and failed to win the election in 2000; why would you nominate a loser? People want a fresh face and without partisan ties.
Obama is that fresh face, but nobody votes for a VP; the VP has to carry a swing state and Obama will not do that for Gore.
Too many similarities to mention; go back to the drawing board.

Why do you care about Democratic candidates/combos in the U.S. anyway?

I find myself agreeing with Democrats more than Republicans.
At this point I am looking for a non-partisan, fiscally conservative (spending cuts), anti-pork/lobbyists, pro-trade, anti-war, anti-religious right candidates...no matter what party they are from.

Right now I'm keeping my eye on Paul, Richardson, Giuliani, Obama...all for various reasons.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: techs
Campaign slogan for Gore/Obama '08
"We can't do any worse than Bush/Cheney"

That is what should have been used in 06

Will not work in 08 - implies that the Dems had to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

No matter what Democrat ticket emerges this is what you resident Republicans will say anyway.

Says he, the most bi-partisan poster on ATP&N

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Gore won the election in 2000; why would you nominate a winner who most Americans wish had taken office in 2000?

Fixed it.

 

[Dashel]

I cant say I would vote for that ticket, but it would be very interesting to see Gore run.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Stunt
Gore won the election in 2000; why would you nominate a winner who most Americans wish had taken office in 2000?

Fixed it.

Next time Craig tries to pass himself off as a moderate democrat, lets all remember this gem of a post!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Stunt
Gore won the election in 2000; why would you nominate a winner who most Americans wish had taken office in 2000?

Fixed it.

Next time Craig tries to pass himself off as a moderate democrat, lets all remember this gem of a post!

Feel free. You display your confusion with a word like 'moderate' in the topic; the truth is the truth, not an issue of 'moderate'.

The founding fathers who wanted a revolution and new form of government were radicals, not moderates; they are moderates by today's standards now that the society exists.

If I as a liberal by American standards were put into the USSR, I'd be a 'radical' right-winger by those standards.

You need to understand how these things work. You proved not a comma wrong in my post; you are merely regurgitating your opinionated indoctrination.

The fact is, that the intent of the voters in 2000 was thwarted; there is overwhelming evidence that's the case.

As for my second point, Gore won even the official popular vote, among other facts that prove it.

Arguing with posters like you is like shotgunning fish in a barrel; the thing is, the fish don't realize how they've been shot in a message board, and keep on swimming.

In your ignorance, I'd bet you assume that I rushed to an opinion on the 2000 election - because you project your own flaws. The fact is, I assumed the election was legitimate until proven otherwise; I was a skeptic on global warming until proven otherwise, coming to a liberal position years later than many, just as I was 'open-minded' on Iraq and looked for good in the invasion, hesitant to condemn it by recognizing the liberals' flaw that prevented any real action against Saddam.

The fact is, I've put the leg work in to reach an informed opinion on 2000, and it's precisely because I care about the role of the vote in benefitting society that I take so seriously the fact that the most important office in the US was awarded to the loser in the election as a result of not only mistakes but wrongdoing by one party, and why I say so because lazy, ignorant sheep who accept the well-funded propaganda say things like you do and allow democracy to be stolen.

 

[Corbett]

Searching wikipedia, google, and moveon.org is hardly legwork.

9/11 was an inside job too!

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Searching wikipedia, google, and moveon.org is hardly legwork.

9/11 was an inside job too!

:laugh:

don't forget thinkprogress and crooksandliars to round it out!

 

[ProfJohn]

I think the whole draft Gore movement shows that some parts of the Democratic Party are as unhappy with their choices as the Republicans are.

Look at their choices so far:
1. Edwards, no chance at all.
2. Obama not enough experience.
3. Hillary, too much baggage and too many negatives.

That makes Gore a good choice in the eyes of many. He has the experience, the name, the background etc.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Corbett
Searching wikipedia, google, and moveon.org is hardly legwork.

9/11 was an inside job too!

:laugh:

don't forget thinkprogress and crooksandliars to round it out!

As usual, the idiot right (which is not everyone on the right) makes fools of themselves.

First, not any of my legwork on the issue involves any of the sources above; and second, you did not prove, as you never do, any of your insinuations.

The first shows your foolishness in not basing your positions on the truth but in simply lying; the second, the fundamental absence of any merit to your positions.

What, exactly, would be wrong had some info come Wikipedia, usually reliable and certainly debatable - or, for that matter, Google, which could find YOUR post, and is not a source of information itself, but merely a 'phone book' for looking up the information that is on the internet? You are suggesting that 'crooksandliars' and 'thinkprogress' contain such a high rate of false info that they are proof of whatever is there being wrong, not needing you to actually debate the facts?

What idiocy you two post. It's beneath any need for a substantive response. It's clear you have no interest in the facts of the issue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the whole draft Gore movement shows that some parts of the Democratic Party are as unhappy with their choices as the Republicans are.

Look at their choices so far:
1. Edwards, no chance at all.
2. Obama not enough experience.
3. Hillary, too much baggage and too many negatives.

That makes Gore a good choice in the eyes of many. He has the experience, the name, the background etc.

Edwards is about where Reagan was in 1979; not seen as having a good chance, but increasingly popular and with a constant message people are warming to.

The analogy continues with he and Reagan each having come in second in the previous election's primaries, and each being a good speaker.

Obama has more relevant experience than GWB did.

Hillary has less 'baggage' than the divorced Reagan, than the former chairman of the RNC at the height of watergate and all-around party hack George Bush 41; less than the dodge-drafting supporter of the Viet Nam war, the corporate insider trader, the convicted drunk driver (who used Alberto Gonzales to try to hide the conviction in the campaign) GWB.

 

[ericlp]

I highly doubt Obama would want to run with Gore... Let alone, I doubt obama would want to be vice president. Why not let Obama be president and Gore back as vice president again? That would be kinda strange to have a person get on as vice president twice.

Anyway, Gore said he is not running... So, I think its a very big "IF!" Tho, I'd definetly vote Democrate for the choices for repub are too disgusting... I think macain will get the ticket and he is the biggest loser of them all. Way too much baggage and a slue of negatives....

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the whole draft Gore movement shows that some parts of the Democratic Party are as unhappy with their choices as the Republicans are.

True, but the overwhelming majority are satisfied with Obama/Clinton/Edwards. The right really isn't at all sold on Rudy/McCain/Romney, and frankly the Republican party is splintered and dying. Hopefully a new right will come to be and actually uphold states rights policies and drop the lost cause that is anti-gay marriage.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: techs
Campaign slogan for Gore/Obama '08
"We can't do any worse than Bush/Cheney"

That is what should have been used in 06

Will not work in 08 - implies that the Dems had to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

No matter what Democrat ticket emerges this is what you resident Republicans will say anyway.

well its not like the Republicans won't be in the same boat.