Kerry Vs. Gore: Who would you want in 2008 if these are your choices

[LynneSin]

I know there are plenty of other democrats running in 2008 but I'd like to see what folks think about either of these 2 former presidential candidates running again. I know that no matter what I'm voting democrat but there are some candidates that I would more enthusiastically campaign for than others. My personal opinion is that Kerry gave up way to quickly when word of voter irregularity's surfaced in Ohio and at least Gore gave it a good fight.

Plus with some of the recent speeches, suddenly Gore is looking much more presidential and I could almost jump on board with volunteering for his campaign.

So who would you choose for your presidential nominee if it was between one of these two men

[sasha031]

1. how about Gore and Kerry

I wish that was the chioce in 2000

[ClassWarrior]

2. Bryan Kennedy 2006!! Retire Senselessbrenner!!

http://bk2006.org

NGU.

[katsy]

3. BOTH

[blm]

4. Curious why you compare their circumstances as similar. Gore was PERCEIVED

to be the popular vote getter and had about 60% of the media spinning against him.

Kerry was PERCEIVED to have lost by 3 million votes, no doubt thanks to the rigged machines perfected in 2002, and had about 90% of the broadcast media spinning FOR Bush since 9-11.

What makes you so certain that Gore would have gone further if HE had been perceived to have lost by 3million votes?

The words apples and oranges come to mind.

[LynneSin]

8. Let's not get into word technicalities & most votes does NOT win elections

THe point is simple - When voter irregularities came to light soon after the election ended, Gore continued to fight to have all of the votes counted. Remember, having the most votes doesn't guarentee a win in this country; only the most electorial votes.

I was barely out of bed the day after the election when I read about the stuff that was going on in Ohio but it was all mute because Kerry immediately conceded without following through. Kerry didn't need to have 3 million more votes to win the election, he just needed to let all the votes be counted in Ohio to ensure victory. One only needs to look at the home page of DU to see just what kind of corruption went on in that state.

Not sure what country you're talking about with this popularity vote thingie. Most votes have never meant a thing in a United States presidential election!

[blm]

12. Point being that the PUBLIC sympathy and some media sympathy was FOR

hearing Gore out as the popular vote getter, since there was only about a 1000 vote difference in the reported tally.

The difference in Ohio in 2004 was over 100,000 votes up for Bush.

And there was no way to expose the real fraud in the machines AFTER the vote because rigged machines are set up for ONE TIME USE and all evidence of rigging is untraceable.

And Gore didn't go after full recount - he went for 4 counties.

APPLES and ORANGES.

[Ignacio Upton]

5. Gore

He has more fire in the belly. However, if the 2000 Al Gore returned then I would say neither.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Gore/Kerry. That's my pick. Platform: "Poetic Justice."

The two men who were unlawfully deprived of the White House. Because if there's one thing Americans love it's justice. Add in "poetic," and you've got a slamdunk.

[Mass]

15. I can live with this no problem.

[Servotron]

19. The only thing about "justice" as a theme

Is that you have to establish that an injustice has been done. Or two injustices, in this case. Three if you count 2002. And yes, they were injustices, but thanks to the media presstitutes, most of the population is blissfully unaware of this fact. Even the ones who acknowledge that Dumbass has screwed up the country don't neccessarily believe that he didn't get there through legal means.

So how do you drag those people out of their media whore - induced brain fog and prove to them that injustice has been done?

[Sammy Pepys]

7. Gore, no Kerry n/t

...

[Mass]

14. deleted

[second edition]

9. Kerry, and IMO you cannot compare these two elections.

it is like comparing "apples and oranges".
IMO, Gore had the upper hand when he ran against Bush, his numbers were close and a recount seemed reasonable.
Kerry, ran as the underdog, he was running against an incumbent war time President who had been planning his reelection campaign for at least three years. The final count was not close enough to contest.
I fail to see what contesting the election outcome would have gained for us or Kerry. The accusations about fraud and cheating still have not been proven conclusively. Do you seriously think the media would have listened or even attempted to report on a bunch speculative evidence?

Gore didn't even win his home state. I would vote for Kerry in a second if he ran again.

[Broke In Jersey]

10. If these 2 morons are the best we can do - we deserve to lose in '08

Anyone who can't even beat this guy currently in the WH, that can't even put a coherent sentence together is useless in my eyes. They should just keep the message alive and support a real candidate that will kick some serious ass like in '96 & '92. I can see a dark horse winning the primary - not sure who, but we have almost 3 years till the election....

[blm]

16. Do you think the corporate media is the same as 92?

Corporate media has been antiDem and proBush since 1997. Clinton was IMPEACHED because of it. Not even silver=tongued Clinton bested the spin then.

Hell, people still mostly believe that he trashed the WH and AF1. Or that he was asleep at the wheel on terror. And his book tour didn't even change that perception.

[NYCGirl]

17. Psst...Gore won by 500,000 votes. NT

[guidod]

21. I like Kerry a lot and

Gore is higher on my list. First of all the media won in both elections. Second, I think Gore/Feingold is a ticket that would kick anybody's ass, even the media. Third, you call these two guys morons, who is on your list?

[Czolgosz]

11. Does Gore have a douchebag runningmate and Kerry have a great runningmate?

Gore showed questionable judgment in his selection of a runningmate in '00; Kerry showed wisdom in '04.

[Mass]

13. 2006 - but if you insist Kerry

This said, I am sure that Kerry would have fought if the vote tally had given him 300 votes to find and I do not know what Gore would have done with 60,000 votes to find. So your comparison is very unfair (and very typical of DU).

This said, I could never understand why normally reasonnable people insist once in a while in posting divisive posts when we need unity? Care to explain.

[guidod]

22. I would love to hear his explination too...

...You're right, some at DU are as divisive as repukes. There's not a lot of them but I think they're repukes that snuck in just to try and divide us.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Basing your choice on who got the most votes in their respective

elections is nonsense because Diebold counted the votes.

We will never know how many votes either of them got, in the real world. All we know, is that both of them won, and the elections were stolen from both of them.

[Blue_In_AK]

20. Either would be great...

I'm not voting in this poll.