Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Are We Ready for 2007 Nostalgia Yet?
Eleanor Clift at Newsweek wonders: could it still be Gore for the Democratic presidential nomination? There's more than one path to a Clinton restoration, after all.
Josh|2.19.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Al Gore with a Democratic Congres.....I shudder to think about what they'd hatch.
|2.19.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Maybe Obama isn't down with the Fed bankers. We know who really runs the show, right?
Episiarch|2.19.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Why are the Democrats so afraid of a superdelegate showdown? I don't get it.
ed|2.19.08 @ 2:38PM|#
I can't top this comment from the linked page:
"Hog wash, year of the woman, you all beast just hate the
clintons. she is not a taliban, and she don't speak like jesus,
saying he do this & do that, lies."
|2.19.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Interesting musing from Eleanor. Gore would probably get my vote over McCain. Hillary wouldn't. I doubt it will happen, but if the party poobahs think the Clinton/Obama clash is going to turn into a train wreck, alienating huge portions of their base, who knows?
PC|2.19.08 @ 2:59PM|#
I really don't get the Gore loving by some Dems.
First, he lost.
Second, he had to pick Lieberman as his VP because he was the only
guy that made him look remotely charismatic.
Third, he has achieved some celebrity since leaving politics, but
that is because he has fancy powerpoints, movies, and concerts.
Once Al has to ditch the beard, slap on the tie, give up the fancy
receptions, and give his stump speech he will be the Al Gore of
2000 all over again.
Finally, he has been out of the game too long. Look what has
happened to Clinton who is much more skilled as a politician than
Al. If Al got back into the daily grind, he wouldn't make it. If
Gore was a stock he'd be a sell, because it isn't rising any higher
than it was a few months ago.
|2.19.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Why are the Democrats so afraid of a superdelegate showdown?
I don't get it.
If it goes to the supers and Obama wins, I suspect that the
internal wounds would heal (although their convention is late this
year, and the Repubs would gain a lot of positive news
cycles).
If it goes to the supers and Clinton wins, I think the party would
be bitterly split (the Obamaniacs would feel robbed, racial
tensions would not be uninvolved, etc.), and one thing Hillary
Clinton is not good at is building bridges.
Syd|2.19.08 @ 3:02PM|#
I don't see why he has to ditch the beard. He looks pretty good in it. I'd like to see a presidential candidate with facial hair for a change. Unless it's a woman.
PC|2.19.08 @ 3:07PM|#
"Why are the Democrats so afraid of a superdelegate
showdown?"
Clintonian strong arming when their opponent is an African
American. If Obama wins everything is fine, but nobody wants to
count out Hillary's determination. When you play nothing but
identity politics this will scare the hell out of you as a
party.
PapayaSF|2.19.08 @ 3:14PM|#
I don't see what would be in it for Gore. He's raking in
accolades and millions of bucks being a climate change alarmist. On
the other hand, presidential campaigns are hard work, and even if
you win, you end up with a hard, long-hours job with not-great pay
and tons of responsibility. It's much more fun to be a rich public
speaker and consultant.
An odd argument to make, though: "Since we're about evenly split
between chocolate and vanilla, let's compromise on strawberry!"
GILMORE|2.19.08 @ 3:15PM|#
this has got to be one of the stupidist things i've ever
read.
Jesus, i hate pundit spawning season. During elections, nothing but
nothing is out of the realm of speculation for political journos.
No matter how ridiculous.
please god, let's just get it over with so that people have
something potentially meaningful to write about. Like war. Or the
economy. Or whatever. Just not..(shudder)...al fucking gore
JimmyChanga|2.19.08 @ 3:18PM|#
one thing Hillary Clinton is not good at is building
bridges
Another is dwarf pantomime. Plus, the woman can't bend conduit to
save her life. And did you ever see her try to block felt? Or sex
baby geese? God help us if she tries Tuvan throat-singing again.
The last dramatic play she directed came off as farce. Can't hit
the low fastball. Cooks Nicaraguan food using Andalusian spices,
fer crine out loud. Never once picked up a 7-10 split. I could go
on.
|2.19.08 @ 3:23PM|#
What? They want to give Gore a chance to see if he can lose
another "sure win" for the Democrats? Did Kerry already have an
October vacation planned or something? Well if they do draft Gore
they better get him to sign some kind of pledge not to try
that populist crap again. I mean he turns his back on eight years
as VP with a booming economy to run the most bizarrely inexplicable
campaign, and to highlight just how good he had it, he
still manages to win the popular vote. Had he simply run
as a DLC centrist promising a continuation of the Clinton years
(who despite his impeachment left office with a very good approval
rating) he would have won in a landslide. I'm just not sure giving
him another chance to screw things up is such a good idea. I hold
his inexcusably bad campaign responsible for sticking us with GWB
and I don't think I could handle him gettting a chance to stick us
with McCain.
But then again... perhaps the back room dealings which would give
Gore the nomination could also give the VP slot to Bill to help
keep Al in check and stop any silly notions of running off on
another ill-advised populist tangent. Plus, wouldn't getting Bill
on the ticket be a great way for Al to stick it to his long-time
nemesis Hillary instead of sticking it to the rest of us?
Anyway, I don't really think for one second any kind of
second-ballot selection is going to happen. Political writers love
to dream up scenarios like this because the campaigns drag on
endlessly and they rightfully get bored listening to the candidates
say the same crap over and over. After months of that torture who
wouldn't begin to imagine ways they could all lose?
|2.19.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Most of the Dems are slavering over a chance to get a woman or a black man in the White House (which is understandable from their point of view, I only dig the humor of watching them agonize over which one.) What would happen to those constituencies if they backdoor a white guy in a party savior. Such, the garden variety hyper partisans would vote for a bale of hay if the party nominated it, but the hardcore feminist and African-American vote? Would they just stay home?
|2.19.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Wow, is that stupid.
Turn to Gore because he's electable? More electable than Obama?
That is a special kind of silliness right there.
|2.19.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Brian Courts,
Absent Ralph Nader, Gore wins by 2 million votes.
Absent Ralph Nader, Gore doesn't bolt left at the end to try to
pick up Nader voters.
Abesnt Ralph Nader, no Iraq War.
Taktix®|2.19.08 @ 3:36PM|#
I don't see why he has to ditch the beard. He looks pretty
good in it. I'd like to see a presidential candidate with facial
hair for a change. Unless it's a woman.
Lila/Lodz
08'
Episiarch|2.19.08 @ 3:40PM|#
I remember an episode of Six Feet Under where the brother who plays Dexter excoriated Peter Krause for voting for Nader and giving the election to Bush. Funny stuff, that lefty split. The righty split that Ron Paul could cause (but says he won't) would be funny stuff too. Watch the recriminations fly, just like in 2000!
|2.19.08 @ 3:42PM|#
joe,
Why hasn't a coalition of anti-war and partisans lynched Nader yet?
You're right. It really is all his fault.
I'm not convinced the GORE WINS! alternate universe is peachy keen
(in fact, I'd hate it because he's a supercilious ass), but at the
very least a whole lot of Americans and Iraqis would be alive.
|2.19.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Sure, no one blame the people who actually voted for Nader. Or the people who actually voted for Bush.
|2.19.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Nick,
I'd love to blame the people who voted for Nader, but, really...
they voted for Nader. Can you imagine them actually feeling
anything through the haze of self-righteous selective memory and
rationalization they must have gone through in the last 8
years?
And the people who voted for Bush. In 2000, OK, valid life choice.
2004? Nimrods.
Episiarch|2.19.08 @ 4:12PM|#
Since I didn't vote for anyone, I claim the moral high ground.
You are all fools and everything is your fault.
Whew, that felt good. I knew not voting for turd sandwiches and
giant douches would pay off some day.
Step 1: do not participate in voting
Step 2: ???
Step 3: PROFIT with not being to blame
|2.19.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Epi,
I'm pretty sure Step #2 is unnecessary and you just put it there as
some sort of joke.
You don't fool me for one second, buster.
ed|2.19.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Jesus, I hate pundit spawning season.
Oh, this is only the beginning. We have parted the curtains and
entered bizarro world. I expect at any moment to hear about the
Double Secret Zombie Delegates. They're out
there...waiting...
|2.19.08 @ 4:30PM|#
SugarFree,
A lot of us WERE Nader voters.
Though some of us were smart enough to make sure we lived in a
state that Gore was sure to win first.
(I was trying to make some point about third parties. Or something.
Screw that - I'm never doing "strategic voting" again.)
|2.19.08 @ 4:34PM|#
SugarFree, in 2004 the Dems tossed Kerry out there, plus they
weren't smart enough to counter the Republicans "We Hate Gays"
tactic. I'd say it was a lost cause.
I blame anyone who didn't vote for Badnarik in 04, and that
includes Epi for not voting.
I actually voted for Gore in 2000. I was young and didn't know what
I was doing, but history made me right. I just knew Bush couldn't
be trusted.
Episiarch|2.19.08 @ 4:39PM|#
I blame anyone who didn't vote for Badnarik in 04, and that
includes Epi for not voting.
Hey! I already claimed the moral high ground, so you can't blame
me. I already blamed you, for participating in the system.
Paul|2.19.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Why are the Democrats so afraid of a superdelegate showdown?
I don't get it.
Episiarch, think of Superdelegates as the "electoral college" of
the "Democrat"ic party.
Aside from all the micro-factions of the Democratic party, there
are two larger macro groups: Establishment Dems and grass-roots
Dems. The establishment Dems (party insiders, power brokers etc)
want Hillary (in my estimation). The grass-roots Dems largely go
for Obama-- as well one would think they would.
The party officials aren't as concerned with democracy (small d) as
they are with power. However, the Dems aren't stupid. They know
that at least from a standpoint of perception, it doesn't do their
image well if their own presidential candidate wasn't chosen
democratically (small d). Think of it as a big red button. They're
a peaceloving group--they don't want to push it, but they
will if they have to.
|2.19.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Whew, that felt good. I knew not voting for turd sandwiches
and giant douches would pay off some day.
Fuck you man.
Vote LP this year or we all get to call you an asshole 8 years
running.
|2.19.08 @ 4:51PM|#
So what happens to the Democratic moral high ground if Clinton
is chosen through the "electoral college" in defiance of the
popular vote? Are they really so desperate for HRC that they'll
stage a mini-2000 Gore V. Bush?
I've always understood the popularity of Bill, but I will never
understand the popularity of Hillary. Everybody says that you
shouldn't vote / they aren't voting for her just because she is a
woman, but can anyone say with a straight face that she would have
1/4 as many delegates as she does if she was a white guy with the
same record?
Episiarch|2.19.08 @ 4:54PM|#
joshua, it would blow my ancap street cred if I vote, even for
LP. I send my disapproval by not voting.
Besides, I am an asshole.
|2.19.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Hey! I already claimed the moral high ground, so you can't
blame me. I already blamed you, for participating in the
system.
God damn it Epi you pansy couch potato get off your ass and vote
LP.
|2.19.08 @ 4:55PM|#
0.0 chance of this happening--who thinks of this stupid shit and why don't they have better things to do with their time?
|2.19.08 @ 4:57PM|#
joshua, it would blow my ancap street cred if I vote, even
for LP. I send my disapproval by not voting.
Bullshit...you know as well as I do you don't get better street
cred then by breakin' all the rulez.
VOTE LP OR DIE!
Episiarch|2.19.08 @ 5:00PM|#
joshua, I must commend you on your high satire of making fun of
P. Diddy and possibly referencing the South Park episode that I
myself referenced earlier.
At least I hope that's what you're doing.
|2.19.08 @ 5:01PM|#
At least I hope that's what you're doing.
Mostly just trying to start a fake fight cuz this thread is boring
the crap out of me...so ya close to what you are saying.
Rhywun|2.19.08 @ 5:03PM|#
can anyone say with a straight face that she would have 1/4
as many delegates as she does if she was a white guy with the same
record?
She'd have more. She's remarkably unliked, even among
Democrats. And as we all know, image is more important than
message.
PS. I don't like her either.
Episiarch|2.19.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Well, if you want a fight just insult joe. It's not like you haven't before.
|2.19.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Well, if you want a fight just insult joe. It's not like you
haven't before.
Joe is trying to steal votes from LP with the "BIG FEAR OF
MCCAIN!!".
Which personally makes me a bit sick.
A vote for the LP is not a vote for McCain but is literally a vote
against McCain...but he is selling it and a few people are
buying...and some days I would rather just fuck around then fight
it.
|2.19.08 @ 5:12PM|#
can anyone say with a straight face that she would have 1/4
as many delegates as she does if she was a white guy with the same
record?
I will. She wouldn't be running at all if she wasn't the Boss's
Wife.
The Senate is jam-packed with white guys who have basically the
same voting record as she does. There may be a few who wouldn't
like to President, but not many. None of the center-left Dem white
guys even got out of the gate. Why did she?
Alright, she's probably tougher and more ambitious than a lot of
them, but really, if she was just Senator Rodham from New York, no
way she's neck-and-neck with Obama at this point.
|2.19.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Well, if you want a fight just insult joe. It's not like you
haven't before.
Also most of the fights I start with Joe aren't fake.
I don't hate the guy, I don't know him, but I sure as hell hate his
politics.
|2.19.08 @ 5:44PM|#
I'll get the same prez as y'all without having to get up early (before 8 PM) to vote and I'll be savin' the environment by not starting up my monster gas guzzler. Besides, the election comes during huntin' season and I'll have more important things to do, lke Cheney, but I'll do my best not to shoot anything besides a deer.
|2.19.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Paul, I think that's too simplistic. Ted Kennedy is about as
Democratic-insider as a person can be, and he's for Obama. And,
believe it or not, there are a good number of "grassroots"
Democrats who support Hillary.
So what happens to the Democratic moral high ground if Clinton
is chosen through the "electoral college" in defiance of the
popular vote
Flusssssssshhhhhhhh. But that is extremely unlikely, that there
would be a clear plurality for Obama but the Automatic Delegates (I
hate "Superdelegates. It sounds moronic, and it's a press-invented
term) would overrule them. If either candidate has a meaningful
lead in both delegates and votes, I'm sure the Automatic Delegates
would fall in line.
An interesting question is, what would they do if one candidate had
a lead in votes, and the other had a lead in elected
delegates?
And what is the "right" standard for them to base their votes on,
anyway? Their own opinion? The national vote totals? Their state
vote totals? If they are Congressmen, their district vote totals?
What about the ones who aren't officeholders, just party
activists?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245