home

Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08?

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:09:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Arianna writes that yesterday's speeches by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, both of which criticized the Bush Administration, are like coming attractions to the 2008 Democratic presidiential nomination.

Arianna notes that while Hillary has been a terrific Senator, it's hard to go from sitting Senator to President (she lists John Kerry as a prime example) and says right now, she thinks Gore has the edge.

We'll see how the race develops, but right now I'd put my money on Gore. He didn't just get rid of the beard, he also got rid of the mitigating, the qualifying, and the equivocating that plagues sitting senators.

I'll give the edge to Gore for another reason. Half the country thinks the 2000 election was stolen from him, and they will want to right the wrong that was done to him. Had Gore been elected in 2000, he'd be on his second term. There would have been no war in Iraq, no John Roberts or Sam Alito on the Supreme Court and there would be a lockbox on our social security.

On the other hand, we'd still have mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty. But Hillary supports those too. And the Clinton-Gore Administration pushed new wiretapping powers and habeas restrictions in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. (See my 1996 article for more on this.) I'm not ready to pick either one right now.

< Two Lawsuits Filed Today Over NSA Surveillance | Brokeback Backlash From the Right For Movie Industry? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? | 32 comments (32 topical)
    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    I certainly hope we have some choices other than Hillary/Gore on the corrupted left and Cheney/? on the corrupted right.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:43:53 PM EST
    This is the same Al Gore who supported exttraordinary rendition (i.e. surreptitious snatching of suspects from foreign soil) even before 9-11? From Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies:
    Snatches, or more properly “extraordinary renditions,” were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, “That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.” (pp. 143-144)
    Now, I personally have no problem with that kinda attitude, but it's the polar opposite of what the Left professes to believe. Is Gore worth it to the Left, tho, cuz winning is more important than what they win? Just askin'.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    He's had 6 years to get the eye-rolling and sighing under control. Let's see what he can do.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Darryl Pearce on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    Yes. Gore is worth it... although like Hillary Clinton, the churning water-muddiers (how's that phrase?) will create a media storm with outlandish claims, exaggerated dangers and imaginary enemies. I had a forlorn hope that having our financial centers and military headquarters damaged, that "politics as usual" would change as we faced a common enemy. But, no.... Theodore Roosevelt failed at his comeback; would Al Gore be any different? At least he can define some of the debate. "Yeeargh!"

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#5)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:54:41 PM EST
    It is my belief that Gore's recent explosion of common sense and strong dedication to civil liberties has been a direct result of his removal from the echelons of true power. If he does end up within sniffing distance of the Imperialist, All-Conquering Throne in Washington, watch his rhetoric change stridently, and accordingly. As for Hillary Clinton, the jabs at Bush are great. Now if she could just explain her vote for the GOP Tax Cuts, for the Patriot Act, for the Iraq Resolution, as well as her increasingly ambiguous stance on reproductive rights (which was never that freedom-oriented to begin with), then, and only then, might I begin to take her seriously as someone who takes the Declaration of Independence seriously. I mean Christ, at least Lieberman has been upfront about his GOP-lite philosophy all along; and moreover, as far as defending civil liberties goes, Lieberman has been far more outspoken, consistently, than either of the Clintons ever were, or Gore when he was in power for all of those freakin' years. Which is less flattering to Lieberman than it is damning of the Clintons and Gore. Getting out of the sewer known as American Government made you a better person, Al. Don't get all dirty again just when you stopped stinking to high heaven.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:18:24 PM EST
    et al - Re Gore and from the post:
    there would be a lockbox on our social security.
    Uh, that lockbox was broken by Lyndon Johnson some 40 years ago...

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dusty on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:18:41 PM EST
    Gore has had time to get his Sh*t together..Hillary is an enigma that I can not fathom..I would take Gore over Hillary any day. Seeing Gore speak on global warming was interesting. When he is passionate about something he becomes human and less robot-like.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Lora on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    I really liked Gore's speech. If he means at least half of what he said, he'd get my vote. As nobody's perfect, I'm sure he has plenty of not-so-great qualities that the right wing will be more than happy to find and present to the world, spinning as they go, as they will for any candidate the dems come up with. Do they count? Sure. But they need to be checked for accuracy, put in context and in perspective, and not just taken at face value. And in the end, how do they compare with the republican candidate's flaws?" But just how are we to "right the wrong" done to Gore when we have an administration of the ruling party basing its actions on lies, corruption and an unprecendented amount of power? Come on, do you really think that they will allow a fair and honest election to take place when they stand to lose all this power? They have set up the election system to allow massive fraud without being caught or held accountable. Do you really think they will have a sudden attack of conscience and, in this one arena of government that could cast them from power, permit the election to proceed without interference? Not on this planet.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:35:11 PM EST
    Gore v. Clinton. This should be interesting...

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#10)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    Lora, Per our previous conversation of another thread, if you want to improve the mechanics and integrity of the existing elctoral process, you will have to lose the conspiracy theories. BTW, we'll be holding an election in Canada in a few days. We don't have any probs, cuz we do two things: 1. paper ballots 2. Check beforehand to make sure you're on the list, doughhead, and don't whine if you forget and can't vote cuz it's your own fault for not checking. Beauty, eh?

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lora on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:57:20 PM EST
    ras, If the foo sh!ts, wear it... But, Paper, and check if you're on the list! Brilliant! Why can't WE do that??? ;)

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#12)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:05:03 PM EST
    Lora, Sure I'm on the list. And I know where to go to vote too (that's another thing I forgot to mention: you vote at your assigned locale. If you're gonna be somewhere else on election day, then vote beforehand). And, of course, we count the votes by hand, too. Takes a few hours cross-country, that's all.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#13)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    BTW, in all my years in Canada I can think of only two incidents during a vote: 1. During the Quebec separation referendum, the separatists tried to stuff some ballot boxes, but federalist observers saw what they were doing and put a stop to it. 2. Last fed election (or was it the one before that?) a drunk in the Maritimes grabbed a ballot box, ran outside with it, and threw it in the ocean. Not enough ballots in the box to make a diff, tho, so not much to worry about. I fully expect this upcoming election to go smoothly, regardless of the outcome. I'll let you know if any more incidents pop up (or, as in the Maritime case, bob up to the surface).

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lora on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    ras, I hope things go smoothly for your election. Paper, hand-counting, careful observation and full transparency are ingredients for a fair and honest election. Unless someone can show me that our crazy system works as well, I'll cast my vote for the Canadian style of running elections.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#15)
    by profmarcus on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:11:43 PM EST
    hillary can go directly to hell... she has proved without a doubt that she is out of touch or perhaps doesn't WANT to be in touch with the progressive netroots... can't we put somebody up who has REAL integrity instead of the rub-on variety that you get at the beach...? puh-leeeze... visit my blog: And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#16)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:01:16 PM EST
    as far as defending civil liberties goes, Lieberman has been far more outspoken, consistently, than either of the Clintons ever were
    Um... when I hear Joe Lieberman, I think censorship. Actually, same goes for Hilary, these days.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:21:05 AM EST
    If the top two canidates are Hillary and Gore stop right now becasue with those two it will be "4 more years" for republicans. 2008 is a long way off so far off it's not even worth really worrying about now. We could be at war with Iran in 2008, nothing could have happened, Iraq could be great a nightmare etc.... Something will happen between now and then to change the parameters so any speech that they give now won't matter when it comes time to run. Remember in 2003 it looked like Howard Dean would be the nominee and could beat Bush. My how things changed.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#18)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:58:47 AM EST
    she has proved without a doubt that she is out of touch or perhaps doesn't WANT to be in touch with the progressive netroots...
    absolutely true. Progressive politics is dead in this country strangled by special interest corporate money and a corporate based media.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#19)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 09:37:04 AM EST
    Um... when I hear Joe Lieberman, I think censorship. Actually, same goes for Hilary, these days.
    Scar, we're on the same page here. Remember that I qualified my comment by pointing out it doesn't flatter Lieberman, but rather damns Clinton and Gore. But if we must quibble, then yes, I would stand by my claim that Lieberman has been a better friend to civil liberties than either of the other two--again, it's like saying that the Chiefs had a worse defense this year than the Falcons, but there you have it. The larger point is, why in the name of the Pillsbury Dough Boy would anyone trust any of the lot of them? Soccerdad writes:
    Progressive politics is dead in this country strangled by special interest corporate money and a corporate based media.
    That about sums it up, except it got me to wondering at what point was "progressive politics" ever really alive in this country? Alive, I mean, in terms of candidates for high office?

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    Glanton, Go back to the teens, twenties and thrities, you'll find plenty of progressive politics in this nation. How do you think labor rights evolved? Or civil rights? Don't tell me your memory is THAT short. Look up Meyer London, who worked for those living in the ghettos of New York City (where my father grew up). Or Victor Berger from Wisconsin. They were two American socialists elected to Congress. Or Frank Ziedler, the last socialist mayor of Milwaukee (1948-60).

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#21)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 11:11:39 AM EST
    Dadler, Yes, strides have been made here and there, but they did not take place, nor will they in the future, because of the courage or decency of any specific politician. You speak of the teens. Well, let's talk about them. Often Woody Wilson gets partial credit for women finally getting to vote. Does he deserve even a shred? Only if you don't study how that right finally came about: Wilson was forced into it, he spoke out only when he was sure it was politically expedient to do so. And that was after he had sanctioned the widespread arrests of hundreds of women for "picking at the President" in a time of war (sound familiar?). Like the rest of them Wilson was scum. But you give a couple of refreshing examples to the contrary:
    They were two American socialists elected to Congress.
    Well, gee, a blind groundhog will find an acorn every now and then. But a couple of Congresspeople here and there a dignified political tradition does not make. Not that "socialist" represents, by any means, some kind of an ideal for me. One of the great myths that has been perpetrated on the average voting slob is this idea that you have to choose between "socialism" or an out-an-out concrete jungle (stay alert, and stay with Fox). Perhaps the pervasiveness of this myth explains why both parties are, and have historically been, almost thoroughly dominated by the ethos of the concrete jungle.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    Glanton, You asked, I gave you a few examples. There are more. Again, if labor and civil rights aren't national and progressive enough movements for you, I guess we disagree. Not that progressives are any less human, or less prone to error, than anyone else, just that they tend not to come from the realm of big capital and the real power of our system. Also, American socialism as represented by the people I mentioned is NOT to be mistaken for the socialism of Europe or the military dictatorships that have abused the word for their purposes. The powers that be have a daunting ability to quash a real progressive candidate, as it's always easier to pander to prejudices and ignorance (with tons of money behind you) than it is to appeal to imagination and long-term thinking. To put it bluntly, it's always easier to yell "commie!" (since that's really the misrepresented definition of ANY socialist) than it is to rationally propose a progressive ideal of the future. But I agree, we're generally offered two ideas, both fringe and false in their offering. But don't blame genuine progressives who at least have the nad to say otherwise.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:55:09 PM EST
    Add Glanton, And, come on, would you ever have known that in the time period the TV series "Happy Days" was taking place, set in heartland Milwaukee, that the actual city of Milwaukee had a SOCIALIST mayor? In the height of the Cold War? Doesn't that at least suggest to you that there's some "history" out there we don't hear much about? The history that contradicts the company line?

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#24)
    by peacrevol on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 01:54:55 PM EST
    I think that it matters not who the demos pick to run in the election...They'll win b/c nobody likes Bush and the neos. Since we (as a society) only seem to consider the two choices of demo or repub, the less popular party will lose no matter who runs. As Montgomery Brewster would say, "I beg of my fellow voters to vote none of the above in the next election." -Vote Badnarik '08

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:25:32 PM EST
    Last Add Glanton, Eugene Debs got 3.4% of the popular vote in the 1920 Presidential election. Not a huge percentage, but fairly noticable since at the time HE WAS IN PRISON for protesting American involvement in WWI. Eugene Debs

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#26)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 04:34:44 PM EST
    Dadler, Debs is a great example. The "Happy Days" point is on the money, too. I have often thought that one of the things that denotes today's Republican voter is that he/she, when presented with an episode of "Happy Days," would mistake it for a documentary of some kind, rather than what it was: an entertaining and highly misleading one projection of an entertaining and highly misleading narrative. I think you're misunderstanding my point a bit, though, so I'll try to clarify. I do not mean to suggest that there are no decent people, throughout American history, who have sought to effect and even effected change for the better. What I am saying, though, is that the history of this government is far from inspirational and has very little to do with civil rights or much else beyond building and then consolidating the military/industrial complex(to paraphrase a primary, bloody-handed culprit). Our Presidents, our Senators, our Congresspeople: this is not an honor roll of people who made the country (let alone the world) better in any sense of the word. Re this thread, my larger point is that Gore has obviously been more persuasive, more honest, more passionate, more everything since he left the inner circle of power. One might argue the same has happened with Clinton, but it's a tougher sell with him in my view. But it's definitely true of Carter, who has been one helluvan ex-President. But throw Gore back into power and he'll immediately become a thoroughly compromised corporate lackey all over again, whose main selling point would be that he is the lesser of two evils. Which would be true but not enough to get my arse up off of the couch to go vote.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 05:04:26 PM EST
    The money = speech and corporations = persons complex needs to be critiqued and attacked relentlessly.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 05:08:56 PM EST
    Glanton, I get what you're saying, and we're more on the same page than we probably realize, it's just my dad was an old socialist back in the lower east side day, I have a sore spot there. And I still say it's progressive politicians who have the harder time, since real evolved change is always more daunting than tiny tweeks to the status quo. Breaking that HAPPY DAYS perception is very tough.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 05:10:18 PM EST
    Add Glanton, And you're probably right about Gore, but the sad part is we'll never know.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    Jondee, Long time no read, good to see you back.

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 05:21:38 PM EST
    Hey kid. Wrestling picture. Wallace Beery. What,do I gotta draw you a friggin road map?

    Re: Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    Jondee, Good memory, baby. You ever act? What? No, I'm a-- --We need Indians for a Norman Steele western. I'm a writer. Think about it, Fink. Writers come and go, we always need Indians.

    Al Gore vs. Hillary in '08? | 32 comments (32 topical)