First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:22:27 GMT

I can't believe that Gore wants to be seen as an endorsement loser two times in a row. So Edwards is out in my mind. So Gore would have to decide whether to risk it on Obama. Or he could endorse Clinton and continue his winning streak --- Oscar, Grammy, Nobel, etc.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:23:31 GMT

Gigolo Rudy is an opportunist extrodinaire who is addicted to power and will say anything to get elected. That is why the true 911 heroes like firefighters and police generally despise him. I have a co-worker who was pregnant and survived (worked 2 blocks away) from the towers and feels the same way.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:29:08 GMT

Look at Hillary head to head against the GOPers.

She is killing them. She beats them all in FL, OH, and PA.

Gore want to buck that? I don't think so.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_quinnipiac_flohpa_surveys_3.php

First thoughts: the Goreacle

PJL,Athens, Georgia — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:29:21 GMT

expect rudi to start crit. fred, while all the gop candites continue to pet McCain

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Crystal (Time for change) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:42:35 GMT

Dickie Flatts,

I am continually saddened by your ability to be mislead by the media. Now you are free to support who you want to support, but in doing so you must ask questions. For one, if I was a Hillary supporter, I would wonder, why is Gore not willing to support her? Why has him and Bill severed their relationship? Gore supported Dean before it was much talk about his Global Warming initiative, you better bet your bottom dollar, if GORE comes out and support Obama, it will be a end to the Clinton-Bush dynasty as you know it!!!!!
It is okay to support a candidate that you agree with on the issues but it is like you are just supporting her because she is a woman and thus making up excuses and reasons to agree with her on issues you know are nonsensical!!!!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dan G., Pensacola, FL — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:49:13 GMT

Juan continues to fear the G-man. No Juan you can't have any of his dresses.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Gary, Franklin, WI — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:58:14 GMT

I am leaning toward Hillary, but want Al Gore to think seriously about running. Why? Because there is to much at stake in 2008 for him to ignor it. (Iraq, health care, Supreme Court, etc.). Adding the Nobel Peace Prize to his list of personal achievements would be helpful, but is not critical to a Gore candidacy. On the other hand, we don't need a Democratic version of Fred Thompson. The clock is ticking. Gore should run only if up to date on the issues. That is the inconvenient truth for Decision 2008.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:01:00 GMT

Crystal - Please point me to where Dickie has touted Hillary's gender as the sole reason for supporting her. Thanks.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

bb — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:07:51 GMT

Dan, I think you mean the G-string man, Mr Guiliani. And Crystal, if Gore backed Obama absolutely nobody would care except yourelf and perhaps 5 other people, really.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

RH Oregon — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:09:19 GMT

and will say he wants to judge the performance of doctors. But how important is health care to GOP voters?

Just so long as it isn't HillBillary HealthCare!!!!!!!

Here is an excerpt from an article today.

Canada's socialized health care system, hailed as a model by Michael Moore in his documentary, "Sicko," is hurting, government officials admit, citing not enough money for more equipment and staff to handle high risk births.

Sarah Plank, a spokeswoman for the British Columbia Ministry of Health, said a spike in high risk and premature births coupled with the lack of trained nurses prompted the surge in mothers heading across the border for better care.

"The number of transfers in previous years has been quite low," Plank told FOXNews.com. "Before this recent spike we went for more than a year with no transfers to the U.S., so this is something that is happening in other provinces as well."

Critics say these border crossings highlight the dangers of a government-run health care system.

"The Canadian healthcare system has used the United States as a safety net for years," said Michael Turner of the Cato Institute. "In fact, overall about one out of every seven Canadian physicians sends someone to the United States every year for treatment."

Yes, this comes from foxnews.com, and no that does not make it wrong or irrelevant.
The government has a place helping the poor and needy. It does not have a place running the whole system. We do not need or want government run socialized medicine. Keep programs like SCHIPS for the needy not the greedy. Poverty level help only.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

AOWaytogoOhio — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:11:56 GMT

Now we're calling Rudy the G-man? Is that gross, or garbage, or grand dame(in drag)? Rudy is a joke.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:14:07 GMT

Al is enjoying his life now in a way he never did in politics, and it shows. He has a, "bully pulpit", for his cause and has a freedom to speak out on the issue that he never could as a candidate for office.
I have always liked and admired Al, and I respect what he is doing with his life. When he endorses someone, he will help that candidate, but his endorsement won't mean any more than it did for the recipient than it did last election.
Let's hope that he wins that Nobel today!

Van

First thoughts: the Goreacle

kim, crofton, md — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:15:02 GMT

Gore will be flattered by all of the attention, but I doubt if he will be enticed to run again. He's not going to take on the Clinton machine, and is at his best as a pedantic proponent of his cause because he sincerely believes in it,not as a campaigner. He was stiff in 2000, and would quickly revert to his former self, were he to enter the race. I think he probably still has the ambition for our highest office, but is wise enough to realize that the 2000 defeat almost destroyed him, and not want a repeat. This way, he'll go down in history as our most successful loser! While W stares down the barrel of a dismal legacy, full of his failures and lost opportunities, Gore will be seen as a brilliant prognosticator, who was right about the most important issues of our time: Iraq, and global warming. If he wins tomorrow he will acquire a new stature, and not just be remembered as the man who lost in 2000 to the weakest president in modern times. Our country still needs Gore, so I hope he remains on the public scene for a long time.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Susan, Miami — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:16:28 GMT

Hey Crystal, Gore is very happy being the global warming guy and would never even accept this offer to possibly lose again. Secondly, everyone knows that the Gores and Clintons didn't get along very well for quite some time, who cares? Thirdly, Gores endorsement of Obama is akin to Oprah backing him. So what?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Crystal (Time for change) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:21:30 GMT

Gary,

If you would prefer Gore over Clinton, then you should not vote for Clinton if Gore does not run!! The two are polar opposites and Gore seems to think that the Clintons can not be trusted, so if he believes this and was close to them, why should the American people who are at a distance to them think any differently or at least not question it enough to get informed?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa

Dickie Flatts has said in previous posts how a woman president will bring about change, blah blah blah. But Carrie no need to get defensive, you and Dickie should appreciate the challenge? If someone challenged me on the support of my candidate I would be able to point out distinctive policy differences between the candidate I support and the candidates that I am against (and also know similiarities as well). I know how the candidate that I support has voted on issues, how that candidate has also did things in the community without initiative to show me that that is truly what they believe in so that I know it wasn't just simply done for political reasons, etc.

I am very open to a back and forth debate on the issues, but to tout polls and media blurbs of support are meaningless if that candidate doesn't align with what is good for you, your children, and the country as a whole. We can debate all day but at the end of the day we will sink or swam together. I just want to make sure that those who are voting for a candidate are looking beyond gender and race, but really at the issues b/c your vote for the WRONG candidate for the WRONG reason, may be the cause of my son getting sent off to fight a war in IRAN or me not having Social Security when I am ready to retire?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dan G., Pensacola, FL — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:26:21 GMT

Why do all the GLBT types fixate on the G-man's attire? They not only fear him, but also are jealous. Rudy will slay the Hillary beast.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:27:09 GMT

Dan G-If I ever do decide to go drag I would be a hell alot better looking than him. I also do not talk with a lisp.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

djcercone — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:27:43 GMT

Gore is Gore, with a phoney cause, like music CDs that were bad lyrics, sexy covers and other things that exist m today, much,much worse than before Gore slammed them.
Ah, the same people have awarded Gores cartoon and the socialists will give him a peace award, however Gore is the same hollow suit, a larger than ever suit.
No matter what he says, how he says it,where he says it, its still a cow paddy in a tuxedo, walking down the red carpet on his way to marxville on Rodeo drive.
It never changes with these lefty loosers. All of them, any of them including broomhilda, with the cigar an all giving Bill another chance at dipping his cigar in some loose star struck girl, or perhaps he will take her by force, you can never tell about these peace loving liberal democrats.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Blue state baby — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:29:55 GMT

juan, You are right. Rudy wants people to look at him as the 911 hero. The real rank and file fire fighters know what he is really like and can't stand him. Rudy is a power hungry egotistical man, just like bush and cheney.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Pat, Huntington, NY — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:36:19 GMT

djcercone says that Gore has a phony cause? REally? The fact that the artic ice cap has almost completley melted doesn't scare you? Did you know that will exponentially speed up the melting of the land based ice on Greenland which will increase sea levels to catastropic levels within 20 years! Doesn't it scare you that we are literally cooking ourselves into extinction? Guess not, because like all good naive republicans, you probably have your head in the sand already on the issue. Thank God that we have people liek Gore who are bringing the biggest threat to our existence - Global Warming [not terrorism!] - to the forefront of the debate. People like you will be drowing.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Susan, Miami — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:39:23 GMT

So, Crystal, I have a hypothetical question for you. IF Clinton is the nominee for the dems and Guiliani for the repubs. Who do you plan to vote for? The second part of the question is, if Clinton gets the nomination and Obama then tells his backers to vote democratic(like he probably will), will you vote democratic or republican? The issues differences between the two partys are long and wide. Differences between the dem candidates are comparitively small.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Hanoi Salley, Madison, WI — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:39:27 GMT

How dare you slam the second coming. Al Gore is the savior of the world and will bring peace, love, and a moderate climate to Planet Earth. His blessings, words of wisdom, and emotional speaches are missed by all. Why have the mindless capitalistic pigs shunned him? Bring our Troops home!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Mike K, Denver — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:42:01 GMT

I think you are all forgetting the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The recipients of it are those that have done a lot of good and brought a spotlight to subjects that may have otherwise been swept under the rug--like global warming given this administration's continued a-- kissing of the oil industry. No matter how much it is denied, this is a war about oil.

Gore's winning the Peace Prize will NOT get him in the race. The Clinton machine will absolutely make his life and that of his family a living Hell especially seeing how much of the MSM has already handed her both the Democratic nomination AND the keys to the front door of the White House.

What his victory and subsequent endorsement, likely to Obama, will do is slow Clinton's march to the nomination. People WILL think twice before voting for her. Do they want the "business as usual" that Clinton, even with her continued "change" mantra, brings or do they want to end the dynasty they and the Bushes have been living in? My guess is that the numbers will change if he wins and endorses someone other than Clinton, which is as certain as the sun rising in the east tomorrow. All you have to do to see this is look at the number of people wishing and hoping he'll throw his hat in the ring himself.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Mike K, Denver — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:46:42 GMT

<<Why do all the GLBT types fixate on the G-man's attire? They not only fear him, but also are jealous. Rudy will slay the Hillary beast. >>

Didn't he get his a-- handed to him by Hillary in a Senate race already? Have you looked at the head-to-head numbers already? They look almost identical now to what they did back then. While I certainly don't want her to win, I trust her a little more than I trust a man that didn't think to take the advice of his own people and move his emergency services offices out of the Trade Centers before they were turned into holes in the ground. That just sounds a little too Dubya-esque for me, personally.

His entire campaing can be summed up like this "Vote for me. I was mayor of New York on September 11th." Big whoop!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

My good neighbor, Al Knoxville, TN — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:46:54 GMT

Oh, hell yes, let's bring back the bullfrog in a barrel, the empty suit receiving meaningless accolades from incestuous imbeciles, and the fool-on-the-hill Al. Let the dam* fool bathe in the lemon-lime light of his newly found niche as global heating blanket as such a cover provides him his much needed face saving comfort. What an arctic puffin!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

F StLouis — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:47:56 GMT

Ah, oh yea Dan I'm jealous of the girly man...like I want to dress in drag all the time? It's odd that a real man would want to do this, maybe once in a lifetime(I haven't even once and had no desire)but 4 times? There is something wrong with this guy.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

kim, crofton md — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:51:25 GMT

djcercone- Stop channeling Rush and Sean and think for yourself. Attack Gore's ideas with facts, instead of attacking the man himself. If you are even capable of it. Your comment is typical of the right's increasing tendency to smear anything that they can't honestly debate with facts. Gore has accomplished more in a year than most on the right do in their entire lives-yet all you can do is knock him down.Tomorrow this great American will recieve an award that he richly deserves. Admit it, you are just spouting sour grapes!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dutch Schenectady NY — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:51:52 GMT

Look the Goracle is old news - at least as a force in the Democratic party. He's also famous now and does not need to crown the next dem presidential candidate - but he probably cannot help himself - and he'll probably be wrong - again. That said, Obama has to step it up in these debates and Edwards has to step out - my bet Hillary w/Richardson as the Veep.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

sonya, atlanta, ga — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:35 GMT

The draft gore people only raised a couple of hundred of thousands and are a small group unlike Thompson supportors who raised millions even before he declared. So I don't see this having an effect on Obama or Edwards. Its more to do with unfullied dreams, since gore won in 2000. And Chuck we have your pro hillary number.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

DickieFlatts, Charlotte, NC — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:03:45 GMT

Parties back the candidate they think best serves them in the general. The Republicans think it is Tootsie. The numbers say he loses by the least.

The Democrats will pick Clinton. She wins by the most. Look at the numbers and forget the media.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Jessica, Wisconsin — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:05:12 GMT

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Ron Vancouver, B.C. — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:06:37 GMT

Let's not forget Gore gets $100,000 per lecture. If he gets Nobel I'm sure that'll increase. Is he ready to give that up?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dan G., Pensacola, FL — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:13:57 GMT

Oh see how they tremble when they hear the G-man is coming. They fear his ability to reason, think on his feet, and oppose the Muslim threat. They seek his cloths for their own wardrobe and admire his ability to slap the Hillary Beast. I'm sorry but childish names and false claims will not keep the G-man from slapping down the DEMS in 08.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

RH Oregon — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:15:04 GMT

The HillBillary campaign probably would love to have Al in the race. It would pull votes from Edwards and Obama for the primary. Then she and the chinese mafia could move on to the White House.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Sniffingfacts — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:15:27 GMT

Blue state baby, And you don't think Cinton isn't a power hungry egotistical "man", just like bush and cheney? Facts? How about she moves to NY, a place she has never lived in her life, and declares herself a candidate "from NY". She knew she'd never win in her own home state of Arkansas so the power hungry woman goes to NY where she knows, because of blue NYC, she will win. And I LIVED in NYC for 16 years so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I was ashamed at NY'ers not having the courage to at least vote, republican or democrat, for one of their own.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Union Baby, Tennessee — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:16:43 GMT

I have to tell you that Global warming has been a cause of Al's for longer than most on this blog have been able to type. I was vice-mayor of my very small home town back in the 80's, Al was the JR. senator from Tennessee, we had a company that was polluting the air every night after the rest of us went to bed, a nurse called me one day and said she saw and smelled it on her way home from her late evening shift. The next night I met with her and she was correct. I phoned my congressman, the very crooked repugnant Don Sundquist, got no response what so ever, talked with everyone I could, finally decided to give Senator Gore's office a call. He called me back, then came to a special called town hall meeting. And within 3 months that plant shut down and the pollution stopped, we also stopped reporting 4 or 5 newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer (patients who had never smoked a day in their lives) on a regular basis. Before that company got shut down they were also dumping toxic waste in our county landfill and our county is being rightly sued by cancer patients. Al is still my hero, regardless of what the right wingnuts want to say, he is the real deal, knows his stuff, and if you ever interact with him on a personal basis you know there has never been a shrub born that could hold a candle to him - and neither can freddie (know them both - fred is worthless if your town or county need help!). And this company did little for our local economy - they hired almost all exclusively folks from other states and moved them in - all they did was increase the number of kids I had to educate, then they drove to nastyville to shop and I did not even get any tax base money to help educate their spoiled moronic children!
Do what feels right for you Al, you are the best person to run this country, you were the best 8 years ago, and you are the best now, but I sure don't blame you if you don't waste your time cleaning up after all those elephants and slimy shrubs.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

kim, crofton, md — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:17:35 GMT

sonya- that's because the Thompson crowd thought he was the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and the last best hope to save the party's presidential hopes in '08. They knew the GOP base would not vote for a Mormon, a pro-choice candidate and a Senator who sponsored the ill-fated immigration bill. Now that Thompson's out on the political scene, he's revealing that he's not Reagan, and not even Arthur Branch, but a tired-looking dud, whose driving ambition comes from his Republican activist wife.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Crystal (Time for change) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:21:12 GMT

Susan, Miami

If Clinton becomes the nominee for the Democrats I WILL NOT vote for her b/c I do not agree with the way she and her husband has handled issues in the past and continue to do so in the present. And don't get me wrong I was a HUGE supporter of Bill Clinton but I think he made alot of wrong decisions that have subsequently had a huge affect on OUR lives.
*I don't agree with the apathy and indifference that was displayed with respect to the Rwanda massacres. If they would have acted on the knowledge they had it would have saved the lives of 800,000 people.

*I don't agree with how his refusal to get rid of Bin Laden when he knew of his several attacks he had bankrolled the bombing for, if he would have got him when he was cornered it would have saved the lives of those lost to 911. Clinton took no decisive action in retaliation for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 attacks on our embassies in Africa, or the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

*I don't believe with several portions of the Crime bill he enacted and his wife fermently support, given that it has disproportionately affecte 18.5-30 million African-American people.

*I don't agree with how Hillary puts forth plans that has no substance and does not tell how she will follow-through with it. Hillary’s plan would be too financially burdensome for lower-income individuals and families.

*I don't agree with how Hillary flips flops and says whatever is convenient to the audience she is talking to, I just prefer someone who is honest, tell me things that I don't like to hear but at the end of the day I can say, I understand where you are coming from though.

And I can go on and on about reasons why I would not vote for Hillary, but it is based on the record and stance on issues, I don't care how strong she appears at a debate or how she can talk the talk, I need someone who can walk the walk!!!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Ron — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:21:33 GMT

"I think you are all forgetting the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The recipients of it are those that have done a lot of good..." Yes, Mike, you're right. I forgot about all the good Yasir Arafat brought to the world. An extraordinary terrorist, he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. An unmatched embezzler, Arafat looted over $1 billion from his people, most of which came from the good old US of A. In the end, Arafat was not interested in peace, when offered nearly all he had asked for at Camp David in 2000. The "Peace" prize has meant little since it was given to Arafat.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Melvin, NY — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:22:37 GMT

<<Didn't he get his a-- handed to him by Hillary in a Senate race already? >>

RudyG got sick and had to withdraw from the race. Prostate cancer. Hillary got a gimme win to grab her Senate seat. She won't be so fortunate this time around. Her amble a-- will be haned to her this time.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:28:12 GMT

Crystal - With all due respect, it is not up to you to decide if I vote for the right or wrong person, or whether my vote is based on the right or wrong reasons. It is MY vote, to do with as I choose. If I choose to support a candidate because he has a knack for picking out great ties, that is my right. It may be silly and it may not pay respect to the incredible privilege I have in being able to cast my vote, but it is my right to use whatever criteria I want to decide who to support.

At the end of the day, it is MY decision to make regarding who best represents me. What I value in a candidate may be completely different from what an 80-year-old African American man living in a big city in the south values. (I'm not being racist in that comment - I'm trying to think of someone who is completely opposite of me and an elderly minority male in an urban area in the south fits the bill.) Niether one of us is right or wrong; we place different levels of priority on different things.

As a side note, you should not be worried about how people on a political blog are making their decisions. The people here are legions above the majority of America when it comes to being informed and aware of the issues.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:30:20 GMT

I don't think Gore is going to endorse anyone, frankly...nor does he need to. He is content with his life outside of politics, and he should be; he is able to do work on a cause that he believes in and has been dedicated to for decades, without the intense scrutiny that comes with the life of an active politician. As much as I wish he would return to public office, I can't blame him for choosing not to do so.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

go Gore for a change '08 — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:03 GMT

TO juan,ft lauderdale-
exactly what the hell does that have to do with trying to get Al Gore to run for president?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:32:55 GMT

Obama: It's time to show the differences

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told CNN Thursday he will step up efforts to clarify his differences with rival Hillary Clinton, in what the Illinois senator is calling the "next phase" of his campaign.
"There's no doubt we are moving into a different phase of the campaign," Obama told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview slated to air on The Situation Room later today. "The first part of a campaign is to offer some biography and give people a sense of where I've been and what I am about.
"In this next phase we want to make sure that voters understand that on big issues, like the decision to go into the war in Iraq, I had real differences with the other candidates and that reflects on my judgment," he continued."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

This would seem to be a major departure from his stated strategy. What does this change represent? How will it affect the race? While it is sure to make some of Obama's supporters happy, it is a double-edged sword that can cut both ways.
Do you think he sees Edwards as being out of the picture in Ia., and is looking to pick up his supporters there? What do the Obama supporters here think about this new strategy? Does it mean that we will begin to see negative ads from Barack in Iowa and NH? What will it mean to the democrats if this happens?

Van

First thoughts: the Goreacle

HMT-MI — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:38:35 GMT

Gore needn't step into this viscious race to the top.The election is moving fast and furiously.I have no idea if Hillary will get the nomination but I do know the woman can take a punch.Unlike the crybabies on the right.President Carter spoke out(somebody finally) about Cheney his deferments and love of war and leading Bush around like a horse to water.Of course the infamous Lynn cheney is angry---boo hoo hoo hoo .The way she went after Kerry (phoney anger) made me vomit.These people in this administration cannot be gone fast enough---

First thoughts: the Goreacle

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:53:41 GMT

I have voted since I was 18 and I have always voted for the democrats but I really don't think I can vote for Hillary. I'm not sure what I will do if she gets the nomination - stay home maybe. Who knows, maybe there will be a good 3rd party candidate.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:05 AM)

Why can't you vote for Hillary? I'm sure that a decision that could lead to another term of republican rule must be based on some strong feelings, and strong feelings politically are usually based on some facts.
What, specifically, has Clinton done, or not done, that would make her, and ONLY her, unworthy of your vote? What would make any republican's election preferable to this one democrat?
I'm sure you have your reasons...

Van

First thoughts: the Goreacle

kim, crofton, md — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:55:16 GMT

If he's successful and happy doing what he's doing, why should he give it up to involve himself in a bruising battle with the Clintons? I have no doubt that many who voted for George Bush in 2000 have had a chance to regret it, but Gore knows he can't go back in time. The Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land, and while you can disagree with their decision, it still stands. Gore has had to live with the fact that he was denied a state-wide recount, yet still made the best of it by finding a new, important, international role for himself.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Jeff, Minneapolis — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:59:40 GMT

Embarrassing

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Desperate, OP KS — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:00:21 GMT

I am a ridiculously liberal person and I will vote Ron Paul before I vote Hillary. Edwards and Obama need to make her Bush Lite reality stick. The only way that liberals lose this election is if Hillary wins and there is an anti-war third party candidate e.g. Paul or Hagel. If it wasn't for MSNBC and the Chuck Todds of the world aggressively promoting the Hillary candidacy she'd be running a distant fourth or fifth probably somewhere behind Biden with poll numbers in the Lieberman range when he ran in 2004. She's a hawk, she sucks, and if she wins the primary I'm not voting for her.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

larlex — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:04:01 GMT

Gore cant beat Rudy or Rommney because he is a phony.Most people who have lived 50 years and heard alarms before dont think global Warming is an issue and they have read all the articles. Terror is the issue and the dems dont know how to deal with it and particularly Gore doesnt. He is a wimp, a beta man, you wouldnt want him to take a hill with you. he doesnt have it and nobody cares about the Nobel prize. its phony put out by flaming liberals who love the UN. We were going to freeze, run out of commodities, be overpopulate, run out fo food. All these alarms came over the last 30 years and none of them were true and this one isnt either.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Bill C. — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:05:49 GMT

Lookie here...hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:07:12 GMT

Why is Hillary "polarizing"? Because Sean Insahannity or El Lushbo says she is polarizing? I say IT IS THEM THAT ARE POLARIZING, not Clinton.

Clinton is simply a solid Democrat and there is nothing polarizing about that.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

kim, crofton , md — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:13:28 GMT

Desperate- As a liberal you should prepare for the eventuality that as president, Ron Paul would take every available step to remove the government from having any effect on our lives. That could mean closing down depts like the IRS, EPA and Dept of Education. Most progressives favor SCHIP, but that goes against Paul's libertarian ideology, so he'd have to veto it. While Paul's adherence to the Constitution, and noninterventionist foreign policy may make a lot of sense, you have to also take into account that he would want to do away with entitlement spending in programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which all enable vulnerable Americans to lead lives of dignity.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dan G., Pensacola, FL — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:13:28 GMT

Hillary will smash her Democratic opponents and steel the nomination only to be slapped down by the G-man. Go Rudy, kill the Beast!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

pat, huntington, ny — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:13:29 GMT

larlex - the problem with your thesis is that the effects of global warming ARE now, they are real, and they will escalate exponentially over the next 20 years.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Republican Voter — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:15:26 GMT

Dick & Duffus:

Hillary is polarizing and I thank God she is!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Gary, Franklin, WI — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:18:04 GMT

Crystal,

Politics is the art of compromise and the art of the possible. When elected officials forget or ignor that, they get low approval ratings and general distain among the American electorate (does Dubya come to mind?)!!!

Whether or not Clinton and Gore are personal friends is not important. What is important is that either candidate, coming from different perspectives or styles, is what the nation needs after Bush/Cheney and the threats to safety, security, and privacy that will be the Bush/Cheney legacy.

Like many, I doubt Al Gore will enter the 2008 race. The main point in my initial message was that Gore should think seriously about it one more time after Friday, but consider it only if ready to discuss all issues, not just those (like global warming) he has been involved with recently.

Clinton, Gore, Obama, or Edwards would each be far better for the nation, and each of us individually, than Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, or Romney!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

GAB, Austin, TX — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:19:24 GMT

While I am not giving an opinion about the health care issue between the U.S. and Canada, these statistics are interesting:

Country Infant mortality Life expectancy2
Canada 4.6 80.3
United States 6.4 78.0

The United States had one of the highest mortality rates in the West. Some South Americn countries were higher, a couple of Eastern European countries were higher.
The lowest life expectancy at 39.5 years was Zimbabwe.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Looking for the Truth — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:19:26 GMT

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Georghina Ingold, Pittsburgh PA. — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:33:50 GMT

What ever canidate is chosen has choice as to how he or she will serve the people and the people need to get what ever information that they feel will give them a better insite and perspective to make an informed choice. Thinking with the heart and feeling with the mind will help us all to make the best choice we can , God or Universe or what ever you call your Higher Power is in the details.

Much Love,Light,Laughter, Joy and Peace

Ghina

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Georghina Ingold, Pittsburgh PA. — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:35:24 GMT

First thoughts: the Goreacle

kim, crofton, md — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:37:03 GMT

larlex- The international scientific community has come to a consensus about global warming. The rest of the world-excluding countries like China and Iran have acknowledged it is real and are taking steps to deal with it. Of course the president of Iran still thinks the holocaust was an exaggeration and that homosexuality doesn't exist either. That puts you in good company, doesn't it? Even President Bush, after years of suppressing US government scientists, now admits he believes in it (as he did in 2000 before his generous corporate donors induced him to take the denial position)

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Crystal (Time for Change) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:38:06 GMT

Carrie---"It is MY vote, to do with as I choose. If I choose to support a candidate because he has a knack for picking out great ties, that is my right."

You are absolutely right but I am not here to persuade you one way or the other, but I would hope that I can bring light to issues that are overlooked in someone's uninformed decision to vote for a candidate. You have the right to do what you want but if I know that if you flick a switch, we both will die, then I am going to do everything in my power to convince/stop you from flicking the switch. Your vote is just as important as mine and I am just saying that I hope it would be one based on knowing the issues, knowing the candidate's and opponents stance on issues, and know how they have acted in the past. As I will continue to say, at the end of the day we all will sink or swam together!!

Van-You can't have it both ways. Really, if Obama says how his point of view is different from Hillary, how is that attacking her, he is just stating facts. "I like green, she likes orange" that is not attacking her, I mean really that strategy is one of the reasons why I don't support Hillary, things like that is ridiculous, they just want him to not say how his plans/ideas are better than hers.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Nicholas Carroll, Portland OR — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:40:15 GMT

People are acting as if Gore has a lock on the Nobel Peace Prize...but as much as I would like to see him win one, I think the Buddhist Monks of Burma are more deserving of it and awarding them the prize might help their cause tremendously. What's going on in Burma is something the world should support and get involved in. If the Burmese monks are awarded the prize, that's not to say that Gore won't ever get it. After all Jimmy Carter was nominated for years before he finally got his in 2002. Last year's winner, Muhammad Yunnus (sp?) has been doing microlending for at least a decade before getting the award. Global warming isn't going to go away anytime soon. So, if not this year, perhaps the next or some future date. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the committee went with the Buddhist monks to send a message to the military junta that rules Burma. Some say that the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize to Aung San Suu Kyi has probably saved her life from being killed by the regime all these years.

Unfortunately, if Gore is passed over this year in favour of the monks, I can hear the gloating on the right, especially by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who had his own organization nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, there's no chance in hell that he'd ever win one but we'll never hear the end of it if Gore doesn't win this year.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Lura, Philadlephia, PA — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:42:35 GMT

I doubt Al Gore would endorse Barack Obama as Obama is promoting the devlopment of more nuclear energy as part of his energy plan. Hillary Clinton won't take nuclear energy off the table, and John Edwards is the only candidate to say absolutely "NO" to the development of more nuclear energy.

Proponents who are now calling Nuclear Power clean are “cherry-picking the data” by conspicuously omitting any mention of plutonium as one of the waste products, produced in quantity, by nuclear power plant reactors. Prior to 1940, plutonium occurred naturally only in trace amounts in the immediate vicinity of naturally decaying uranium. Within 20 years of Nuclear Power Proliferation, plutonium existed in quantities of hundreds of tons on the planet.

According to the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", a massive compendium of much of the known data for the elements and chemical compounds, "The maximum permissible body burden, or the amount that can be maintained indefinitely in an adult without producing significant body injury, is 0.06 micrograms (.0000021 oz). Plutonium (Pu), therefore, is one of the most dangerous poisons known." Also worth noting is that the half-life of Pu (time for half the mass to disintegrate) is 24,360 years.

And all this refers only to chemical and radiological toxicity. This does not include the significant fact that Plutonium can also be made to reach a critical mass as demonstrated by the Nagasaki bomb which was Plutonium based (Hiroshima was a Uranium based bomb).

No containment method, including burying in mountains, even if we assume no breech, such as earthquakes or other explosions, can be expected to last for more than a few centuries before leeching out into the environment.

“Contrary to the claims of its proponents, nuclear power is not only tremendously expensive, but also very dirty and highly dangerous — producing thousands of tons of long-lived radioactive waste each year, for which there exists no permanent storage facility”. ~ Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.psr.org)

Nuclear Power is most assuredly not a clean energy alternative.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Erin Bennett — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:49:29 GMT

pat, huntington, ny--> larlex --> the problem with your thesis is that the effects of global warming ARE now, they are real, and they will escalate exponentially over the next 20 years.

You know this how? You know that man can change this how? You know that, 30 years ago, "scientists" predicted a global COOLING. You know that for the last 2 years "scientists" predicted record numbers of CAT4 and CAT5 hurricanes. Where are these hurricanes? How can "scientists" who cannot even get it right for the short term, be trusted for getting it right for the long term? If Hillary, Al, or Bingo-Brain for that matter, gets into office, what will they do to "stop" global warming? How will we know that what they are doing is working? How long will it take? How much will it cost? Who will pay?

If you are honest, you will answer "I don't know" to each of these questions. Any one that says they have answers other then that to these questions is either ignorant or is lying. And if you answer "I don't know" to these questions, then why are all these politicans telling us they know how to "fix" a problem that we don't even know exists?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

nuanced — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:58:44 GMT

What, nobody wants to discuss McCain's health care plan, first among the Republican candidates? My thought -- what is it Republicans who propose tax credits as the solution to everything? Does McCain realize or even care that the poor do not pay taxes and therefore a tax credit will do diddly-squat to help them pay for health insurance? Is he writing off 25% of America as being unworthy of health care? What is the chance that the other Republican candidates will have a better plan or any plan?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Class Warrior, D.C. — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:00:59 GMT

Although I don't think Gore wants to be part of this messy,dirty election coming up---nor would he want to fix the messy, dirty state of the country and world The Emperor Chimp has left us---I'd like to see him rise up and claim tha presidency that was stolen from him in '00. If Gore ran, Hilarity would be in SERIOUS doo-doo!! So would Julie the Gigolo.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Lyn, MD — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:11:24 GMT

This would seem to be a major departure from his stated strategy. What does this change represent? How will it affect the race? While it is sure to make some of Obama's supporters happy, it is a double-edged sword that can cut both ways

Back to disagreeing again...I like this position better (smile)

Pointing out policy differences is very different from personal attacks. If he had wanted to do personal attacks...when she called him niave, he could of said Naive is believing that your husband isn't sleeping with a White House interin when all of the evidence pointed to the contary and when he had a history of doing just that.... instead he ponted to their policy differences with voting for the war( Republicans won't be as nice). Bad Judgement goes way back, professional and personal.

Big difference. The politics of 'Hope'...I hope that the American people wake up

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Another half-educated Bush supporter — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:11:51 GMT

"It never changes with these lefty loosers."

Yes, they are too "loose," but you're no "looser"! u r smrt n thay r dum!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Rich, Portsmouth, NH — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:12:16 GMT

Al Gore has come out of the shadows as a reincarnated private citizen with a cause and a message. Outside the political arena, Al has rallied the world and the US around the Global Warming problem. Voters, including myself,love a front runner with a message and a mission that includes facts and the voices of the scientific community. After attending his movie, "An inconvenient Truth", and learning of his nomination for the Noble Peace Prize for his efforts, I am convinced that Al Gore has come of age and is prepared to lead the US into a time of global uncertainty. Taking a hiatus from politics, Al took his political shower and I believe is clean of the DC influence peddlers so many of the candidates have been exposed too. I equate Al Gore joining the Democratic race to "Big Poppy"-Dave Ortiz coming to the plate and hitting the winning home run, and like the Red Sox, the US and the world become winners.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:13:16 GMT

Al Gore polls at 10 - 15% when he runs around telling anyone who will listen that he ISN'T GOING TO RUN. If he were to announce a candidacy it would completely change the primary math for all of the top tier Dems. I don't hold out much hope for a Gore candidacy (although he is my prefered choice if I were in charge of the world) but if he gets in, watch out!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Theresa K — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:16:07 GMT

If Hillary wins the nomination I won't be voting unless there is a good third party candidate.

She voted for the dang war and just recently she voted in naming the guard in Iran as terrorists. What the heck, trying to get them even more angry with the US?

I support our troops and I want the candidates to support them as well. Supporting the troops means BRING THEM HOME NOW!

Quit funding the war that isn't solving anything. The US is an occupier in a country that doesn't want to be occupied. Can't blame them there.

Bush has so many countries hating the US now it's pathetic.

We need someone good in office, not Clinton.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Jeep, Western Colorado — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:25:43 GMT

Al Gore knows that he will remain popular ONLY as long as he doesn't run for office again, because then his faults would also be laid bare.

The sad part with Hillary is that it would be terrible for the country to have both Presidents Clinton impeached!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

bb — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:29:48 GMT

Hillary will beat the girl out of Rudy, and its going to be a landslide. Most republicans are starting to feel this happening already. Thats why they are sounding so desparate. Too bad repubs, you're going to lose. THE ABSOLUTE worst thing that can happen to a repub. LOSE!!!!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Shayla — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:29:53 GMT

I am a longtime lurker and occasional poster. I read Jessica's mention about how she would perhaps stay home if Hillary Clinton is the Democratice Nominee. I cannot bring myself to vote for her either. She is a true "carpetbagger" in NY. Frankly I want to know what policies (besides healthcare)she helped shape as First Lady. Right now it's looking like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me. The funny thing is,a lot of people I know are saying the same thing as me and Jessica...can't vote for Hillary but who else? I really like Obama's hope platform, but hope is build on honesty with where you are currently at and he won't head-on go after her....so I am hoping that Gore can make those arguments for him or even for Edwards.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

kurtinct, New Haven, CT — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:30:05 GMT

At the risk of giving Crystal and other Fox News blowhards more attention, I feel like I have to remind them, and the rest of us, what the world was like before 9/11. I have heard a growing number of claims that President Clinton’s lack of diligence in pursuing Osama and others in the 1990s is the root cause of all our woes today. Clearly it is true that Americans have a short attention span, and little regard for history. Our government’s actions in the Middle East over many decades have had a cumulative effect and cumulative consequences.

Our government was responsible for training, arming and supporting these people long before President Clinton took office. Regan/Bush knowingly armed and trained Osama. We as a Nation continue to support our enemies with our continued lust for oil. But let’s think about where our nations collective psyche was in the 90s. Does anyone remember the republican outcry when Clinton launched several missile attacks on foreign soil? They were incensed that he would potentially provoke another sovereign nation to accomplish what was essentially a law enforcement action. Nobody was encouraging him to contenting launching strikes…NOBODY. His only mistake was missing. And really, did HE miss, or did the men on the ground that physically took part in the mission? I could go on and on, but short attention spans have already caused some readers to move on.

The point I am making is that when Clinton took any offensive actions against enemies, he was criticized and lacked the support to engage in a full scale assault. Let me also remind those who would question Clinton’s tactics that republicans also said we could not win a war without sending in ground troops. Even then, republicans were itching for war. Only in that case it was Bosnia. What happened there? Our objectives were met, and we didn’t lose a single American on the ground. Things in Bosnia are not perfect, but the killing has stopped, and it was all accomplished by a sustained bombing campaign.

Clinton knew that invading Iraq would only empower Iran and destabilize the region and the balance of power. So did Bush Sr. When are we going to learn that there are other ways to solve our problems, and war is the last thing the human race needs. It is not the planet that is in danger, it is the people who are.

Crystal, you and others can continue to support using force to get what we want while you also support our enemies with your addiction to their oil. That is the definition of a perpetual war. Who is REALLY benefiting from this? If that policy is better than those of Clinton, then why have so many thousands of Americans been killed? Why have hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and others been killed on top of that? And why has the gas mileage in most of the new vehicles on the market since 2001 declined so significantly? Why? Who benefits? Who?

We are stuck in it now. What we need is someone with the intellect and foresight to LEAD us into a better future, not tell us that our problems are to complicated to solve without force. I for one cannot wait to get back to a Clintonion way of doing things…whether the candidate is Hillary Clinton or Al Gore. I believe both are well suited for the job.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:32:19 GMT

Hillary is way smarter than Rudy Tutti, the phoney mafioso man.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

OutWest, Canyon Country, CA — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:32:40 GMT

To the Self-Rightous, primarily the "I will not vote for Hillary" self-rightous. I remember you from 2000 you voted for Nader or didn't vote. How did that work out.
We have a flawed system that is still better than any other, but this flawed system still requires you to vote and vote as if you have common sense. There is no "Second Coming" perfect person that will ever run for President of the USA. You go to the polls and vote for who you most agree with and who realistically will be voted into office.
As for me I would love to have Gore on the ballot but if he is not there are several canidates I can vote for in the primary and vote for in the general election. And yes that include Hillary, but I am on noones band wagon yet.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dan G., Pensacola, FL — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:04:47 GMT

Watch them cackle like a punch of chickens. Oh, how they fear the G-Man. Obama is a do nothing Liberal and Edwards needs to go back to stealing money from litigants and wait for Rudy to beat down the Queen of Socialism, the forked tough Hillary. The Goreacle is a false God.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

bb — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:09:33 GMT

OutWest, very intelligent person. Way to go.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Jaye — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:09:45 GMT

--Larlex-- people who have lived 50 yrs. or more don't think global warming is an issue

Speak for yourself. Plenty of folks over 50 realize the huge catastrophy our planet is facing.

Keep a check on water levels rising, REALLY, more hurricanes as the oceans heat up, REALLY, and more devestating hurricanes, REALLY, more tornadoes--even where they didn't happen-or rarely-before the last 5 yrs, REALLY, check the rising heat waves killing people--HOT where it wasn't HOT before, check the Serious drought in the Southeastern U.S. and elsewhere, REALLY, the number of catastrophic fires increasing every yr, destroying thousands and thousands of acres, REALLY...I am old enough to remember the time we didn't have ANY of these problems of a continuing basis, a growing basis, REALLY.

Even people over 50 are smart enough to see these changes. ummm, WHERE is the polar ice cap going?...over your head?

On another Note:
Sure Romney wants a 2-man fight. Aim more of his $$ in one direction. Doesn't make him a better man for president.

Read Harry Reid's talk to BYU? (Salt Lake Tribune) http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7138640 About how LDS-Mormons are good OBEDIENT FOLLOWERS, but SOMETIMES THEY FOLLOW THE WRONG PERSON DOWN THE WRONG PATH. THIS would be one of those times. I SURELY hope LDS check out Romney's "values, morals, principles, etc." at http://www.massresistance.org "The Romney Deception" ('mass'--as in Massachusetts, where Romney has lived and reigned--allbeit just long enough to jump into the prez.race/'resistance'--as in Conservative stance) AND please check Romney's governmental flops, not just his ability to make himself millions--by putting thousands of Americans out of work. Bush/Cheney are excellent money-makers, too. MBA's and Big Bucks do not guarantee governmental leadership.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

sonya, atlanta, ga — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:16:58 GMT

I will not vote for dumb or dumber. Not this time. I want a person of the highest quality for leadership and it isn't HRC. She will lead us to ruination, and I don't want my hands on any part of it.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

bb — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:17:21 GMT

Oh for Christ sake Crystal, s--- or get off the pot. Please DON'T vote on election day or else you'll be one of those people that hog the voting booth and hold up the line for hours. Whining and sniveling, "oh my! oh woe is me! I can't believe I must choose between Clinton and Giuliani, oh maybe I just will leave and go home, ah ..sniff sniff, oh this is soooo unfair... uh I think I'll write in Nader! No, I just won't vote. Meanwhile there is a line behind Crystal a half mmile long because she can't get off the fence and make a decision.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

F StLouis — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:20:27 GMT

Hey Dan, the G-man thing again? What are you in jr high? Time to grow up Dan and realize that a WOMAN will beat a man for president of the United States. I know thats tough for you.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

SK, NJ — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:21:20 GMT

Larlex - Gore a phony? Global Warning not an issue? I just dont get it. It's scientifically proven. What are you reading that proves otherwise? I would hope that most poeple would feel some responsibility to their children and their grandchildren to get serious about the future of the planet. Are we so selfish that we care about nothing but cheap gasoline.
It is sad that some Americans think that terror is the one and only issue. It is proof that this shameful administration has brainwashed people for 6 long years into believing that they are the only ones "saving" us from terrorism. In fact, their inane foreign policy has done nothing but to ensure that we will be facing more terrorism in the future.
I was there on 9/11 and I can tell you that I feel less safe today than I did the day after the attacks. All the Republicans have done is waste billions of dollars on a war in Iraq that is fueling hate and distrust, guaranteeing future generations of suicide bombers and 100 years of chaos in the middle east. You may be right that the Dems dont know how to deal with it, but the Republicans(or at least the administration) have proven that they dont have a clue either.
I would vote Gore in a heartbeat. I want a person who can think and reason in the Whitehouse.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Pete Caloger Bushkill, PA 18324 — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:27:23 GMT

I try not to engage in personal insults in these posts, but you folks who flat-out dismiss global warming as a hoax are, simply stated, stupid. If there is a shred of truth to the concerns of a majority of those professionals who study this matter, then we are in deep trouble. A serious enough matter to warrant our attention and investigation, to be sure.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Mike, Lee, NH — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:32:04 GMT

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/hillary_gore/2007/10/10/39785.html

If he runs she losees.

Yes, Gore run, man run!!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Mr right winger from Al — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:37:30 GMT

Theresa and Shayla, by all means ladies, don't vote.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

bb — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:39:50 GMT

Hey earth to depsparate, shhhh, lean closer, Hillary is really NOT a hawk but only pretending to be just to get elected....like all the rest of the politicians. Are you shocked?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Blue state baby — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:45:31 GMT

If someone has a touph time choosing between Hillary and Rudy, I can't believe they know anything about politics.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Crystal (Time for change) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:47:05 GMT

BB- I know you I am voting for and I know who I am NOT voting for. I review the candidate's stance on the issues, that is all I am saying, I am not on the fence, but I bet the same way I can tell you Clinton's, Obama's and Edwards stance on issues, I can equally tell you Guiliani, Huckabee and Romney stance on the issues b/c for me it is not the PARTY that makes the person, it is the values that the person brings to the party and to what extent their values mimic my own and are in line with my beliefs. So if a devil came dressed up in a suit and didn't stand for anything you was for and said they were a Democrat, and got the nomination, would you vote for them just b/c they are a Democrat?

kurtinct, New Haven, CT-I am strongly against war and I don't have any hatred for Clinton, but he did make some critical mistakes. And you say that he didn't go to war with Iraq b/c of the effect it would have on Iran but his wife surely did authorize the war, so you getting him back in office as the first man doesn't really mean anything?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

bb — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:47:16 GMT

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Susan, Miami — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:52:38 GMT

Exactly blue state, and thats only about 30 percent of the voting population will back Rudy. Those folks have already followed their moron, cracked in the head leader off a cliff.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dan G., Pensacola, FL — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:58:07 GMT

Hey Dan, the G-man thing again? What are you in jr high? Time to grow up Dan and realize that a WOMAN will beat a man for president of the United States. I know thats tough for you.
F StLouis (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:20 PM)

Sorry, they won't be holding the polls open late for extra Democratic and illegal votes this time. F****d in StLouis will have to read the headlines "G-Man captures local votes and wins election" OH, how they fear him.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:58:40 GMT

Crystal - Awfully presumptuous of you to think you know it all, isn't it? You don't have the first clue what I know about the issues, or what anyone knows about the issues for that matter, other than the brief glimpses that you see here.

If you are really concerned about people being uninformed, you are wasting your time on a political blog. Go out in your community - that's where people are tuned out. The people who post here actually choose to read political news and views, which puts them way ahead of the pack compared with most people.

And let me remind you again, simply because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them uninformed. I don't agree with you, but I am far from uninformed. I know exactly what I think on every issue that is important to me, and I know which candidates not only most closely match my own thoughts but which candidates I genuinely like.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

notarightwing whackolikejerry — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:59:25 GMT

my oh my how the right hates the 2000 winner...one thing their boy shrub will never receive is any kind of international award like a nobel prize...he's more likely to receive 20 to life once he doesn't have the protection of the presidency to hide everything...

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Bobbi Fornal, San Francisco, Cal.. — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:00:57 GMT

So our choices for the Democratic party are Obama Bin Laden, Billary, and Bore? No wonder we haven't won an election since our Bilderberger boot licker left office.....

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:01:27 GMT

I don't have any hatred for Clinton, but he did make some critical mistakes. And you say that he didn't go to war with Iraq b/c of the effect it would have on Iran but his wife surely did authorize the war, so you getting him back in office as the first man doesn't really mean anything?
Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:47 PM)

So, Bill and Hillary are now one person?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Lee Holmes — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:06:32 GMT

Mike K. Arafat anyone? So much for ''prestige''

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Richard, Washington State — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:09:13 GMT

What stands out for me regarding Gore was his virtual personal implosion in the aftermath of losing the 2000 election. Even if the election was stolen, which I'm sure will be thrown back my way, he demonstrated a huge inability to deal with a personal setback (crisis), sinking into depression and bitterness. This is not a reaction that instills confidence in the man's ability to deal with a crisis.

His subsequent transformation into a traveling evangementalist for personal gain (getting rich by selling something a certain market segment will buy)is OK with me but his dollars are no purer than anyone else selling something a certain market segment will buy. Like Rush Limbaugh for example.

Nobel peace prize NOMINATIONS are a dime a dozen. There are over 180 so far. Even Limbaugh has one. All you need is to have an organization sympathetic to your cause sponsor you. Rush's nomination might be a bit of a joke, which when you think about it, it's also a statement.

Brother Al has more honor than to stand with Henry Kissinger as a fellow prize-winner anyway, so I expect him to turn it down even if he does win it.

Well anyway, Al's definitely not my messiah and as for the Peace prize, he doesn't have a chance. North Korea has agreed to dismantle their nuke program, so Kim Jong-Il is a shoe-in. Assuming the DNC and Jimmy Carter have gotten the nomination in.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Richard, Washington State — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:13:10 GMT

Wow, Desperate. You really must be desperate if you would vote for Ron Paul. Aside from his anti-war stance he is anything but liberal. If you elect him, you might not have a war but you will have a president who embodies some of the most conservative positions on a variety of issues that you, as a committed liberal, should find abhorrent.

"Ridiculously liberal". That's an interesting turn of phrase when you think about it.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Lisa, Chandler, Arizona — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:13:23 GMT

Comment to RH in Oregon,

I would just like to say that if you are going to cite sources to back up your opinion and expect it to be debated, as well as taken seriously, then it is always recommended that you cite sources from sources on both sides of the isle. The CATO institute, as well as FoxNews are obviously skewed. There's a great place called the Opposing Views center which provides you with both sides of an issue so you can apply critical thinking to your analysis and make up your mind based on facts not simply on one political view. Otherwise, what alternatives would you suggest to our existing healthcare crisis? I hear a lot about why something won't work but not one alternative. McCain finally proposed some solutions that should be reviewed but what what is your suggestion to solving this problem? It's a complex issue that in my mind requires all minds, progressive, conservative, independent, etc. to work together toward a common goal.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Crystal (Time for change) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:15:46 GMT

Carrie,Eastern, Iowa--- I mean really, it is as if you aren't paying attention. You continue to post without answering questions, Sale your candidate Hillary to me? Tell me why I should vote for her? Her stance? That is all I am saying I am not sure what is causing so much sarcasm in your tone. And just b/c people post on this site doesn't mean that they are knowledgeable beyond the bylines of news articles!!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Nottel Ling — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:19:00 GMT

Can itget any more weak than this. You dems are amazing. What losers

First thoughts: the Goreacle

kurtinct, New Haven, CT — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:19:30 GMT

I hear what you're saying, Crystal, about Senator Clinton's vote. This is just another minor MSM and republican distortion that has a huge effect on how people perceive the reality.
The Senator, and her congressional colleagues, voted to authorize the President to use force...they did not vote for war.

Let's not forget how we all felt following 9/11. We were scared and vulnerable. Then anger supplanted the fear, and the country cried out for action against our enemies. In and of itself, letting our enemies know that we as a country would be unified in the event force became necessary was not the mistake. In fact, it was absolutely essential. The mistake lies with how that authority was abused by the President and his republican congress, which offered no oversight. The mistake was how the President and republicans squandered the last great opportunity we may have had in this decade to unite the world in its opposition to terrorism. Now all the world sees is an adolescent country lashing out because of a lack maturity and intellectual prowess. They see a country that allows our Chief Executive to lie our great country into a war with no end.

Fear will once again play a role in our elections. Just wait...something will (be allowed to) happen that will make us afraid once more. Will we learn from the lessons of the current administrations lack of tactics and strategy, or will we fall back into the abyss of fear and division?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

K.H. — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:21:07 GMT

** quoting Ron **
""I think you are all forgetting the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The recipients of it are those that have done a lot of good..." Yes, Mike, you're right. I forgot about all the good Yasir Arafat brought to the world. An extraordinary terrorist, he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. An unmatched embezzler, Arafat looted over $1 billion from his people, most of which came from the good old US of A. In the end, Arafat was not interested in peace, when offered nearly all he had asked for at Camp David in 2000. The "Peace" prize has meant little since it was given to Arafat. "
**

Ron,
While you have a valid point in that Arafat is not exactly someone whom we would expect to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, you should put this into context, when you make such emotional appeals. Although that may make it harder to discredit something you are trying to discredit with little reason and much emotion.(did you have to go through the list of Nobel Peace Laureates to find THE one you could point to in order to say "see, it's allllllll baloney" - ignoring all of the other great names on the list? ) (Mandela was the year before Arafat, et. al.)

The prize was awarded in 1994, jointly to Arafat, the Foreign Minister of Israel, and the Prime Minister of Israel. (Peres and Rabin)

It seems that the prize was awarded to those three men at the time, because they were making what seemed to be an effort to at least introduce diplomacy and talks into the mid-east peace process.

Your post made it seem like those "crazy nobel people just up and decided" that a terrorist should get the nobel peace prize. The context of the prize, shared with the leaders of the country that was needing to negotiate with the leader of the Palestinians, makes the picture a lot more accurate.

It also doesn't diminish the importance and significance of the prize.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Andy , Kansas City, MO — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:26:01 GMT

I have also voted since I was 18. That's since the first Reagan election in 80. My problem has always been that I am a conservative federalist with no one to get behind 100%. I'd like to hope that Fred Thompson, while not the most colorful and charismatic candidate, has some good ideas that will stand up against the big government in my pocket and in my business that has been the norm for the last 30 years.

Notice I said 30 years. That spans Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. I'm tired of being taxed at all levels, state, federal and city in order to support corruption, welfare madness and pork. Before global warming can flood the streets of our coastal cities, we will be at the mercy of foreign powers like China and the European Union (Don't laugh, it's big, getting bigger and has more influence in the world every year). We won't have a Washington DC to go to, as it will be an annex of those foreign powers and no longer responsible to us, but to the international conglomerates that hold the purse strings.

Only by fiscal responsibility will our country survive. We must stop attempting to solve every problem of every citizen in this country by passing a federal law and mandating more money be tossed it's way.
And only by encouraging entrepreneurship in the areas alternative fuels and transportation, along with reduction in other uses of petroleum such as plastics (don't get me started on bottled water and the mess that is) will our government truly be able to pull us up out of the mess we are in and get us out of a need to go to war for oil.

On that topic, I am a veteran of the first war for oil. More importantly in my mind, I was alive during the first oil crisis back in the 70's. I am incensed that EVERY leader of consequence since that time, President, Congressman or Senator, Democrat or Republican, has FAILED to see the significance of the stranglehold the Middle East and other oil producing countries and Big Oil have on our country.

Global warming would be a wacky theory laughed at over coffee in science clubs if we had begun back then to seriously consider the alternatives and get off the oil teat we were so eagerly sucking on even then.

In the end, I will do as I have always done: vote for the least disgusting of the alternatives vomited up for my choice by the the two equally corrupt and bought by the corporations parties.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dot, Illinois — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:27:28 GMT

Theresa and Shayla

Like you I have not decided upon a candidate to support. "Outwest" said it very well--there is no perfect person to run for president, so if the choice comes down to whom I DISLIKE the least as opposed to whom I LIKE the most, so be it. However, I will definitely vote and would encourage you to do the same.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Gore 08' — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:32:13 GMT

Those who do not believe in man-made climate change should be branded and put in concentration camps, every weatherperson who makes the statement "it's not due to global warming" should be shot, and any scientist who doesn't support global warming should have their grants taken from them. Then, maybe, people will get the picture that global warming is because of man. There is no room or time to allow any other view. Bring our troops home!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dan G., Pensacola, FL — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:36:59 GMT

Dan, go back to school and learn how to spell tongue and a host of other words please. She can't have a forked tough(although she is very tough) and what is a punch of chickens? Typical slow minded republican.
bb (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:47 PM)

Sorry about the typos, both my parents were Liberals and the schools in Cuba weren’t that great.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

George, San Antonio — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:41:11 GMT

Undoubtedly, the only thing that nearly 70% of Americans can agree on these days is that the Bush cabal has completely ignored the Constitution as they screwed up everything from their illegal war and its corrupt trappings, the pathetic Katrina response and the privatization of all aspects of our government that could benefit big business. In the process, they have thoroughly destroyed our international image.

That is why the rightist hawks (30%) love his flag waving criminal administration so much. The poor uneducated hawks that love our world bully image and religious right that have been duped into believing that the Republicans are the "righteous" party must open their eyes to reality. The Republicans have shown that they only care how they can capitalize on Middle America and not how they can help.

It may take drafting Al Gore to unite the Democratic Party and to save our nation. If it removes any chance that Republicans can use the negativity that they apply to the Clinton name and the sexist belief that a woman cannot do the job in order to energize their base, I'm all for Al. But if Gore doesn't respond to the call for his service to his country, we should not divide the Democratic base.

It is time for real Americans to work for our country to insure that the criminal acts of the last six years do not escape their deserved accountability and justice. We cannot allow future administrations to sell out to big business and special interests with the impunity and blatant arrogance shown by the Bushies. If it takes voting across party lines or with Hillary because she is the candidate of choice, so be it. Also it is time to think "Purple" instead of red and blue for congressional candidates.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Andy , Kansas City, MO — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:41:26 GMT

Gore 08' (by the way, it should be '08)

Wouldn't it be better just to go ahead and put road blocks on all the major highways that will only allow bicycles through and put all major transportation on rails using solar and wind powered electric motors? Wouldn't it be better if it was possible for me to ride to work on a train instead of driving my fairly economical car every day. That's much better than shooting the poor sucker that does the weather. I would love to take your more severe forms of punishment to the ones who are really at fault though, e.g. anyone who drives an SUV to work all alone from their house in the burbs 45 miles out from the city center and votes against public transportation issues as "ludicrous" and "impossible to put into action" in every local election. There are others, but this is my favorite.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dan Mac — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:47:53 GMT

Dear Larlex,
Thank you! This isn't personal but your post only confirms how blind and stupid the neo-con lovers are. Thank you again! Let me get this straight!! Since you brought up wimps, how about the coward's and deserter in the white house? Are you familiar with the UCMJ? bushie boy was AWOL and a deserter. Dick Chucky was afraid to report 5 times for patriotic duty of his country. Both loved war so much that they sent someone else in their place. (like alot of other repugs now) What PATRIOT's!! Gore and Kerry both at least went into a combat zone. bush hid in a bar under his mothers dress. chucky probably hid in a bunker, even back then. BTW, Gore and Kerry both won the REAL elections and neo-con lovers still take tremendous pride for stealing the "democratic" election. Then they turn around and claim they care about a "democracy" in a muslim world. How much BS can neo-cons lovers swallow? Are all neo-cons on oxyicoton? How about meth? Maybe neo-cons can also be proud about the lie about Iraq attacking us on 911 to steal their oil and kill as many of those evil muslim citizens as possible. Forget the WMD, which probably were just moved in the middle of the night. (forget about the satellite pictures that can see a golf ball from outer space). Maybe we could win them over by dropping 14K bombs with a shock and awe party. Maybe kill their mom and dads and expect them to grow up to be friends. Don't neo-cons get it? Osama is still on the CIA payroll from fighting the evil Russian's ($1 billion from CIA (bush/reagan)and SA, Saudia Arabia for you neo-cons).Osama can be used anytime b/c want to use terror alerts, ever notice how timely the Osama warnings are for b/c terror alerts? Why do you think they don't want to find him? BTW, have you ever heard of the Bohemian Club? I find it interesting that "BC" is for bush/cheney & bohemian club. Google bohemian club and find out who b/c really worship. Maybe repugs aren't that close to God if they don't know about the bohemian club. (look at the members and the secret meeting in July in CA) Also, in Atlanta, the AJC reported today that if Lake Lanier doesn't receive rain in the next 3 months, we could see severe water rationing in ATL. Oh, I forgot this all the liberal Gore media. Why doesn't the liberal media have the power to show the body bags of the ultimate sacrifices in Iraq. Maybe it would help people to appreciate that sacrifice more. Or maybe oil prices going up on gas pumps is a better neo-con picture of the "sacrifices". Maybe the only democratic thing to do is send only republicans senator and congressmen sons and daughter to fight for the oil. Its their occupation!!! I appreciate how stupid and ignorant neo-con statements are and how many Americans are starting to figure out the republican occupation and how much money is being made on these LIE's.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:05:36 GMT

Republican voter:

I remember in 7th grade when my teacher said that we were no longer children and had to learn to back up our statements and provide reasons for our answers.

It is a lesson you should learn.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:06:37 GMT

Polls showed Rudy was not doing well in head to head match ups against Clinton. He was going to lose.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Lisa, Fort Worth TX — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:14:03 GMT

Kurtinct, thanks for the posts. I very much agree that most people in our country don't look at the root source of why so many terrorists want to hurt us. If ANY other country had invaded us, we would feel just like the people Iraq do now. What if another country decided it didn't like Bush and installed "their" choice as our leader? That is exactly what we did to Iran over 50 years ago...then we wonder why they had a revolution and took our people hostage?

RE: Clinton & 1993 WTC bombings: perpetrators were found, arrested, convicted and are currently imprisoned. Bush can't even say we can FIND OBL, much less hold him accountable for his crimes. Clinton made a lot of mistakes, but he should get a modicum of credit for what he did right.

RE: our dependence on foreign oil and how adversely it has affected our policies, both foreign and domestic--ex Pres. Carter gave an excellent speech in 1977--detailing how our country's energy policy should change, lest it negatively impact us in multiple ways. HE WAS RIGHT! Regardless of how you feel about him as POTUS, he could see the handwriting on the wall regarding the energy crisis.

RE: Gore..I do admire Al Gore for standing up for what he believes in, but I don't think he could be elected if he did decide to run.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Iopa West, Oak City OK — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:26:57 GMT

SK, NJ - It's scientifically proven.

Really? Then how come so many scientists disagree with that notion? Do you understand what it means to be "scientifically proven"? Hint: It isn't.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:39:08 GMT

HELLO EVERYONE, YOU GUEST IT ,IT'S STILL TRUE. I HAVE IT BY A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE BUSH AND CHANEY SUCK. IMPEACH THE IDIOTS, BEFORE THEY GIVE US WW3.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Jimlabama — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:39:50 GMT

The people who want Gore to run should all start reminding him that if he really wants to do something positive for this earth, The U.S. Presidency could be rather enabling being the most powerful office in tne word. Is he really seriouse ? Or just inconveniently unaware of that fact?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Jimlabama — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:41:09 GMT

The people who want Gore to run should all start reminding him that if he really wants to do something positive for this earth, The U.S. Presidency could be rather enabling being the most powerful office in tne world. Is he really seriouse ? Or just inconveniently unaware of that fact?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Jeff Marchant — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:41:38 GMT

Carrie, Eastern Iowa +++ So, Bill and Hillary are now one person? +++

You thought they were otherwise? 2 for 1, remember?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Desperate, OP Kansas — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:46:04 GMT

People are misrepresenting my statement. I would never vote for Ron Paul. I said I'd rather vote for him than Hillary. Hillary is a corporate shill. She sold the American people out to the healthcare lobbyists in the 90s and she'll do it again. Read, yes, read and learn. She pulled a Dick Cheney and let the lobbyists write the bill. As for some of you who think she is pretending, hilarious. She should have the balls to come out and say what 70% of the American people are already saying. The reason she isn't saying it is that she doesn't believe it. She hasn't apologized for her vote, and she gave authorization for Bush to do it all over again with Iran. Luckily Sen. Webb saved her a week later with the latter issue.
I believe in gov't, thusly, I would never vote for Paul. However, I do admire Pauls command of language and ability to stand up to the GOP. You won't hear Hillary making as good of debates in the general if she wins. She never answers a question, never.
Worse than anything Hillary represents the DLC, ashamed to be liberal, shouldn't even be called Democrats, right of center Lieberman part of the Democratic party. I'm a Progressive and America is a progressive nation. Democrats have progressive tendencies, but they have continously been bogged down by the right of center "centrist" side of the Democratic party. We always run some insider with Beltway fashioned opinions, and not a shred of integrity or principle.
You Hillary apologizers are the same ones who said, nope can't go with Dean. He's wacky, we have to go with John Kerry. You'd say, Oh, but Kerry believes the same thing as Dean he just isn't saying it. He's being clever so he can win the general election. Not again. That's a load. The reason we lose as Dems is because we no longer say, yes, this is who we are, this is what we believe in. 70% of the people agree with us on Iraq, yet you have Stenny Hoyer and the horrific blue dogs telling Nancy Pelosi what's what.
Are we going to elect real change, because I don't want Bush Lite. The Hillary charade is created of three things. 1. She is tied to big business (they have her back with money). 2. She is the worst Democratic candidate in the general election and has been in every poll for 6 months (thusly, the republicans use the talk about Hillary and she will become inevitable ploy, and the mainstream media goes along because they know that at least with Hillary it will be a close general election). 3. Hillary is a woman (I know that I am going to burn for this, but if you can sincerely doubt that there are women out there who are not bandwagoning Clinton because she is a woman and and are completely uniformed about her policies I have a small island I liked to sell you).
It's time for real change vote for Edwards/Obama either way. But we must pray that they don't end up blocking each other out and letting Hillary slip by.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Desperate, OP Kansas — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:52:27 GMT

To All Previous Haters-
People are misrepresenting my statement. I would never vote for Ron Paul. I said I'd rather vote for him than Hillary. Hillary is a corporate shill. She sold the American people out to the healthcare lobbyists in the 90s and she'll do it again. Read, yes, read and learn. She pulled a Dick Cheney and let the lobbyists write the bill. As for some of you who think she is pretending, hilarious. She should have the balls to come out and say what 70% of the American people are already saying. The reason she isn't saying it is that she doesn't believe it. She hasn't apologized for her vote, and she gave authorization for Bush to do it all over again with Iran. Luckily Sen. Webb saved her a week later with the latter issue.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:58:20 GMT

Richard - Respectfully, I disagree with your characterization of Gore after the 2000 election. Yes, he was depressed - but honestly, who wouldn't be? His life's dream was destroyed; the goal he had been working towards for so many years was now gone. I can tell you what I remember most about that period of time, and it's his concession speech. I read it again this morning as I was responding to something on another blog about Gore, and it reminded me what true patriotism really is all about. Had he made a speech like that during the election, he would have been president.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:03:29 GMT

Crystal - No, dear, it's as if you are not paying attention. To reiterate what I said on another thread, my candidate preferences are my business and my business alone. If I feel like discussing them with you, I will, but don't count on that given your tendency to dismiss me as being distorted. A waste of effort, if you will.

I would not presume to tell you who you should vote for or why you should vote for them. That's not my place. I don't know you from Jack, and I certainly don't know what you value in life and in a political candidate. I have never once said someone should support Hillary, or any other candidate. It's up to you, and everyone else, who you want to support.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Desperate, OP Kansas — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:07:16 GMT

This post is awful. They never post my rebuttles.
Briefly to answer some issues with my earlier post.
I would rather vote Paul than Hillary because Hillary is a corporate shill. That doesn't mean I won't to vote for Paul.

Next, to the Hillary's just pretending crowd. You people gave the same weak arguments in defense of Kerry over Dean. When will you learn that being progressive is nothing that you should be ashamed of or hide. The American people want change.

To the Hillary is not a hawk crowd. She voted for the Iran resolution which was in effect the same resolution that she never apologized for that allowed ol GW to go into Iraq.

She has no experience beyond either of the other frontrunners. Anyone who includes her time in the White house is foolish. She was the first lady not the President. What did she do as first lady, oh yeah, she pulled a Dick Cheney and let the lobbyists write the healthcare bill which failed miserably.

Hillary Clinton is not real change, she is coasting on nepotism and women banding together around her many of which who have no idea about her experience, policies, or principles.

Edwards or Obama are stronger general election candidates according to every poll done in the last 6 months.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:11:32 GMT

Like many here, I can honestly say that if Hillary is the nominee for the Democrats, I will not vote for her. I will not vote for another Republican even if she is dressed in a Democrat's garb. She is a sell-out to corporate America, she lacks principle and her vote to authorize the war simply put, eliminated all possibility that I could ever vote for her (and I am the baddest Democrat that there ever was).

I think that Al Gore is a wonderful, prophetic guy who is more principled than most and I was heart-sick that the election was stolen from him in 2000. I don't know if he will win the Nobel Prize but I hope that he does. However, I don't think that he will run for president. I agree with Van, he has enjoyed far more influence and popularity from his realtively non-political bully pulpit. However, I disagree with Van (as I do with most things) in that I do think that he will endorse Barack Obama, as the other prophetic candidate with great integrity. And this will be a big deal. It will be another demonstration of how fluid this race still is (as it should be) in the October before the Iowa caucuses. By the way Barack supports the research into the use of nuclear energy and that involves finding ways to satisfactorily dispose of nuclear waste before using nuclear energy and also into the use of nuclear fusion - albeit a long ways away from practical application, but even a better soln. to our energy needs. I would advise all not to put out a blanket rejection of nuclear energy; one day it will be great, it's just not ready yet as a replacement for fossil fuels.
Obama '08

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:12:01 GMT

Lisa - I absolutely agree with what you said re: the root cause of why they hate us. After 9-11, Bush ran around saying they hate us because we are free. That's an overly simplified version of a half-truth. As you said, a lot of it has to do with Iran; a lot of it also has to do with our unwavering support of Israel. But mostly, it has to do with our constant need to assert ourselves as the dominant influence in every culture with which we come into contact. It's the westernization that America and others want to force on all other nations, whether or not they are well suited to industrialization and democratization. Not everyone wants to be like us. Those who don't deeply resent the fact that we attempt to invade their traditions and their way of life, and in turn to impose our traditions and our way of life on them.

That, too, is an overly simplistic analysis of the situation. There is so much that goes into the hatred that they have for us that it will take a very serious effort by a very determined administration to really figure it out, to understand it and to deal with it in a manner that (hopefully) does not involve bombs and battles.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Pat, Atlanta, Georgia — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:17:39 GMT

I don't care who runs on the Democrat ticket, if we want to save the US and the world, we better vote for that person!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

independent, fl — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:22:00 GMT

I have always admired and respected Al Gore and I would jump at the chance to promote his run for the presidency. He is by far the only person who has the wisdom, intelligence, veracity and integrity to pull this country out of the mess it is in now (thanks to those who voted for the present administration).

I also find it hard to believe that anyone could deny that global warming exists and is a very serious issue, particularly when you consider that some of the bloggers on here (again, those who voted for the current losers in the WH) are a prime example of global warming - given the FACT they are full of so much polluted hot air and bullshit!!!

GORE '08.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Lisa, Fort Worth TX — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:25:56 GMT

I understand you, Carrie. I am very proud to be a U.S. citizen, but often not proud of our country's actions. I just hope the next POTUS is intelligent, mature and truly understands history. Our nation, and the world, will be much better off with an effective leader. To me, that means leading by example.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dot, Illinois — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:37:26 GMT

Richard

I agree with Carrie. Vice President Gore lost the election but not in the conventional way. I really think he behaved very well given the fact that the election had to be decided by the courts. After such a grueling campaign, after coming so close to achieving his goal, it would seem natural that he would want some time to regroup. I really don't think there is anything unusual about that. And, Carrie was right on about his concession speech.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:37:56 GMT

"I will not vote for another Republican even if she is dressed in a Democrat's garb. She is a sell-out to corporate America, she lacks principle and her vote to authorize the war simply put, eliminated all possibility that I could ever vote for her (and I am the baddest Democrat that there ever was)."

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:11 PM)

You're not the worst democrat, just lacking in factual information to base your contentions on. I posted this for another person who makes the same claim, but in case you didn't INTENTIONALLY miss it, here it is. I'd like to know what you think about the scholarship and conclusions of the article.

Van

Monday :: Oct 8, 2007
Is Hillary Clinton a "Corporate Democrat"? - Part 1

by eriposte
UPDATE: Also see Part 2 and Part 3.

SUMMARY

This post examines the allegation that Sen. Hillary Clinton ☼ is a "Corporate Democrat" - namely, a person who is beholden to "Corporate America" and who is more likely to support "corporate interests" as President than the interests of average or middle-class Americans.

I find that the existing evidence, based on her Senatorial voting records compiled by Progressive Punch, Americans for Democratic Action, AFL-CIO and SEIU, does not really support this allegation. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Sen. Clinton's voting patterns are substantially and surprisingly progressive (ranging typically from 90-100%), including on corporate or labor issues. There are certainly serious issues where Sen. Clinton has unfortunately taken anti-progressive positions (e.g., her vote for a version of the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001), but the data reviewed here suggests that overall, she is far more progressive than corporatist. In the absence of additional or new data, I have to conclude that the label "Corporate Democrat", as applied to her, is inappropriate and extraordinarily misleading. In other words, while it is true that she has strong links to corporate America and corporatist interests, there is little or no evidence that she systematically votes in lock-step with those interests or even significantly in line with their positions. I provide a few plausible explanations for this dichotomy in the conclusions of this post.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011131.php

First thoughts: the Goreacle

dale vancouver wa — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:49:41 GMT

theyc should give the nobel prise to gore after all they gave it to carter????

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Richard, Washington State — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:51:04 GMT

Carrie:

I agree that his concession speech was honorable and patriotic. I was impressed by it and remember telling my wife as we watched that he deserved credit for it.

I also believe it was too late and the time for being patriotic and non-partisan was before he put this country through election hell by initiating legal action that ended up in the supreme court. If only that concession speech with its conciliatory spirit had been his first and only concession speech sometime in mid-November.

Bush, who had the same same dream to preserve was placed into the position of defending that dream when he was ahead in the vote.

Do you honestly believe that he should conceded from that position. Once Gore started the legal process the final result was ordained and both men ended up where they were before Gore filed suit in three Democratic counties where the voting process was controlled by Democrats. The chain of events was the sole responsibility of Al Gore and in that I believe he hurt this country.

I will always hold Al Gore responsible for a great deal of the division and mistrust in our electoral system since 2000. Further, his actions and words in the years since his admirable concession speech have diminished any good feelings I had about it at the time because his participation in partisan rancor makes the speech ring hollow now. I don't think he has made any significant contribution to replacing partisanship with patriotism since.

One of the quotes from that speech reads:

"Neither he (Bush) nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy."

So what has he done in the aftermath to convince his party, and so many of his other negative and disillusioned followers, that the issue was indeed resolved? What has a great segment of his party done to honor the decision of one of "the honored institutions of our democracy", but continually demean it by implying it was under the control of a candidate and not operating independently?

It was a great speech, but the follow-through was pitifully weak and continues to be.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Harold Des Moines IA — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:51:14 GMT

So To all you people that arent sure wnat version of the same beast to vote for try something new and check out Ron Paul. He will end up as the good third party candidate we need. Once he loses the Republican nomination he will be running as either straight independant or as The LIbertarian candidate. He has a refreshing outlook. He actually believes that We the people should run the goverment. I know thats awfully radical but maybe we should try it. I am sure the original G.W. would approve.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Daitis, Huntington Beach Ca — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:59:22 GMT

I’m glad that Hillary is a hawk which makes her different from the rest of other far-left, and weak democratic candidates. In fact, Al Gore tried to be perceived like a gentleman in 2000 election, by keeping distance from Bill Clinton after the sex scandal, and let Bush win the election by not strongly challenging the fraud. John Kerry, a Vietnam war protester, lost in 2004 because of the Binladen tape released at the last minute, had no strong reaction on swift boat scandal. Democrats can’t afford another similar weak presidential candidate for 2008. I think Hillary, despite of possible major US attacks from terrorists in between now and the election, could still get many republican hard-liners voters, and voters who fear of terrorism. Her stand & policy have been well designed to cover all political future developments. I’m glad that she’s strong and smart. Personally, I’ve never let myself to be attractive to such a woman of her characters…e.g. smart, ambitious, so clever… BUT for the businesses of the country, I will vote for her. Because she’s very serious, and has worked hard to be elected, so organized, intellectual, and looks presidential (able to think and talk at the same time). Look around, I don't see any better choice out there. In fact, I can’t trust Mr. Guliani, has been married 3 times, who must have wasted lots of time and had a very unorganized life, also acted and sounded like G. Bush. Too bad, I can’t rely on Mr. Thompson who is so relaxed, nor on Mr. McCain who happens to be too old.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, PA — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:11:27 GMT

Al Gore, please be our president. Without you, our species is doomed. No one else but you has the balls to stand up to the corporations that would enslave us all in poverty and endless war. They spit on the idea of human rights and they poison the very air that we breathe with noxious fumes.

Al, you're the only one who can redeem mankind. Everyone else is a pretender, a bloated liar who gorges himself on corporate bribes. Please Al Gore, forgive us for our sins and cast out the devil that is George Bush.

Most of us voted for you Al, and now we're begging you to please take back the nation that is rightfully yours. Al Gore, you are the once and future king, and the future of mankind is yours to decide.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Richard, Washington State — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:34:52 GMT

Carrie:

One more short point about Al Gore. I believe that if he had made that magnificent concession speech on November 13th instead of December 13th, it would have set the stage for another run and a decisive victory in 2004. I believe his reaction cost him that opportunity.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:14:14 GMT

Van: Great article and I admit that I tend to speak in hyperbole. But everything is relative. I think that while Hillary is not Tom DeLay, her campaign is intimately associated with people who represent the dark side and that leaves her open to influence by people of questionable allegiances. I think that Hillary has perceived the notion that the pragmatic compromise of her values has been necessary in order to win elections because she was burned so badly in the '94 Health Care putsch. I also believe that Hillary of the 1970's would not be satisfied with the Hillary of the 2000's.

What I see in her (and Bill) is a trending to the right and although I can respect great corporations (as I do any powerful engine) I disagree with the fallacious assumption that invisible hand of capitalism is all that is needed to keep them regulated. I'm not sure that Bill and Hillary get that or could they withstand the seductive charms of wealth and power. I wonder if you read Sierra's reference to an article in 'The Nation' that is to be coming out. The article, although a bit more sensationalist than your article, raised serious questions about the skeletal structure of the Clinton campaign.

Today, I also wrote a post under Hillary and Michigan because it spoke of Obama's courting of black voters, whom he cannot take for granted. In the post I wrote about my suspicions that Penn et al are touting inevitability of the Hillary nomination in order to suppress African-American support for Obama, by capitalizing on African-American fears of disenfranchisement. If I'm right in that assumption, then that's another example of the heinous type of Republican cynacism to which I refer.

Finally, there is no rational that could make me comfortable with Hillary's votes on this war and her subsequent positions in defending (or not defending) these votes. I cannot understand the principle that evoked her vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment. I can't convince myself that these votes were anything but political posturing for the general election and that kind of pragmatism seems corrupt for me.

I would have loved to have been able to support Hillary for president for a number of reasons (not the least of which was the fact that I would be proud to have our society move another step closer to absolute meritocracy) but as the second Clinton administration progressed (and this had nothing to do with Monica) and the Senator from my state of NY served her term, I came to the realization that the Clintons had lost their popularist footing and with that my support (although I still keep a picture of Bill and me on my piano). BTW, by 'baddest' Democrat, it was meant to be slang for most loyal.
Obama '08

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Patrick,NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:06:44 GMT

"Why can't you vote for Hillary? I'm sure that a decision that could lead to another term of republican rule must be based on some strong feelings, and strong feelings politically are usually based on some facts..."

I'd have to say that maybe she just seems untrustworthy, like she's hiding something, or she could just be one of those people you dislike on sight, and no amount of reasonable logic or objective thought will ever change your mind about her. That being said if it came down to her and another four+ years of a Republican White House...I'll take my chances with her and you should consider it as well Jessica.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Daitis, Huntington Beach Ca — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:21:16 GMT

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Patrick,NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:43:25 GMT

As a Black American(Notice I use the term Black and not African-American b/c I have no idea what that is). You (White middle-class America) would probably think our views on foreign and domestic issues would be in conflict. Not so. I can't tolerate theives,thugs and liars like any of you b/c that was how I was brought up. I'm pro-military, naturally, having been raised in an Army household, and served eight years in the USAF(two bros USAret.). The truth is I can't vote for Obama b/c, as a minority, I feel he could not defeat ANY Republican in a general election. I can't vote for Hillary b/c my gut tells me I can't trust her to end the war in Iraq. I can't vote for John Edwards b/c during the 2000 election I felt he did not do enough to get Senator Kerry elected, what I mean by that is where was his outrage at the SwiftBoaters. He just never seemed tough enough. So who can I get behind? Who speaks to/for me?

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Bob, Seattle,WA. — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:57:28 GMT

Why should Gore run? He already won an election. I will not vote republican, and maybe not Democrat either. Niether party has done well the last decade (or two). This country needs new blood. Preferably middle class! That would make the haves squirm!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Futility, Al-Anbar — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:15:34 GMT

First of all, Global Warming is caused by that big yellow thing that most of you sheeple probably haven't seen in a while....IT'S CALLED THE SUN! Mars is going through a warming phase too, I guess that's our fault as well. Fucking idiots.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Rick, L.A. CA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:43:34 GMT

the idea that the 2000 election was "stolen" or "decided by the court" has been weaving in and out of the comments here, and I am really, really tired of it.
it was a close result. Florida had on its books ways to deal with a close result.
1. electronic recount
2. if neccesary, hand count
3. if neccesary, second hand count

in all four of those counts, Bush came out ahead. so under Florida law, the result stands.

the only thing the Supreme Court did was look at what had transpired.

did Florida follow their own laws? yes.
was any further counting allowable or neccesary under Florida's laws? no.

game over. they did not allow anyone to implement or make up new rules or laws after the fact.

end of story.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Bill Gee, Medina WA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:38:32 GMT

Everytime we see another image of Al Gore he has gained another 20 lbs and is looking so unhealthy.
...
By the time the next president is put into office Al Gore will have succumbed to a heart attack or some other porker related illness.
...
He will be soon forgotten with his laughing legacy that he invented the Internet and Global Warming
... :-)

First thoughts: the Goreacle

DEAN ORFF — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:16:04 GMT

RH from Oregon's argument against health care for all Americans is hilariously pathetic. The news story he cites doesn't even make a good case for his point:

"not enough money for more equipment and staff to handle high risk births."
Oh My ! Canada's having trouble treating high-risk births! And how many Canadians have no health care coverage at all? 47 million or Zero? And how long do you figure it will take Canada to come up with the money to get more equipment and staff to fix this one little problem? As long as it takes to raise Canadian taxes a little more. And my relatives in Canada say most Canucks are already clamoring for their govt. to raise those taxes and take care of this embarrassing little problem.

But look: "The number of transfers in previous years has been quite low," Plank told FOXNews.com. "Before this recent spike we went for more than a year with no transfers to the U.S.,.."

What do you know? The problem just started a year ago! Boy, those Fox Opinion Channel people get on top of things fast! But they didn't tell us how many Canadians Died last year because they couldn't afford to get their disease symptoms treated till it was too late. Here in America, the Bush administration said recently in a USA Today article that it comes out to - ohh...roughly 18,000 per year! 18,000 Americans DEAD per year cause they couldn't afford health insurance. I'll never forget the day the CEO of our local hospital admitted in a letter published in our local newspaper that some local residents with kidney disease had died because they couldn't get transportation to the nearest dialysis clinic.

Then they quote this guy from the Cato Institute, a libertarian group that believes in every man, woman and child for themselves, Law of the Jungle, baby -- they don't want government interfering in Anything that some greedy jerk can make a profit on:

"said Michael Turner of the Cato Institute. "In fact, overall about one out of every seven Canadian physicians sends someone to the United States every year for treatment."
And guess who pays for Canadians who get American health care? The Canadian government, that's who! What a deal! But we Americans shouldn't have something like that! It wouldn't be Politically Correct (according to conservative ideology).

Here's RH from Oregon: "Keep programs like SCHIPS for the needy not the greedy."
Spoken like a fine, dopey little Politically Correct Conservative sheep. Then RH sticks the knife in.
"Poverty level help only."
YES! Your kid only gets health care if your family is starving! If not, you gotta go bankrupt paying for it!
Is RH one of those typically out-of-touch conservatives who have No Idea how much health insurance premiums Cost? Is RH's inheritance paying for his? Or is RH one of those Fundamentalist Conservatives who believes if you get sick and die, it's just God's will and government shouldn't get in the way of it. Get the picture? If God blessed you with enough money to pay for health insurance, then God means for you to live, if He didn't then God wants you in Heaven. I know the drill - I was raised fundamentalist.
And the fundamentalists in the Republican Party who want to make their twisted religious beliefs into Law are actually in effect Dictating who will be able to live and who will have to die! They wouldn't admit that even to themselves of course, but whatever. Not exactly my kind of Christians.

RH - don't forget to stop by the cemetery this weekend, drop off some flowers and think about how many Americans die because our Health Care system is a for-profit business. I'm sure Jesus would say matters of life-or-death should not be just another way to make money.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

D, Tampa FL — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:15:57 GMT

If Gore decides to run, and stays true to the person he has been the last few years, he will win. If he leaves his ability to speak the issues at home and turns into another politician playing in the safe zone, he will lose worse then before. Why can't someone run who will address the cisis in this country, instead of another soundbite playing it safe. Things are getting pretty scary out there.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Melissa Apodaca , Socorro, NM — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:09:35 GMT

Okay first of all, when I think "woman president" Hilary does not fit the bill for me. Don't ask me why, but I just see her as a politician that's neither male or female. Everyone keeps saying they don't want Al to lose a second time. Now come on, does everybody truly believe he would actually lose and second, would America let a victory get stolen from him again???? Even WITHOUT the Nobel prize Al Gore would be the highest reigning contender. He would easily sweep Hilary under the carpet not to mention the GOP contender. The world would and does listen to Al and he is so what not only America needs, but everybody needs. America is supposedly the "world's police" and who better for our captain? I love Obama, but after seeing him speak about healthcare... Edwards nah.... Hillary is just as power hungry as Guiliani... Come on!! We need a true advocate for the people, none of this bogus "middle class express" money train. Every one wants to be Harry T. Al is just himself and doesn't have to beg. I will pray for him in hopes he does the right thing. God has a plan. None of us know what it is, but I sure hope Al isn't fighting off anything he may truly feel in his heart. I voted for him the first time and would do so again.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Justin, lexington, kentucky — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:00:14 GMT

The fact Rupert Murdoch threw a fund raiser for Clinton is reason enough not to vote for her. Run Gore Run!!!!!!!! Is the USA a democracy or some twisted form of dictatorship? Hillary and Bush are both lieutenant's of Coprorations.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Richard — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:12:08 GMT

Gore comes out as the best Qualified. He has been so right on most issues-Iraq War, global Warming, etc. I think he has his hand on the pulse of America and could best represent us as our President!!!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Richard — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:18:52 GMT

Vote Vote Vote as you desire. What good does it do when regardless of popular vote numbers the Electoral College elects. I really think in this age of up to the minute stats, the popular vote should decide. The Electoral College is out-dated and should be done away with.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

John Merrill — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:19:49 GMT

I rather be GORED to death than be HILLARIZED that's why I'm voting for GIULIANI.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Yog Goel Damascus, MD — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:02:36 GMT

I was registered as republican and this year switched to Democrat due to Bush. If Hillary is Democrat nominee then I have to switch back to Republican...There is no way I will vote for her. I don't want to go back to the Travel gate, White Water gate, Lincoln bedroom, Chinese money and Monica etc...These Clintons know when and how to lie. This is MSNBC who already declared her as nominee but they should do their polling with real democrats not with Machine democrats

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:45:13 GMT

Patrick,NY:
Man, you are so wrong about Obama. The people who wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black wouldn't be voting for a Democrat anyway. And, Obama is viewed more favorably among Republicans than most of the other Democrats (in one poll - for whatever polls are worth - Republicans rated him as their third choice for president among all candidates). I wouldn't expect you to vote for him if you didn't support his issues (in other words just because he is black) but man, as a white guy, who thinks Obama offers the best chance for this country to right itself at this horrible crossroads in history, I sure would be pissed off if you didn't vote for him only because you think that he couldn't win in the general election. I'd say, thanks buddy, thanks for your chickens**t help! Really man, vote your conscience and your heart. Best wishes.

First thoughts: the Goreacle

USA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:01:25 GMT

who sells more weapons to any country around the world more than any other country

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Daitis, Huntington Beach Ca — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:13:07 GMT

To yog Goel,
I don't think that you've been mature enough when decided to switch the party because you don't like Bush, and now switch back again because you don't like Hillary. Personally I don't feel comfortable with Hillary, but will still vote for her because she represents the democratic party because I believe the party, with their own platform, dictates and has more influence on the direction of our nation than individual Hillary. Lots of problems need to be fixed, and elected republicans have had their chances but screwed up big time. To me, that's it!

First thoughts: the Goreacle

Dean Orff — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:16:29 GMT

To Rick in L.A., CA:

It's true about the 2000 election -- Florida definitely Did have ways to deal with a close result.

Read the Washington Post article from May 31, 2001. Read Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Can Buy" and watch the video of his PARTIAL BBC interview with Florida State Elections Supervisor Clay Roberts in February 2001, where Roberts runs out of the room when Palast shows him a copy of the contract that Florida governor Jeb Bush and Choicepoint Database Technologies signed. Read the transcript of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's 2001 hearings on the 2000 election and the confession from Choicepoint Vice President James Lee about what exactly was in that contract.
On behalf of Jeb Bush, Choicepoint in 2000 De-Registered over 53,000 Florida voters just because their names were 80% similar to the names on a list of convicted felons that Jeb gave Choicepoint to use as a guide. These voters had no criminal record but they were classified as felons anyway and it became illegal for them to vote. About 27,000 of those De-Registered Florida voters were Black. These voters were never told they had been De-Registered. Once they got to the voting booths in November 2000, they got a big surprise.
90% of black voters in Florida who Did vote in 2000 voted for Gore. Even if only 50% of those 27,000 de-registered black Florida voters had been Allowed to vote, Gore would have beaten Bush in Florida by over 13,000 votes.
Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris conspired to Illegaly De-Register over 53,000 Legally Registered Florida voters so that they would not be able to vote on Election Day 2000 in Florida. Governor Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris belong in Jail. Period.