A Gore/Clinton ticket in 2008 (sweet)

politicalgateway.com ^ | 4/24/05 | Bud Beck

[bitt]

They keep basing their ever-changing positions on the question:

"Is the country moving in the right or wrong direction?"

There are plenty of people like me who would answer that

"The WRONG Direction!", and that's why I support the President.

[beyond the sea]

Gore/Clinton ---- Soulman/Soulless

[beyond the sea]

Gore/Clinton ---- Soulman/Soulless ------that's when AlBaby is speaking at a black church, I should mention.

;-)

[bitt]

thanks, End_Clintonisn_Now

[Joe Bonforte]

Enter Al Gore and as he does, do not be too quick to dismiss him.

Ha. I saw Al Gore in the Nashville airport a few weeks ago. He's a shell of a man. I've seen two-day-old corpses that looked better.

And, though I hate to use labels like this, Al Gore is a dunce. He just isn't very bright, and the key Democrats that would be necessary for his fund-raising can see that.

It's always fun to expect history to repeat itself. But I think the Nixon thing was a freak of unlikely circumstances coming together. And Nixon, though fairly amoral, was not stupid.

Man, if the Democrats are reduced for hoping for a Gore comeback, they've really sunk to the depths.

[nj26]

"Hillary Clinton has always liked to win and in winning she will make history."

Being the crass opportunist that she is, she'll take what she can get.

And, once she's a heartbeat away from the presidency (as well as an impeachment scandal away from the presidency), I wouldn't want to be Al Gore.

[Ma3lst0rm]

Exactly. They always assume (wrongly) that when people surveyed say the country is moving in the wrong direction itmeans that people think that the Democrats would provide the right direction which couldn't be further from the case. I think that Republicans are going to pick up seats again precisely because the Democrats have failed to do anything. Where is their Contract with America? Where is their support for the interests of the common man? All they do is gripe and provide no solutions beyond what they always propose, bigger government and higher taxes. Does anyone think that the Democrats would be more fiscally responsible? I certainly don't and I can't think of a more wrong direction than that proposed by the left.

[hflynn]

A Gore/Clinton Ticket 2008

A Gore/Clinton Ticket 2008 = Gore/Bush ticket.

[hinckley buzzard]

They keep basing their ever-changing positions on the question: "Is the country moving in the right or wrong direction?"

If this indicative of 'rat thinking heading into 2006, I believe we will be OK. Frankly, this is unrealistic. The Nixon/Gore comparison has a certain surface validity but Gore does not play the same role in the Party now that Nixon did in the 1966 election cycle.

Back then, following the 1964 debacle, Nixon was the political leader of the GOP and he worked tirelessly for 1966 candidates. The GOP did very well in 1966, although remaining in the minority they recouped much of the damage from 1964. Nixon thus was both the titular and political head of the party. The nomination in 1968 was his for the asking.

Gore is in no such position now and if he is to earn IOU's in 2006 he will have to get busy soon. Even so, he will not be uncontested in 2008, as Nixon was in 1968.

This is in short, a fairytale spun by a Hillary suck-up. Not to worry..

[TWohlford]

Let's go back a few years, and see the sheer folly of trying to predict a nominee (or even President) at this early stage:

1956 - JFK wasn't on the radar screen as Presidental material. Nixon was an unwelcome part of the Ike administration.

1960 - LBJ was brought onto the ticket to gain support from the south. He was elected in '64 based on the unwillingness of many people to endure another change in the White House.

1964 - "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." Actually, that was 1962, but his career seemed to be over after losing the California governorship. RFK seems to be the front-runner, and no one besides the Palestinians can forsee RFK's assassination. HHH doesn't enter the '68 race until late, and few if any forsee the George Wallace candidacy.

1968 - George McGovern WHO?

1972 - Carter wasn't on the radar in '72 either. Come to think of it, neither was Ford.

1976 - AT LAST! Reagan comes away as the clear front-runner for the 1980 nomination, much to the dismay of the moderates.

1980 - Mondale is the front-runner due to his being Carter's VP.

1984 - Bush 41 is the front-runner by virtue of being VP. How many of the pundits could even spell "Dukakis"?

1988 - Bill Clinton was simply a long-winded convention speaker who did well on the Tonight Show.

1992 - Bob Dole the front-runner after Bush '41's defeat.

1996 - Gore front-runner due to being VP. Ann Richards finds out about Dubya, but few are talking about him being President.

2000 - Who is this junior Senator from Mass who looks like a member of the Adams Family?

So here we are, with the pundits talking about who's gonna be the nominee. Aside from VPs and former VPs, few can predict anything here, if history is our guide.

[ClaireSolt]

Gore has not been doing what Nixon did. Nixon worked his tail off on the rubber chicken circuit thereby building grass roots support. Guinrich is a more apt comparison to Nixon than Gore.

[Old Professer]

Their will never be a Gore-Clinton ticket, even the alphabet wouldn't tolerate it.

[JoeGar]

Al Gore? Stick a fork in him -- he's done.

[woofie]

Gore is toast ...no, moldy bread

[rockrr]

In the interest of accuracy (if not fairness) I would urge you to reconsider your terminology.

Nixon was an extremely moral guy. Even his critics acknowledged this about him.

Nixon (by virtue of his underlings) indulged in "extracurricular" activities, and then tried to bluff their way out when caught. These activities were not inspired by his morality (or lack thereof) but by a misplaced pragmatism and political expedience.

What he indulged in was 10% of what his opponents committed on a regular basis. His "problem" was that they weren't very good at being bad (more of a natural inclination for democrats).

Nixon was a decent guy who largely did a good job. To his everlasting shame he is regarded as a crook and a screwup for doing things the democrat way.

[TWohlford]

"Nixon was a decent guy who largely did a good job. To his everlasting shame he is regarded as a crook and a screwup for doing things the democrat way."

I'm disagreeing w/ you.

1. This guy was a social lib, who brought about massive inflation w/ his economic policies. To cover that, he tried Wage and Price controls, which led to massive shortages of almost everything. Carter's economic "malaise" was due to Nixon's policies.

2. Second, this guy's paranoia got the best of him. Nixon was rightly impeached for using the tools of office (IRS, FBI, et al) along with his CREP (plubmers, burglers, etc) to negate a fair election. Granted, it had been done before, but that "been done before" excuse should never be used as a legal defense.

You are correct that Nixon did some great work in his area of Cold War operation, and was a helluva baseball expert. He was certainly one of the best policians of our era.

[Michael.SF.]

Hillary played second fiddle for eight years, she is not about to do it again. It is first chair for her or nothing.

[razoroccam]

I guess I will disagree with both of you. Nixon started the process of sucking up to China and see what that got us. Talking about China, time to move this thread back from Nixon to Hillary Clinton.

[KidGlock]

I don't think Hillary would ever play second fiddle to Algore.

[beyond the sea]

GORE/CLINTON

Ice Tea Break/Ice in Veins