Would Al Gore have been a better candidate that John Kerry?

[the_real_38]

Explain, if you dare.

[the_real_38]

1. He had history on his side -

it might have motivated people to come back and give Bush what was coming to him.

[bigwillq]

2. No, I don't think so.

Regardless of the mess of the last election, I feel Gore is "Been there, done that" He had the chance 4 years ago to change more people's lives and although he won the popular vote, he did not change enough people who were undecided in order to win the battle ground states.

Although, now is a different time post 9-11, I feel Kerry still has a better chance to convert those who are undecided and I still think Kerry can win in some battle ground states. Kerry just needs to get on the ball fast.

[deacon]

3. He had his chance n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. And he won, didn't he?

[tom_paine]

4. Because President Gore LEARNED in 2000

He, like so many of us, wasnt able to recognize exactly what we face, Totalitarian Scum Without a Shred of Caring about the Old American Republic except how to devour and enslave it.

Now he knows.

Al would have made a GREAT candidate this time around. It is something of a tragedy that he allowed the Busheviks and the DLC to run him off.

Of course, the fact that he allowed that makes me wonder if he is a tough enough fighter to tackle the Imperials.

My inclination is that HE WOULD BE.

[ibegurpard]

11. My sentiments exactly

eom

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. Mine also

[nansocal]

45. I agree with you....

except when you questioned his allowing them to change his mind. I truly believe he would have been a al gore who didn't care what the press said. I believe him when he said he would "let it rip". he did learn from 2000 and it made/make him a better candidate.

[Caution]

5. Or more importantly

why bother asking this question? What good can come of this discussion? How can this not simply degrade into a session of Kerry bashing for those who don't like him?

[WI_DEM]

6. yes

Al Gore could run as the winner of the popular vote in 2000. He had a much more sensible viewpoint on Iraq and was a leading opponent of the resolution. Yet being a Senator and VP as well as the Democratic nominee in 2000 gave him credibility on foreign policy.

[Frodo]

7. Yes, no question.

Doesn't mean Kerry can't/won't win. But Gore would have been the better candidate.

[boxster]

8. Oh, now there's an interesting question.

The pros and cons of each would make for an interesting discussion.

I'd have to lean toward Kerry because I think the "sore loser" stigma from 2000 (completely unwarranted, especially considering that he won) would be a lot for Gore to overcome, particularly with swing voters.

Someone else's comment of "he had his chance" would likely have been repeated in the general populace and the media, albeit somewhat unfairly.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. Don't you think that "sore loser" ought to be changed to "sore winner"?

[boxster]

21. Yes, that was really my point.

As I mentioned, Gore obviously won. The media, however, would assuredly portray it from the loser perspective.

[rock]

12. No, They're the same I would say

I'm a real Gore fan but he's not that interested. Either candidate would beat bushsucks* effortlessly.

[robbedvoter]

13. The "Where were we....?" speach...

Anti-war (went on record - was still considering running at the time).
More of a core.

[rucky]

14. Kerry's the best of all possible candidates

I didn't think so a few months ago. But the luxury of hindsight shows that Kerry is clearly the strongest choice. Somebody behind the curtain knows what's best for us. woof-woof.

PS: I say this as someone who's voting for Kucinich this month.

15. the best of all possible candidates

in the best of all possible worlds.
Did you mean to be citing Voltaire?

LOL

[rucky]

16. Thanks for catching the Candide ref

:)

playing "what if" always makes me think of it.

[chimpymustgo]

19. I really wanted Gore to run, but I'm glad he didn't. His judgement

is really questionable. First, picking Lieberman as his VEEP, then endorsing Dean, when he should have been playing elder statesman. Al Gore really did not turn out to be the man I thought he was. But I wish him well, and hope he finds success and happiness.

25. Ah, so you were being ironic

Now I'm really amused.

[liarliartieonfire]

17. The question is irrelevant at this point.

Hard to compare.
Gore would have been a great President at the time.
We would be looking at a different and more peaceful world. As well as a more environmentally healthier one.

At this point, though Al Gore is not running for President, never was in 2004.

[Only Me]

18. I was undecided on this one...

but I voted Gore. I believe Kerry is going to be a good president.
But he is really still a novice at the wh game.

Gore is just now really finding a strong voice, and vocalizing his opinions loudly on matters that are strong to him. He is coming into his own strenghths, so to speak.

Last election, he was unsteady, not in his beliefs but how to come across to the public which is everything in an election. Now, however, I think he has grown with age and experience.

Kerry will too, in time. But no one could expect him to have the same PR skills as some of the more politically experienced.

[Yupster]

35. I voted Gore

only because in the past, when a president won with fewer popular votes, the losing candidate has a good record of coming back and kicking the winner's fanny out of office.

Examples would be Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland, both Democrats.

[Only Me]

36. Interesting, I didn't know that. n/t

[rabid_nerd]

20. Yes, without question.

Al Gore would have been a better candidate than any of those who ran.

[Larkspur]

22. Gore is a better person than Kerry

It's obvious by Gore's speeches in 2002 criticizing the Bush Admin, especially the Iraq War. Gore gave valid reasons for his support of the 1991 war and his opposition to the current Iraq War.

Kerry is a political opportunist who only cares about his ambitions, not what is right for this country. Bush is a psychopath who should be impeached and dragged before the International War Crimes Tribunal. Either way, we will get poor leadership in the White House this election.

[MarkTwain]

23. The Only Way Kerry Wins.....

.... is if Bush, by default, hands it to him by being caught sodimizing Pat Robertson in the Lincoln Memorial at high noon on Memorial Day. And, I'm not even sure that would do it.

Kerry has turned out to be a loser for one reason: he did not understand, appreciate, nor recognize that the race began when he, himself, became the presumptive nominee. He did not preemptively prepare for and respond to the last two months of The Cabal's defining him in the minds of the American public.

Consider: it's being reported today that although Kerry's choice for a VP will be a closely guarded secret, he will select someone who will appeal to the "moderate middle" a "centrist." Does the name Joe Lieberman ring a bell? No, not that he would pick that DINO asshole specifically, but the strategy is the just the same. Politics of appeasement.

And, it indicates the reason why Kerry has lost this election already. As noted above, he failed to recognize that the starting gun was fired some three months ago. Subsequently, he has allowed Rove/Cheney/Bush to define him as a loony, weak, and dangerous liberal - so, consequently he must now "move to the right" to deflect and repair this characterization.

Please, answer me this. Is there any conceivable way that a truly effective, credible, astute, and capable nominee and his apparatus would be losing to - or at best performing to a tie with - THIS resident? Especially after the dozens, if not hundreds, of major fuck-ups, gaffes, errors, and downright treasonable offenses committed either in or adjacent to the Oval Office, itself and disclosed since January? Along with dozens of major best selling books which have effectively tore this Cabal a new asshole with the turning of each page of those books?

Just how does anytone explain why Kerry is not up ten plus points after the last three months of the George Bush occupation and the almost weekly insults during this time that this "administration" has brought upon itself and which these books and these people have eloquently documented ?

Answer: the man, himself, is a loser with no true strong or deep appeal to the American public. He does not know how, or does not want,to fight these people as dirty, as gritty, and as deeply as they will fight and have fought him. He's just another in a line growing long of pink tutu democrats whose only response to to say "thank you Mr. Rove; may I have another?"

Give it up. Settle in for four to twelve more years of Bush with another forty to follow with the appointments which they will make to the SCOTUS. The game is over. The troglodytes will prevail because, at the final buzzer of the game, we nominated yet another Democratic-machine pussy who is, just like his advesary, in the control of the plutocracy. It's just the Democratic element of the plotocracy as opposed to the Republican. Same coin; different sides.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. It's blatant anti-Democratic party posts like this that infuriate me.

Your lame attempt to get Democrats to give up is too transparent to work.

[moez]

24. Gore would have at least

Gotten my vote. Can't stomach Kerry....

[emulatorloo]

27. glad you are so well off that you can take another four years of GWB

on the other hand, I'm not and I can't. If it makes you feel good voting for Bush or one of his surrogates because you cannot "Stomach Kerry." then knock yourself out. OTOH you aren't considering the consequences your actions will have of the rest of us.

[moez]

28. So one skull and bones millionaire is better than the other?

Sorry - I just don't see it.

[emulatorloo]

29. Then you need to do a little more research

GWB has used his family's money to take the easy way out and to bail himself out time and time again.
JK didn't take that path.

Compare their biographies - JK has long fought for what's right. GWB has long fought for what's right for himself.

[tinanator]

32. Patriot Act and IWR are whats right?

then we dont need to replace Bush, do we?

[emulatorloo]

37. OK, Ready Set Go. . .Bush is blameless, it is all Kerry's fault?

Why do you blame dems for the sins of Bush, Powell, Ashcroft, Cheney, etc?

I am glad to hear that this mess we are in is all John Kerry's fault, and that our president bears no responsibility,

OK then, let's summarize why your answer is too simplistic:

IWR was not an up down vote to invade Iraq. Bush said he needed it to go back to the UN showing them that there was a unified front against Bad People having Bad Bombs to hurt others.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who many people trusted at the time, promised the Senate and apparently John Kerry personally that they would do EVERYTHING possible to avoid going to war. Bush and Colin Lied.

Patriot Act - John Kerry worked hard on getting sunset clauses in patriot act. There are some things in patriot act that are good (cutting off funding to terrorists, creater cooperation between law enforcment). Many senators voted for patriot act. JOHN ASHCROFT abuses the patriot act, twists it for Bush's and his own political agenda.

Here is a good speech on "ending the era of John Ascroft"

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1201.html

[tinanator]

38. why is your response so simplistic and forgiving?

why dont you expect more from a would be president? Did Bush set your expectations that low? Is unjustified invasion OK under certain circumstances? Does Kerry REALLY decry the series of events, and will he make a difference there? You think there are good things in the PATRIOT Act? Why do you suppose they had such a thick document ready to go in no time whatsoever? How are we served by "representatives" who vote on something they havent even read? If you like the PATRIOT Act maybe you would like Oliver North to rejoin his friends who enabled this REAGAN/BUSH/NORTH/SECORD era legislation to finally see the light of day? NOT ALL OF THOSE FRIENDS WERE REPUBLICANS.

[emulatorloo]

47. Did I say the invasion was ok? Did I say Ashcroft is ok?

Did John Kerry say a unilateral invasion as a first resort was ok?

No

Did John Kerry say that the abuses of law by John Ashcroft are ok?

No

Was my reply to you simplistic? Maybe - but your simplistic interp of IWR as a vote to invade (it is not) and refusal to read and understand JK position on patriot act is simplistic as well.

[tinanator]

49. just show me a NO vote OK?

Show me Kerry's voting record, show me his fundamental disagreements, not rhetorical sidesteps, show me the votes.

[tinanator]

50. hello? the crickets are deafening I know this isnt too much to ask

so show me already, I am willing to see whatever you have to offer.

[tinanator]

51. cmon Kerryites this should be easy just take a moment please?

lay one vote on me real quick. Did he vote against the tax cuts? I dont have a clue here, help me somebody.

[JanMichael]

26. Yes. While I'll support Kerry (w/reservations) Gore would've been better.

If only because he was robbed 4 years ago. That alone would've taken a majority of Americans already simmering disgust with el Generalissimo Busho to apocolyptic heights.

[mbee]

30. I would like a full explanation as to why Kerry was the

one put up there. Kerry will be an O.K. President where Gore has the vision to be a great President. What a loss for us all!

[tinanator]

33. how about one word that sums it up nicely

WAR

[diamond14]

31. poll looks like another effort to re-select bush*....never stops...

diss Kerry until bush* gets re-selected....


it beats me why all these people want to be DRAFTED to serve in the bush* perpetural 'low-rent' war pograms....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. No, there was a danger of him becoming

the Adlai Stevenson of the new century.

[DaveSZ]

39. The new Al Gore

The new Al Gore who speaks his mind, and says what he really believes would have been a better candidate than John Kerry.

If John Kerry were the John Kerry he was when he returned from Vietnam, he'd be a better candidate than John Kerry.

But right now we're stuck with John Kerry so we'll make the best of it.

[Renew Deal]

40. Gore would have been a nightmare

Gore has become out of touch and a little shrill.

[DemonFighterLives]

41. I voted Gore

I like his stances better. Kerry is supporting this war and Sharon in his escapades.
On the other hand, Gore did terrible in the debates and dissed Clinton and picked Lieberman. <Bad mistakes.
Kerry will do better in the debates, I hope and has the chance of picking a winner VP.
We don't need anyone to provide us a B*sh lite, Go get'em Kerry!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. Which Al Gore?

The 2000 version or the 2004 version?

So, No and Yes, respectively.

[hexola]

43. Gore would have been a "quagmire" - Tell big Al "...see ya in 2012!"

[robbedvoter]

52. Ya mean, Rush disapproves? Oh, geez, what a surprise!

[bmbmd]

44. Gore by all means.

He represents the "good old days" when America was strong and respected. He represents a vibrant, growing economy and caring for the downtrodden. He is a proven commodity, and would have been a great comfort to our nation.

[the_real_38]

48. I wasn't suggesting it was a possibility...

... but you make a good case.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Gore couldn't score a decisive victory in 2000

despite the advantages of semi-incumbency and a fantastic record of accomplishment.


I was disappointed in 2000 when Kerry didn't run, so I guess my opinion is no surprise.

[tinanator]

54. half a million votes??

not to mention the real results in FL, despite the disenfranchisement, despite the military ballot scams, despite all the cheating in the world? Is that what you mean by an indecisive victory? I think you should hold the coupmongers responsible, not the voters who tried so hard and technically succeeded. It was a THEFT and the ultimate destruction of our faith in justice and democracy. You blame Gore?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Besides your lame attempt to put words in my mouth, it is a simple and indisputable fact that Gore did not win a decisive victory.


You blame Gore?


No. I am not assigning blame. I am simply pointing out a historical fact.

[tinanator]

61. me neither

I wouldnt try to put anything in your mouth. It seems to be full of something anyway. I suggest you re-examine the terms historical fact and political rhetoric and try to keep them straight.

[GreenPartyVoter]

55. No. Too much baggage from last time.

[apnu]

57. I agree!

Put Gore in the '04 run and we'll only rehash and polorize the nation further by stirring up the 2000 bull sh*t again.

Tensions being what they are right now in the nation, does anybody think it's a good idea to make the tension worse by stirring up some bad blood?

[napi21]

59. No to Gore. Pub fools wouldn't even have to do any research.

they'd just dust off the junk from 2000.

I often wonder why ANYBODY would want to be President! All candidates have enough money before they begin a campaign that it sure isn't for the money. I guess it could be for the power, but is all the abuse, during the campaign and during the term in office, really worth it?

Sure as hell wouldn't be to me!

[apnu]

60. I'd make a very bad president.

Because I'd open everything up possible. Every dirty little secret, every foul dealing, every bit of suppressed evidence. I'd give it all to the people and let them decide what to do.

Then I'd go to each nation and apologize for past American digressions.

After clearing the nations conscious on such matters, then I'd feel "right" about foreign and domestic policy issues.

What I mean to say is, I'd force the nation to turn over a new leaf. Which probably means I'd be impeached and tossed in the klink in about a month from taking office, that is if I wasn't killed by the 2nd week.