Gore - A 2008 Candidate?

[jerseyhoya34]

online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114704312621046146-8mcD8Ht0JfmaLbrI3JIqX1VyGyg_20060514.html?mod=blogs

"In 2008, that could mean a once-unimaginable battle for Democrats' nomination between Bill Clinton's former vice president and his wife, Hillary Clinton. To some pro-Gore Democrats, worried about Mrs. Clinton's electability, that is part of the appeal."

Gore would be a welcome addition to the field to me, anyway. It is high time that global warming got the attention it deserves as a serious national security issue.

I just don't like Hillary and her movement toward the center. In my view, she does not bring any unique expertise to the office.

I like Warner, but view him as the Edwards of 2008, perhaps wrongly. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he's ultimately too green for the rigors of a presidential campaign and the presidency. He could be an appealing VP candidate, but I suspect that his base of support might not be the same as Edwards' was, assuming Gore enters the race.

Hopefully some other candidates will present themselves on both sides of the aisle.

On Edit: There is one announced candidate in the mainstream for the Dems. His name is Mike Gravel. He's a former senator from Alaska. (Site: www.gravel2008.us/). If anything, he appears to be an interesting man.

[DFW HOYA]

The best thing that could happen to both parties is not to nominate anyone remotely associated with past campaigns.

Granted, Gore holds a grudge towards the Clintons for not campaigning harder at the end in 2000, but it was Al that lost the race, not Bill. I could also see Kerry throwing his hat in the ring, too, because while HRC is popular among the Democratic elite, she does not poll well among independents who consider her style as somewhat of a know-it-all.

So if your name is Clinton, Bush, Gore, Kerry, Biden, McCain, Edwards, et al., step aside for some new names and new ideas on BOTH sides of the aisle. Find candidates who didn't go to Yale, aren't lawyers, and who are under 50.

[jerseyhoya34]

Interesting thought... The last president who met that criteria was Jimmy Carter, except for the age bit. George W. Bush was associated with past campaigns in name only.

IIRC, Gore asked Clinton not to campaign on his behalf, which was a strategic mistake. Clinton was willing to campaign for him, but Gore wanted to distance himself from the issues of character that came up in the campaign. I believe the apparent grudge stems from the character issue and, possibly, Gore's embrace of Joe Lieberman, who was the first Democrat in Congress to criticize Clinton for the Lewinsky affair.

[nychoya3]

Do you think that conservatives and the DC media have pigeon holed Gore as somehow unbalanced? I'm not sure, and I'd be interested to see what the polls say. But after the 2000 election, there was a lot of anti-Gore sentiment about how he was nuts. It was and is total BS, but it may have permeated the debate.

I like Gore, and he did win the popular vote in 2000 - I'm not going to argue that the election was stolen or anything, but it was, for all intents and purposes, a tie. Point being, he has had some success in the national political scene, and he could run as the real anti-Bush. Given that Dubya is sitting in the low 30s in approval with little prospect for improvement, that could be a winning combo.

I don't really believe that Gore will do it, but he certainly would be a force to reckoned with - more than, for example Kerry who is DOA.

Gore was right about global warming, of course, but do people care? I've always respected Gore for being more serious about policy than 99% of the politicians out there today, and willing to take some unconventional stands. Problem was, he was totally neutered in 2000 and they tried to back him in on the strength of the economy. It nearly worked, but it was hardly inspiring. I hope, if he does run, he speaks his mind, even if some people want to say he's nuts for holding such ludicrous positions as "global warming is a big problem" and "we shouldn't have invaded Iraq."

[Joe Hoya]

I think it doesn't matter who the Democrats choose to nominate in the end. Charles Logan led our country through a particularly trying crisis, and I think he can probably ride that to an electoral victory over just about anyone. Plus if he apprehends this Bauer guy who is wanted in President Palmer's assassination, it's a done deal.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

I think the Dems should nominate General Zod.

"Kneel before Zod ..." - that would be such a good commercial and campaign bumper sticker.

[washingtonhoya]

joehoya said:

I think it doesn't matter who the Democrats choose to nominate in the end. Charles Logan led our country through a particularly trying crisis, and I think he can probably ride that to an electoral victory over just about anyone. Plus if he apprehends this Bauer guy who is wanted in President Palmer's assassination, it's a done deal.

(Spoiler)

Unfortunate that he was about 15 seconds from offing himself when that call came in. Although that probably would have left little to be done for the last three episodes.

[DrumsGoBang]

Am I the only one who likes Biden's crazy theories on Iraq? He couldn't win president, but we should make him sec of state

[EasyEd]

On "Global Warming", did it stop in 1998? See www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
Also, to try to say we have man-created global warming because of observed temperatures over the last 5, 10, 100, 1000 years - in a universe that is millions of years old - is like saying the Dow Jones averages will reach a million based on the observation of its upward trend this week.

[CO_Hoya]

What is it with the Blue & Gray board and the denial of established science?

I'm too busy to go off another diatribe, but I can assure you that anthro. climate forcing is about as well established as the theory of evolution at this point (insert jokes here). I have no problem with someone complaining about a lot of the doom and gloom predictions for what lies ahead in 100+ years, but the consensus in the pertinent scientific community is that there is a measurable rise in mean global temperature, now and continuing for the forseeable future, as a result of anthro. greenhouse gas emissions.

[Jack]

drumsgobang said:

Am I the only one who likes Biden's crazy theories on Iraq? He couldn't win president, but we should make him sec of state

Love Biden. He is the Democratic version of Joe McCain c. 1999, thus stands no chance in the primary. It's not enough that most really bright people don't want to be in elected politics, then we have to have a ridiculous party primary system where money and extreme ideology dictate our choices. Yay Democracy!

[jerseyhoya34]

I recognize that some disagree with the climate change theory, but let's take a look at the methodology of your argument. We should discount climate change because the sample size in terms of annual data is small relative to the earth's existence, but we should go to the opposite extreme and say that it does not exist because temperatures allegedly stabilized for 7 years?

Global warming already has local consequences, although the global security consequences are not yet clear. It is hard to ignore the consequences of water evaporation and scarcity to downstream Riparians in the Middle East, for example. Similar problems exist in some parts of Africa, where resources have been degraded, with the result that competing factions have greater stakes in increasingly scarce resources.

[nychoya3]

Biden sucks. He's plenty smart, but Joe is every bit the windbag in real life that he is on the Sunday morning talk shows he loves so well. Also, we all know you're practically bald Senator. Just give up the damn ghost.

Jack, where's the extreme ideology among the top contenders for prez right now? McCain is a basically decent opportunist. Hillary? She hasn't staked out a transformative policy idea in...well, ever. Sam Brownback...now that guy is extreme. But in general, it's the process of running for president that takes very smart people who know a great deal about just about everything and turns them into zombies. I don't think Biden is in any way smarter or more serious than the last two democratic nominees. In a lot of ways, he's like Kerry in that he's never been much of an effective legislator and has always loved the cameras just a tad too much.

I'm sort of puzzled why anyone thinks Biden is a straight talker. The man is slicker than slick.

[hifigator]

I hope Howard Dean gets the nomination. YEEHAW!

His internet polls show him leading any other candidate by 20points already. YEEHAW!

[Jack]

Disagree that Biden and Kerry have similar legislative accomplishments- he can count the Violence Against Women Act, important crime and drug bills, the destruction of Robert Bork's nomination, and loads of foreign policy stuff as his legacy in the Senate. He is undeniably a self-promoter, but I admire him for his willingness to be critical of the administration without being shrill and divisive. He is self-made and has done serious work as a Senator, much more than Kerry has accomplished.

The point about extreme ideology was perhaps a bit overstated, although I do think Bush's social conservatism was a big factor in taking out McCain in 2000. The point is more about money, and Hilary has so much already lined up that it will be next to impossible for the likes of Edwards, Warner, or Biden to be in the same ballpark.

[jerseyhoya34]

Biden could also be a VP candidate if a Warner ends up becoming the nominee. Biden would give some national security/foreign policy experience to the ticket, when Warner has next to none. I don't think Biden could win the nomination, but his candidacy could produce some memorable sound bytes.

[jerseyhoya34]

online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114738549525950630-JZQauMdmKQEApEJlyJlVVLYicfE_20070512.html?mod=blogs
More on climate change...

One signature is the pattern of warming in the atmosphere. Decades of data from satellites and weather balloons show that the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, has warmed while the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere, has cooled. "If you turn up the sun's energy output, the atmosphere should warm from the stratosphere to the surface," says Dr. Santer. "That's contrary to what's observed. But greenhouse gases do not produce a uniform warming. They warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere."

[SFHoya99]

cohoya said:

What is it with the Blue & Gray board and the denial of established science?

I'm too busy to go off another diatribe, but I can assure you that anthro. climate forcing is about as well established as the theory of evolution at this point (insert jokes here). I have no problem with someone complaining about a lot of the doom and gloom predictions for what lies ahead in 100+ years, but the consensus in the pertinent scientific community is that there is a measurable rise in mean global temperature, now and continuing for the forseeable future, as a result of anthro. greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm a very pro-environment guy, but I do have to acknowledge that the common perception of Global Warming is not exactly true.

Much of the climate change is not particularly significant in terms of normal climate flux.

Much of the climate increase in temperature may have as much to do with increased energy use and the growth of cities and industry than greenhouse gases in particular.

That said, I think it is silly to take the fact that we don't understand everything, and toss out a good idea (in this case, that we should think about the effects of our actions on the environment) just because one or two specific things don't align with our theories.

Personally, I think Global Warming gets TOO much credit; I'd focus more on destruction of wild areas, etc.

But what is the real, long term economic cost of clean air? That maybe I have to spend a few more bucks on my car so maybe I cook more and go out less? Or maybe I don't buy a few cds, or take more time recycling?

[/rant]

Oh, and on topic, I like Al Gore. But nominating him would be a freaking disaster.

[SFHoya99]

Oh, and I'm voting for the Rev. Al Sharpton.

It very well could be a disaster, but (a) it can't get any worse than today and (b) he's really entertaining and dead honest.

Plus, it is a little known fact that the White House lost the Funk in 1982.

Al would bring it back.

[EasyEd]

For those of you who say the preponderance of scientific evidence supports global warming caused by humans, it has not been too long ago that many in the scientific community were forecasting the next ice age. Imagine if we has taken steps to follow the lead of those scientifics during the 1970s. And don't tell me we are much smarter now than in the 70s because they would have said the same thing then.

denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm