Who would have been the better president Al Gore or John Kerry?

[killerbush]

OK guys, time to fess up. Who would have been the better president. A couple of ground rules. 1, I don't want to hear about stolen elections. That time has come and gone. 2, I don't want to hear, oh both would have been great. That's a cop out. 3, No other candidates please, this is just between the 2000 nominee and the 2004 nominee. Go to it folks. If anyone breaks the rules, they will be subject to seeing George Bush's face in your nightmares every night.

[TAPat]

1. Gore nt

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Gore

John Kerry would've been a great President, also.:thumbsup:

[Karenca]

3. gore...... nt

[globalvillage]

4. Kerry n/t

[AtomicKitten]

5. my boyfriend, Al Gore

[killerbush]

6. AtomicKitten, what about Tipper??

I don't think she will approve of you having a crush on Al

[AtomicKitten]

60. she's totally into it

[Totally Committed]

37. AtomicKitten: I happen to think that the photo in your signature line...

is one of the best on DU, btw. Always makes me smile.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

59. me too, thanks

[Cha]

67. You'll appreciate this..

I had a dream about Al Gore last night(my first) and we were hanging out together! So much fun!! :) :patriot: :patriot:

[AtomicKitten]

69. Did he mention when he was going to declare his intent to run in 2008?

Champagne poised.

[Cha]

70. Sorry, nothing about

politics..we were just trying to get to the beach together. Funny thing about dreams..no rhyme or reason sometimes. I remember he looked really good.

[AtomicKitten]

78. He always does in mine

I have had a major crush on him for years.

[Cha]

81. I've always admired him

and was totally crushed when the media(be damned) started lying about him in 2000.

And I had just gotten into the politics of the world.

I am so proud of him for the way he has rallied and become a real Leader as I know you must be. No doubt, brilliance is sexy.

[kaygore]

7. Are you kidding???!!! Gore

Having volunteered for both campaigns, I have no doubt. I am not even sure that Kerry wanted to win. If he had won, I am not sure that he has the vision to govern.

Gore is a leader. He is a visionary. He can effectively work across party lines to bring the country together.

[blm]

38. Gore was also a keep the books closed guy - Kerry is an OPEN GOVERNMENT

lawmaker who has fought the close the books mentality of so many in government for decades.

Gore would have been a very good president, but still would not have done what we know now needs to be done - THE BOOKS MUST BE OPENED and the corruption must be reconciled once and for all.

[RufusEarl]

8. Don't do this, it a straw man question!

[AverageJoe]

9. Gore would have been far better

though Kerry would have made a fine president as well.

When Al Gore used his own money and connections to fly passenger jets to the Gulf Coast to rescue victims of Katrina and pointedly refused to seek publicity, I realized just how great he is.

Kerry would be a very good president. Al Gore would be a president for the ages.

Just my two-cents.

[davhill]

11. Gore by a mile

Unfortunately nether he nor Kerry were very good campaigners.

[bdamomma]

150. not very good campaigners but they would know how to run

a country. Republicans know how to campaign but don't know how to govern.

Democrats do not know how to campaign but know how to run a country.

[Wetzelbill]

14. I was thinking that too, however

I think the Gore of the last few years is a much better Gore than the one of 2000, so I took that into consideration while I was.....

Oh who am I kidding, I didn't even think out my answer at all. All impulse. :)

[I Have A Dream]

10. Gore. n/t

[Wetzelbill]

12. Oh the pain!!!!!! Hmmmm..... How about Kerry?

yeah...... I'll go with Kerry. Tough call though. I'm posting before I change my mind.

[Burma Jones]

13. Gore

Easily

[longship]

15. What does it matter?

Neither one got to be president.

Maybe the operative question is, "Which one should get to be President?"

My answer is, "Both!"

Eight years of Gore, followed by eight years of Kerry.
That ought to be enough to start undoing the mess left by eight years of ChimpCo.

[killerbush]

21. Longship is disqualified.

Don't want to play the game, go somewhere else.

[longship]

23. ROFL

Fine, then.

It's Gore. No doubt.

[killerbush]

26. longship is undisqualified

[acmejack]

16. It is impossible to say without knowing who they would have appointed

to say the twenty most important posts an incoming administration fills. It is said the 2500 or so position which the new guys get to put their people in ultimately make or break a presidency.

[mtnsnake]

17. This is really really dumb

It's obvious that either one of them would seem to have made a fine president if the country was smart enough to elect them in what should've been landslides for either one.

Seems to me like the purpose of threads like this, which only pick out a couple of people, is to one-up somebody.

[killerbush]

19. Oh please, don't be so damned immature

If you don't want to participate, then go somewhere else.

[mtnsnake]

36. The older I get, the more I appreciate being called immature!

Thanks, man!

[killerbush]

40. You're quite welcome

[WildEyedLiberal]

74. Well I'm actually going to agree with you here mtnsnake

What a stupid, divisive thread, which is of course turning out as predictably as I thought it would.

Just because people like Gore v. 2.0 better as a 2008 candidate doesn't mean that he'd be a worlds better president than Kerry. They BOTH would be great presidents. I don't think people are even bothering to read the premise of this thread before kneejerk responding, although I think that's what the OP wanted.

[mtnsnake]

85. Hey

LOL, I think hell hath frozen over, at least for a little while anyhow.

Yeah, all I see this as is a DU popularity contest where the winner was already known before the post was even typed up. Don't feel bad, though. Imagine how Hillary would've done if pitted against Gore or pitted against Kerry in this thread. ;)

[WildEyedLiberal]

86. Yeah, no kidding

Also, it's just a dishonest premise... Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 would have both been great presidents. Why doesn't the OP just admit that what he wants is another 2008 straw poll?

[still_one]

18. without a doubt Gore

Gore's biggest problem was his so-called expert advisors

[Cha]

68. Yeah, like paul

begala to name one that I read about.

[still_one]

105. and especially carville

[blm]

111. For me his biggest problem was his more centrist record - I liked that he

moved left since 2000, but his own record was that of a go along guy who supported many of the policies of Reagan-Bush while in the Senate, and never made a peep when Clinton decided to keep the books closed on IranContra and BCCI and CIA Drugrunning which was revealed during THEIR term.

I love what Al Gore has BECOME since 2001, but why do so many lie to themselves that Gore would be an ideal progressive choice now? Who thinks Gore is going to do what Parry and many of us KNOW needs to be done - THE BOOKS NEED TO BE OPENED.

Even though those books will not make Clinton and Gore look so hot, either, considering they KNEW ALOT about those crimes and decided to keep those books closed.

[tatertop]

20. Gore of course!

[rox63]

22. I go with Kerry

But I think Gore would also have been awesome. :)

[Imalittleteapot]

24. Gore. nt

[Totally Committed]

25. Either of them would have been

head and shoulders above the current President. Can we leave it at that?

TC

[killerbush]

27. Nope TC choose one or the other.

[Totally Committed]

30. Okay, are we talking "new" Al, and "new" John...

or the two candidates who actually ran those horrible DLC weak-ass campaigns?

If it's a contest between the "new" Al and John, I'd have to say Al. If it's the "old" Al or John, I stick with 'either would have been better than Bush'. At least we wouldn't be in Iraq now with a deficeit on the multi-trillions.

TC

Edited to add: It was a close choice, but in the end, it was Gore.

[WildEyedLiberal]

75. But, you're not playing into the hands of the divisive OP!

That's not acceptable! :sarcasm:

[Exultant Democracy]

28. Gore would have had Lieberman as a VP

I'm still going to go with Gore, but only because the scope of the question doesn't involve the VP. If you had said Kerry Edwards vs. Gore Liberman I would have gone with Kerry Edwards.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Al Kerry or John F Gore would have been equally good.

[killerbush]

34. Husb2Sparkly has been disqualified

[Cooley Hurd]

71. Chickenshit!

;):hi:

I agree, either would've REALLY brought us into the 21st Century properly. Instead, we were flung into this century by a chimp (in much the same way a real chimp flings real poo).

[fedupinBushcountry]

31. They both would

have been good presidents. Oh by the way it is not a cop out, it is what I think. The nightmare is already there, since neither one of these fine men are not president. This country and the world would be a better place with either.

[killerbush]

33. fedupinBushcountry is disqualified

[fedupinBushcountry]

35. Why?

for truthiness. It hurts, I know.

[killerbush]

39. still disqualified, pick one of the other. Quite simple to do.

[Kahuna]

32. Al Gore,. Gore would have been better even than Clinton...

:cry:

[mmonk]

41. Both would have been fine.

They wouldn't have dreamed up the new world war nor current the bankrupt domestic policies.

[killerbush]

46. mmonk has been disqualified

[Richard D]

42. Gore by miles and miles

(Are you reading this, Al??)

[Bjornsdotter]

43. Gore n/t

[ben_thayer]

44. Gore... N/T

[Loge23]

45. Clearly it's Gore

Al Gore is a man of principle.
Kerry is a politician.

Al Gore plays from the heart.
Kerry plays from the ear.

RE-ELECT GORE IN 2008!!

[blm]

48. Kerry exposed IranContra and BCCI while Gore worked on dirty song lyrics

Now - which was acting on principle and which was playing politics?

Gore is a better man now, but don't even PRETEND that it's funny to reverse the roles each played in our actual governance.

You can't NAME another lawmaker who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than Kerry has. Only a principled lawmaker would have even attempted to take on those battles.

[blm]

82. BTW - can you back up your words using both their records IN governance?

.

[Loge23]

115. My opinion remains with Gore

I appreciate your support of Kerry and your apparent knowledge of his record.
But I stand behind my opinion as stated.
I do welcome, however, a refresher course on Sen. Kerry's voting record vs. Mr. Gore's.

[blm]

119. I am just shocked in general that so many people accuse Kerry of being

a politician while praising Gore as being a sincere progressive, when there isn't a lawmaker alive today who took on greater battles as senator than John Kerry.

In my world, a senator who works to expose IranContra is acting on principle, while those who supported the policy were acting politically.

And in what world does the senator working to expose BCCI, the world's biggest terrorist bank, get drowned out by another senator staging hearings to highlight dirty song lyrics?

You have to understand - DU is like bizarro world to me, sometimes. Now they love Gore for what he says SINCE he's been out of government, but, have no clue the extent that he has supported Reagan-Bush policies or as VP helped BushInc cover up for their DECADES of criminal activities.


Maybe the man Gore is NOW would face the truth and open the books, but, he didn't lift a finger to do it as VP along with Bill Clinton who gave every Bush crime a FREE PASS by keeping those books closed.

And, so far, I haven't heard him EVER address the issue of opening the books oif he was ever in office. We KNOW Kerry would - he advocated it as an issue since 1985, including fighting his own party.

[Uncle Joe]

144. Al Gore was in the government

when he progressively empowered you to trash him and praise Kerry by championing the internet. Of course you will have to get in the back of the line behind the corporate owned MSM as he in effect took some of their power and gave it to you. They wanted to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth and just as the Greek Mythological hero Prometheus pissed off Zeus by stealing fire and giving it to humankind: suffering in the cold and dark, only to be chained to a mountain and have a vulture eat his liver every morning only to have it made whole at night for all eternity, so Al had his credibility eaten by the MSM for empowering you. I believe fighting to give the people a voice for all the world to see is open government. I wonder how many of today's young generation would even know about Iran Contra if you were not able to remind them?

P.S.Please let me know when Skull & Bones open their books.

[blm]

156. I am NOT trashing him - I am stating that DUers who impose traits on

one person over the other are doing so without any KNOWLEDGE of their actual records. And stating the facts about anyone's record is NOT Trashing that person - unless, of course, you think their record is so off from your own views that you do see them as trash. I see records for what they are. Centrist, moderate, liberal, whatever. Why people MISSTATE those records is the area of cxoncern.

No one who knows their actual governing records would claim that Gore has been a leader for the progressive movement while Kerry only acted for political gain. Incredibly some imply that throughout this thread.

And Gore's writing legislation to open the internet was a GREAT thing that I wouldn't take away from him, however he also wanted to keep many records OFF the internet that would have brought down BushInc LONG AGO.

Newsflash: Kerry never used S&B to get anywhere in his adult life, and, IN FACT, proved he would take on and expose the corruption of the REAL POWERS. By YOUR silly standard, Cheney could be trusted.


BTW - since Kerry is so scary and evil, you will have no problem naming ONE person in the last 35 years who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than he has.

Yes, Gore has moved left - but, why does Kerry's lifetime record get distorted because we want to APPLAUD Gore's move leftward?

Gore had support for his internet work - Kerry's battles to expose corruption were mainly done with many lined up AGAINST him.

Here are Gore's co-sponsors:


Sen Adams, Brock
Sen Bingaman, Jeff
Sen Breaux, John B.
Sen Conrad, Kent
Sen Cranston, Alan
Sen Durenberger, Dave
Sen Ford, Wendell H.
Sen Glenn, John H., Jr.
Sen Gorton, Slade
Sen Hatfield, Mark O.
Sen Heinz, John
Sen Hollings, Ernest F.
Sen Jeffords, James M.
Sen Kasten, Robert W., Jr.
Sen Kennedy, Edward M.
Sen Kerrey, J. Robert
Sen Kerry, John F.
Sen Kohl, Herb
Sen Lott, Trent
Sen Pressler, Larry
Sen Reid, Harry
Sen Riegle, Donald W., Jr.
Sen Robb, Charles S.
Sen Sasser, Jim

[Uncle Joe]

158. Al Gore was the leader and driving force, the main champion if you will,

they did not give him a Webbie because he was a duck. I consider holding hearings on the companies dumping their toxins in Toone Tennessee and Love Canal progressive or liberal. I consider Gore's fight to save life as we know it from the threat of global warming progressive or liberal.

I consider Al holding hearings on labeling music just as we do movies to be family friendly, for those parents that care about what their kids are listening to. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Would you want your children to view porn because we did not have labels on movies?

As for Skull and Bones, it's the numbers that scare me. An extremely secretive group numbering only aprox. 850 total surviving members, with three of them being Presidents in the past 100 years, including both candidates from 2004 out of a nation of aprox. 300 million. Maybe they are not helping each other, but it sure is a hell of coincidence.

[blm]

162. S&B scares you and facts = zzz. FACTS PROVE that Kerry worked his ass off

to get the American people the information they would have needed to ASSURE a 9-11 didn't happen. To ASSURE no Bush ever set up power again the WH.

To ASSURE the people knew what was being done by the Reagan - Bush administrations in THEIR names.

If that's Kerry's way of showing S&B loyalty then I wish there were more like him, don't you?

Or do you side with those who want government corruption covered up and worked AGAINST Kerry for years?

[Uncle Joe]

164. 850 total living members out of 300 million and no red flags, zzz. n/t

[blm]

165. PROVE IT - use even ONE FACT To prove Kerry helped S&B secure power and

cover up for their various politicians who got into trouble.

SOME people also opine that Gore purposely distracted from Kerry's work on IranContra and BCCI when he arranged with James Baker to push the dirty song lyrics into the news as an issue to capture public attention.

I believe he did it for the right reasons, as a parent - but SOME people can twist anything to make another sound bad if it suits their purpose.

I hope Gore DOES pledge to open the books so he separates himself from Clinton in that way - it's the only way I will trust any Dem running for president.

[Uncle Joe]

180. For me, the numbers ARE the proof.

For me 850 total living members from a highly secret society governing almost 300 million people is proof enough. Now Skull and Bones might believe in peace on earth and feeding the hungry, but I doubt it, their symbol is the same thing pirates used to fly, and the point is nobody knows what they stand for other than obtaining power. I cannot for the life of me figure out why this was not front page news, this is power ball odds,this is getting hit by lightning twice odds. An intimate group that includes three generations of Bush is just another red flag as if the numbers were not enough.

I am heading out for the night, have a good night.

[blm]

183. Gore covered up for Bush crime family for YEARS - that's PROOF enough for

many that he's part of the BFEE.

Kerry and William Sloane Coffin HELPED the Bush Crime family out of S&B loyalty in YOUR world.

And HORRORS - Gore had Kerry on his short list for VP but since he was too liberal, he decided against him - but what does that say about GORE putting an S&Ber on his short list?

Gore must be in on it, too.

Let us know when the shuttle lands.



But, while you're waiting - read how important the TRUTH is to this country and to the world:

by Robert Parry

<SNIP> In spring 1994, a guest at a White House social event asked Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran. Clinton responded by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans. <SNIP> Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress. <SNIP>

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation. <SNIP>

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly. <SNIP> If George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable. <SNIP>

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran. <SNIP>

MORE at
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

[Uncle Joe]

187. I read your Common Dreams link, and could not find Gore's

name anywhere. Ever since my shuttle landed, I have been informed (now mind you this is just a rumor) but they say Clinton was the President meaning according to Webster's Dictionary, he was boss. Al Gore was his subordinate, meaning lower rank and supposed to support his decisions and carry out his policies.

I don't know the Coffins from Adam, so I have no idea what you are referring to. If you are comfortable having a minuscule group of 850 rule our nation of 300 million, more power to you. One thing is for sure, if Kerry is elected in 2008, that will make three out of the last four Presidents coming from this group of aprox. 850, two of them being Bushs.

[blm]

189. Here's a number - Kerry's the ONLY ONE who advocates for opening the books

on what has gone on. Gore never has and there has never been any evidence that he even tried to influence Clinton on the issue. Has he ever brought it up to you?

Those Bushes you fear so much were supported and protected BY Clinton and Gore on their IranContra and BCCI policies before and AFTER they took office. 9-11 happened BECAUSE of that decision.

Kerry is the one who worked his ass off and took BushInc to court to get those books opened. Nice of Clinton to protect the Bush family. Did Gore mention one word how he tried to get those books opened? It wasn't in Clinton's book. Was Gore terribly disappointed?

There is only ONE point - anything you say against Kerry is what you IMAGINE - and I can best you with the FACTS if I chose to be against Gore. His record is more mixed than most. And he had powers that few have had and what he chose to do with that power should be examined.

I am NOT against Gore. But, I'll be damned if I'm going to let people make false claims and characterizations against Kerry as a way of supporting Gore.

Support Gore because you support him and AGREE with the battles he took on, but, don't PRETEND that somehow Kerry's record is a poor one next to Gore's. The congressional record proves the opposite is true.

[Uncle Joe]

190. 911 Happened because, Al Gore empowered you

when he championed the internet taking some of the corporate owned MSM's power and giving it to you. They trashed and slandered him for this good deed, and enabled Skull and Bones member Bush to power.

I have not said anything about Kerry's record other than he was member of a secretive microscopic group known as Skull and Bones, 850 strong that also happens to have 3 generations of Bush, this is not my imagination. It's just math, how much of a bet would you take on 850 out of 300 million and for it to happen for two out the last three Presidents and like I said if Kerry is elected in 2088 that would make 3 out of the last 4. You may find this perfectly natural, but I do not.

[blm]

193. Kerry's record must disappoint the S&B organization. Funny, Gore's record

in public service is much more aligned with the corporatista than Kerry's record. Isn't it interesting that that fact gets lost so often?

And funny, how Gore could want us to have access to information HE APPROVED of, but, not information that would have helped this country the MOST- WHY did he support keeping the truth about the Bush Crime family AWAY from us? Doesn't he respect us enough to triust us or honor us as citizens who can make responsible decisions when we are informed?

[Uncle Joe]

194. If you believe the corporatista, as you put it enjoys accountability

from a free flowing internet, then I guess you are correct, but I don't think so.

Do you believe Gore would want us to have access to your posts? What was getting information about the doings of our government like before the internet? Does this sound like someone that wants a closed government? It must have been from my hard shuttle landing, but your logic escapes me.

[blm]

196. Except HE DECIDED with Clinton to PREVENT important information from

being known by the public that would have put the Bush family in jail long ago. That's GORE'S disconnect, not mine or any other citizen who uses the internet. You excuse the choice Clinton and Gore made, even though it brought us to Bush2 with all that goes with it.

I suppose you have an answer why someone who wants information to flow freely used his opportunity in power to deny citizens information they NEEDED to have long before 2000.

[Uncle Joe]

197. As I stated before Clinton was President, he was in charge,

Gore was his subordinate. I have no idea what Gore counseled Clinton to do and I don't believe you do either. I believe Gore to be a firm believer in the constitution and the chain of command, if Clinton decided to move on and heal the nation, Gore would have followed his orders. While Gore may have been influential, he was the Vice-President not President.

Again the choice that brought us Bush 2 was the corporista owned MSM trashing and slandering Al because he empowered the people to find the truth, get the truth and use the truth, long before he ever left office.

[blm]

198. Except for that little thing about Gore supporting Reagan Contra policies

as Senator and he never lifted a finger to help Kerry's work on BCCI. Gore's been away from Clinton for over 6 years now - if he WANTED to set the record straight, he could have. Especially after Clinton's book came out.

[Uncle Joe]

199. How do you see Gore supporting Reagen Contra policies?

Did Kerry bring up Iran Contra or BCCI when he ran in 2004?

[blm]

200. Kerry did, but had no Dem spokepeople to push it forward with any

credibility. No back up.

DNC was packed with Clintonistas so they wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Gore did support Reagan and Bush's Contra policies. Plenty of conservative Democrats did at the time. Kerry worked for a year on his own to bring the criminality involved with that policy to light - then when it became more of a media issue the senior senators made it their case, took Kerry's evidence gathered over a year and Kerry was kicked away where he concentrated on BCCI. Gore and other Democrats eventually did come down against the criminal aspect of the IranContra policies.

[Uncle Joe]

201. I have seen no evidence that Gore backed their contra policies.

You say the DNC was packed with Clintonistas, if I remember correctly this was around 1986, give or take a year, Clinton was not close to power then.

[blm]

203. You asked did Kerry bring it up in the 2004 campaign and I said the DNC

spokespeople could not provide credible back up when ever he did mention it. The DNC being filled with Clinton people who would be unlikely to provide the backup on that issue. Surely you remember your own post?

And whether you have seen it or not, Gore was a conserbvative Democrat on many issues during the Reagan-Bush era and he did side with their Contra policy, as did many conservative Dems at that time.

[Uncle Joe]

204. Al was a congressman and Senator

representing the state of Tennessee in the 70's and 80's of course he was moderate to conservative. This does not mean he backed Reagan/Bush contra policies. I have yet to see any proof of this.

Regarding Kerry, I never once recall him bringing the subject up in 2004 DNC support or not.

[blm]

206. Were you into politics then or are you going just from memory?

Here's an article from the Atlanta Constitution from back then:

http://www.seedshow.com/atlantaconstart.htm


The Atlanta Constitution, printed Friday, November 27, 1987

Swing voters likely to go with new voters

By Tom Turnipseed

The Democratic Leadership Council, sometimes called the Democratic Leisure Class or the DLC, has been sending editorial writers of Southern newspapers articles and “swing voter” research based on the views of a narrow sampling of white, middle-class suburbanites in the South who voted for Reagan in 1984.

The DLC contends the Democrats must move to the right to win the Southern suburban vote, the South and the nation in the 1988 presidential elections. The analysis seems plausible until you realize it’s frozen in a political trend time frame of circa 1984.

The DLC is basically a reactive group of Southern conservatives whose answer to the Reagan landslide of 1984 has been to form a well- financed public relations staff to influence the Democrats to – to me – too much of Reagan’s agenda. Conservative Sam Nunn of Georgia was wooed by the DLC to be its 1988 presidential candidate, but the DLC was shunned by Nunn who saw his home state elect its most liberal representative, Wyche Fowler, to the Senate in 1986.

Nunn and a key DLC organizer, Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia, opted out of the presidential race. But the DLC has finally found its man in young Sen. Al Gore, Jr. of Tennessee, whose campaign has been floundering with only two to four percent voter approval in the crucial early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The DLC convinced Gore to regionalize his efforts to Southern states with Super Tuesday primaries by appealing to the 1984 Reaganite “swing voters.” So Gore flip-flopped from his progressive voting record and abruptly adopted some of Reagan’s militaristic views on contra aid, the invasion of Grenada, and the Persian Gulf military build-up.

The media has hyped Gore’s rightward swing aimed at the DLC’s mythical suburban “swing vote” of 1984, but has failed to factor in the drastically diminished state of Reagan’s credibility with voters in 1987-88. Reagan put his credibility on the line in 1986 Senate elections with vigorous personal involvement. His candidates were defeated by a revitalized traditional Democratic base of blue-collar workers, blacks, farmers and small businessmen in every key Southern race.

The 1986 elections preceded more recent Reagan credibility crunches like Iran/Contragate, the stock market crash and Bork-Ginsburg. The electorial advantage of Gore’s switching to Reagan’s positions on contra aid, etc. – minority positions according to polls in the South and everywhere else – is questionable. Republicans are running on Super Tuesday at the same time, in the same states, advocating the same positions. How many pro-contra aid voters will be left for Gore in the Democratic primaries?
>>>>>>>>>

[Uncle Joe]

191. 911 Happened because, Al Gore empowered you

when he championed the internet taking some of the corporate owned MSM's power and giving it to you. They trashed and slandered him for this good deed, and enabled Skull and Bones member Bush to power.

I have not said anything about Kerry's record other than he was member of a secretive microscopic group known as Skull and Bones, 850 strong that also happens to have 3 generations of Bush, this is not my imagination. It's just math, how much of a bet would you take on 850 out of 300 million and for it to happen for two out the last three Presidents and like I said if Kerry is elected in 2088 that would make 3 out of the last 4. You may find this perfectly natural, but I do not.

[blm]

184. Numbers ARE proof - Only 1 administration closed the books on IranContra

BCCI, CIA drugrunning, and illegal wars in Central America to cover up for the Bush family - Clinton/Gore.

[kitticup]

210. Hmmm, Gore was the driving force behind the Telecom Act

You remember the act that enabled the corporate control over the media.

[Uncle Joe]

217. Then that must be why they trashed and slandered him so much

beginning in March of 1999 in gratitude and thanks.

[ginnyinWI]

47. Kerry

He's a tireless workhorse--would have gotten a lot done.

Has good political instincts, good diplomatic skills. Would have been able to work well with the Congress and other nations.

Having served in a war, would be very careful about committing troops. (Not saying Gore would, but I just have no info about that.)

Kerry is very sincere and single-minded about public service. It's all about America with him.

Both men are smart and able; I just trust Kerry more.

[IndianaGreen]

49. They would have been both great, but I would choose Kerry because

Kerry has a great wife in Teresa Heinz that does a lot of good through the Heinz philanthropies, and Kerry has a great VP in John Edwards.

Al Gore's weaknesses are his wife and his running mate. Tipper Gore is too much like Lynne Cheney, too eager to use Big Brother to dictate our morals. Joe Lieberman is a kosher version of Zell Miller.

[mtnsnake]

51. Gore's weakness is his wife?

You'll go to no end, won't you.

Generally speaking, people across the board loved Tipper.

[IndianaGreen]

53. Tipper and Lynne Cheney together on banning video and games

Yep, she is a gem alright!

[Adelante]

54. That actually wouldn't be true

Plenty of people across the board did not love Tipper. However, and I am disqualifying myself here, both Kerry and Gore would have been great presidents. I would work against either of them in the primaries in favor of Clark. But as past nominees, there is no doubt in my mind about the qualifications of either man to lead the country to our great and lasting benefit. I don't see the point of this little contest, actually, but carry on. :hi:

[mtnsnake]

55. I don't see the point of it either

See post #17

:hi:

[Adelante]

97. Sorry pal

Everything following "However," was meant for the OP. :)

[mtnsnake]

104. Yeah, I know

I was agreeing :)

[garybeck]

50. Gore by a mile.

[indie_voter]

52. Gore. n/t

[TayTay]

56. I go with Kerry

Though, with the Repubs in power n the Congress it would have been very, very nasty. Kerry has an investigatory background that might have resulted in an activist AG being appointed. Congress might have retaliated with cutting funding to various agencies.

It would have been extremely contentious, that's for sure. Kerry is, at heart, a good government person who wants the government to run efficiently, honestly and well. The Rethugs have set up a reweards system that benefits the few and have retooled the system toward that end. That sets up a classic collision of interests.

[Dr Ron]

61. Kerry

But agree things would have been very nasty between Kerry and Congress. Sometimes I think in the long run we might be better off with Bush being reelected and a solid majority finally realizing how awful he is than having Kerry in there with a Republican Congress and about half the country strongly opposed to him.

[Blue_In_AK]

57. I go with Kerry...

...although Gore would have been fine, too. Both got robbed.

[MH1]

58. John Kerry, absolutely. But I will violate rule 2 - either would be great.

I hope we get to see the proof of that starting in 2009.

[salin]

62. Timing matters.

Kerry in 04 would have been better than Gore in 00; Gore in 04 would have been better than Kerry in 04. Either would have been worlds better than bushjr anytime.

Gore got a wake up call during the 00 campaign. I think he saw more clearly, and earlier that the bushfolks were not just playing business as usual politics - and by 02 when he reemerged his anger (and new found populism) was palpable.

Both are wise men. Both are good men. Both are a bit policy-wonkish (which I think is a GREAT thing in a president.) But I think that the combination of Gore's awakening, and his experience as VP would have made him a stronger president in 04.

That said - I think that Kerry in 04 - would have been far better, stronger, and willing to blunt efforts of a republican GOP than Gore of the 00 time period. In the post Impeachment period Gore did too much pussyfooting around, was too concerned about what the GOP might say/do and about turning off the middle of the road folks (hence the Lieberman pick for VP). Kerry in 04 was a stronger candidate, and would have been a stronger president than Gore in 00.

Odd reply, eh?

[blm]

83. It's a salin reply. You seek accuracy and apply a keen sense of historic

perspective. It's a great quality to have on DU.

[salin]

94. lol, and thanks blm

it is nice to be understood, appreciated and taken with a grain of salt per my approach :D :hi:

[blm]

140. I wish EVERYONE shared your approach - it's to be admired, and no grain of

salt is necessary.

[Fabio]

127. Great reply

I essentially disagree in my post (subjext "Important Question"), but I think we are both on the same page -- challenging the timing assumptions of this post.

[Uncle Joe]

63. The man that empowered us to post our opinions,

only to be trashed by the MSM for doing so, do I need to say his name.

[FrenchieCat]

64. Come On now.....

Anybody but Bush would have been better.

We will never know, and at this time......anything anyone says is nothing but pure unadulterated speculation.

If Gore would have been President, we wouldn't have had a "new" Gore...and then most likely, John Kerry would just now be gearing up for his first run....(and so we'd have the "old" Kerry Running)....sooooooooo :boring:

[Totally Committed]

66. Thank you!

I very much agree that either Gore or Kerry would have been worlds better than Bush.

TC

[otohara]

65. Gore

that's how it was supposed to be.

[AlGore-08.com]

72. Hands down: Gore

No offense to Kerry or his supporters. Kerry would have been an above average President, and a big improvement on Smirk.

But Gore will be one of our greatest Presidents, in the pantheon with Lincoln, Jefferson and FDR.

[blm]

84. BULL. Kerry would've OPENED THE BOOKS that Clinton/Gore kept shut

and THAT would have done more to change this country for the better than anything else.

[goodboy]

73. GORE...and I already see the murdering monkey in my nightmares

[WildEyedLiberal]

76. Stupid fucking thread n/t

[Totally Committed]

77. I agree.

:hi:

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

79. Heh. I liked your response

:hi:

I definitely have a preference, but I just refuse to play this stupid game. They would BOTH have been excellent, even without having been the "new" versions of themselves (which IMO meant that both learned that listening to advisors and not speaking out as strongly as they wanted was bollocks).

So, boo to this thread. :thumbsdown:

[Totally Committed]

89. I definitely agree...

Both Kerry AND Gore would have been great presidents next to the Buffoon-In-Chief.

TC

[killerbush]

91. Then get lost

Nobody said you had to participate in it

[WildEyedLiberal]

98. Well well, someone can't tolerate any dissent

This is a dumb premise and I'm glad I'm not the only one to say so.

[killerbush]

100. No reason for you to be here if you don't like it

[Autonomy]

101. Methinks thou doth protest too much

(with thy Kerry pic in thy sig line). Besides, you're not really dissenting as much as you're attempting to dictate taste.

Look at it like this: if you're called by professional pollsters, do you get to equivocate or qualify your answers? Create a new answer option? Shout down the pollsters trying to survey someone else?

Dissent, though often admirable, is just inapplicable in this case.

[diamondsndust]

80. This seems to be a running problem here ...

we need to quit worrying about the past and all of the " who would have been better" and 'if we had only done this" or "he/she should have said this" ... it's ALL BS, in my own honest opinion.

We NEED to be thinking about the future and who is going to be the best candidate to run our Country. Who is going to restore Democracy, Honor, Integrity & Dignity back to our Great Nation?? Thats the REAL ISSUE here.

Don't mean to try to drag you down or take away from your post, just saying we need to be focusing on the future instead of the past.

[killerbush]

93. I just thought this would be a fun little contest

I have no nefarious means here. You want to participate, fine, if not, go somewhere else.

[blm]

132. It may be fun, but seeing that so many know so little about actual records

that have been accrued on both of these men and their time in governance, is kind of shameful. People at DU should be better informed than most, yet they often prove otherwise.

No one seems prepared to compare their actual records and the battles each took on during their years in government.

I don't CARE if people choose Gore if they PREFER his more centrist qualities and PREFER the political battles he chose while in govt., but don't even PRETEND that his choices were honorable in a way Kerry's were not as some are implying in their answers - Because there is absolutely no proof that exists that IranContra and BCCI were less important and less taxing politically than dirty song lyrics.

[killerbush]

172. You're just upset that Kerry is getting smoked

[blm]

177. I'm upset Gore's called progressive beacon and Kerry's called a political

person of lesser principles.

If they can provide PROOF using both men's actual records of government, THEN that would mean something. As it stands, it says more about how much they DON'T know about their own country and their own party, than it says about anything else. And THAT is the shame.

TRUTH MATTERS - if some DUers don't care about it then that is THEIR problem.

[Minnesota Libra]

87. Al Gore - hands down - he had experience and knew his business nt

[blm]

112. He had experience keeping the crimes of Reagan-Bush closed to the public

I would hope that he's changed enough now that if he did take office he would open the books and take the heat for what he and Clinton decided to sweep under the carpet, which only brought us Bush 2.0 - the imperialist regime.

[wisteria]

215. Actually as VP, Gore had limited power. He certainly can not

be said to have the power Chaney has had while serving as VP.

[corbett]

88. Luv The Former Veep But Kerry Woulda Been Better | Will Be In 2008

We need combat veterans in there as often as possible. That's why Bush 41 was better than Reagan (though that's not saying much).

[politicasista]

90. They both would. Now where's the Rove indictment party at?

eom

[Josh]

92. I feel Gore would have been more of a "Third Way" president -

like Clinton before him. Kerry I do not believe would have been this way, though I think he would have been a decent president. Gore could have been excellent.

[salin]

95. Caveat

I say that Gore - in 2000 would have been decent. Kerry in 04 would have been very good, and Gore in 2004 (after the wakeup and realization of how awful the GOP operatives are - and a wakeup from being fearful of being too strong in opposition and in progressive ideas - the Gore that emerged in 2002) would have been even better. But to compare Gore in 2000 to Kerry in 2004 is apples and oranges. Gore seemed to grow tremendously in his post VP years.

[Josh]

106. Yeah, I agree -

it's funny, I wanted to put in something like that but I was in a hurry and couldn't quite explain what I meant so I left it out, but you nailed it. :)

[AusGail]

96. Gore

As long as he promises not to stare down his opponent during a debate like he did with Bush in the 2000 campaign. It looked far too stage-managed and his credibility took a bit of a dive. He doesn't have much charisma, but he does have more than Kerry. They both seem to be equally intelligent and sympathetic to the down-trodden. Gore is better looking. Unfortunately, it comes down to charisma and looks. Gore

[Autonomy]

99. President Gore, thanks. nt.

[ProudDad]

102. Bernie Sanders or Paul Wellstone

All the rest are cowards.

[smoochpooch]

103. Kerry, he possesses a remarkable intelligence.

I want to see Gore run in 08 but the idea that we could have had the thoughtful, brilliant Kerry making decisions in the White House instead of Jr- wow! A poor candidate but would have been a great Pres.

[Robbie Michaels]

107. Gore

[Vidar]

108. Al Gore, no question.

[Greyhound]

109. Gore, no question in my mind at all. n/t

[Placebo]

110. JFK

But it's a very tough choice.

A big part of my opinion is the fact that if Gore had been reelected in 2004 we'd be facing an incumbent VP by the name of Joe Lieberman with the upper hand in a run for presidency in 2008. :scared:

[NYCGirl]

114. JFK is dead. But he was a wonderful president. NT

[zulchzulu]

113. A silly question...but I choose Kerry...by about a centimeter

They both are good Presidents that have not been able to serve, due to the coup d'etat that we are presently under rule by.

[OhioChick]

116. Gore n/t

[wisteria]

117. Kerry, he has always remained true to his liberal ideals. Gore,

has changed his opinions since he has been out of office. I respect the man and I believe he won in 2000,but he was a very conservative Democrat when he was VP and when he ran.

[karynnj]

118. Kerry

I could support Gore, but far prefer Kerry. Kerry's record over his entire career is more liberal than Gore's, but more importantly he when he deviates from the liberal position, it is in a way that I think makes sense.

Although I am impressed by most of his voting record, looking beyond votes to floor speeches, I find
Kerry's floor statement are usually awesome in explaining "yes, but" and "no, but" votes. For President, knowing the reasons and the philosophy behind the choice of "yes" or "no" is important. As Senator, he can do 3 things advocate for change and amendments to a bill, give floor speeches and vote yes or no - As President he would suggest the course to be taken. So the floor speeches are probably the most relevent as they show his values, believes, thoughts and goals.

For example, Kerry's statement on NAFTA is one of the most insightful examinations of the reality of international trade - some of it (written in 1993) sounds like what is being labelled "new" by Friedman in 2006. The name Kerry gave to it, "What's NAFTA got to do with it" summarizes his position - the migration of jobs is happening with or without NAFTA and his view was that NAFTA offered the opportunity to have some worker and environmental controls - controls that Clinton promised but couldn't get once the Congress became Republican.

During the CAFTA hearings, Kerry spoke of studies that showed the negative results of NAFTA because these promised side agreements didn't occur. The CATFA treaty, per Kerry, is even worse taking out even the agreements in NAFTA. Kerry's AFL/CIO endorsed amendment to put workers' rights and environmental controls into the CAFTA bill was killed in committee 10-10. Kerry voted against CAFTA.

[joeprogressive]

120. That's easy, Gore b/c he would have had the advantage of carrying

on Clinton's successful policies, while Kerry cleaned up Bush's mess for four years. Given an equal playing field, I think either one would have been stellar; even Clintonesque w/o the Clenis.

[NastyDiaper]

121. Change to Who WILL the better president?

And we'll hash it out in the 08 primaries.

[Joey Liberal]

122. I go with Gore

Kerry let things get out of hand with the Swift Boat idiots. Although Gore made a big mistake in choosing Lieberman for his running mate. It's a close call. But I go with Gore.

[blm]

123. You mixed up campaigning with governing as president.

A more moderate voter would pick Gore if you wanted to continue the Clinton way of governance.

That was OK, except some of us prefer an Open Government president who would use his power to open the books on the decades of crimes by the BFEE. Something that Clinton refused to do, and which led to a Bush getting back into the WH and also caused 9-11. THAT would be great for the US and the rest of the world.

[lwcon]

124. Gore (n/t)

[CTLawGuy]

125. Gore

by a million miles.

[blm]

130. I never figured you to be a centrist - interesting.

I thought all this time you were an open government supporter.

Oh well - I've misread a few before.

[Fabio]

126. Important Question!!!

..imporant enough to mandate the triple exclamation points, so read on...

Does this question presuppose that Gore would have become president in 2000 and Kerry in 2004? I prefer Kerry's core skills, biography and raw materials (but admire Gore greatly too), but I think whoever was elected President in 2000 would have been judge by history a "better" president than someone elected in 2004. That's because that person elected in 2004 (presumably Kerry) would have had to spend so much time doing a turnaround -- healing GWB's division of the country, unwinding his illegal war, repaying his fiscal irresponsibility and correctinghis environmental damage. In short, lots of damage control/remediation just getting us back to where we were in 2000.

And Frankly, I think the MOST important thing to remember here is that if either of these fine men were elected in 2000, and 9/11 did occur, America would probably today be more admired, more engaged and on better strategic footing because of their leadership on the global stage pursuant to those events.

Our reality is so depressing.

[TayTay]

148. Best response of the whole thread

I agree. Thanks for writing this.

[Fabio]

185. my pleasure.

do bad more people didnt comment.

[nickshepDEM]

128. Probably Gore. He's more of a policy wonk.

[blm]

135. Kid's First healthcare, Apollo Project for alternative energy,

public-financing of campaigns, anti-terror investigations and anti-corruption policies are SO much lesser policies.

[nickshepDEM]

157. Are you refering to Kerry? And how many of those have been signed

into law?

[blm]

167. You're right - record labeling wins over stupid ideas like Clean Elections

After all, if more conservatve lawmakers aren't behind your legislation, that makes it a worthless policy to craft.

Same with Kerry's tracking the terror money network - damn stupid legislation to craft years before 9-11 when no one else cares much about the issue.

Gore did craft GREAT legislation for the computer highway, for that he gets high praise - of course, he also had great support from other senators and who didn't block his important work.

[yojon]

129. Kerry seemed OK until he folded like a wet piece of

toilet paper the day after the obviously-stolen election. He swore to fight for democratic ideals then gave up without a whimper. IMHO, at that point he sank beneath contempt. I could never support him.

[blm]

131. No one gave Kerry the proof then and no one STILL has shown him proof.

If you have it, contact his office immediately.

See, they're still in 2 cases in Ohio - but as far as the machines go, the only time they can be secured is BEFORE the voting by the Dem party structure - after is too late, as rigged machines are set up for onetime use with no traceable evidence.

The DNC did not secure the machines in 2004 because MacAuliffe didn't believe in machine fraud.

[brentspeak]

133. Yup

The misinformed people who blast Kerry's "inaction" following the election basically don't know they're talking about.

[ileus]

134. Gore

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noonwitch]

137. Definitely Gore-and he still would be a good president.

If he's running in 2008, I will have to really think about who to vote for between he and Hillary. He has more experience overall, but Hillary has more recent experience working in the Senate.

A Gore/Clark ticket could maybe get Arkansas in the blue, or maybe Al could take back Tennesee, Florida or Ohio.

A Gore/Clinton ticket could also be good to shore up women's support and african-american support, as both of them are well-liked in that community.

I would love to see Gore make Dennis Archer the first black AG.

[deaniac21]

138. G O R E

[NoSheep]

139. Gore. n/t

[leftofthedial]

141. Gore

no question

Too bad. Kerry could have been the greatest American of the changing millenium, but he's just not quite up to it.

[Bridget Burke]

142. Gore's my favorite but I think Kerry would have done well, too.

Anybody but Bush.

In fact, anybody but any Republican.

[fooj]

143. Gore.

[rman]

145. Gore

[TheFarseer]

146. Gore by far

Gore had the vision to keep this country headed toward the future. This country could be remarkably different just in our ordinary lives if Al Gore would have been president. He would have been significantly better than Clinton, and I liked Clinton. I'm not sure Kerry had it thought out much past, "I want to be president" but at least he wouldn't be screwing up as bad as chimpy.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

147. Al Gore, IMHO, definitely has potential to be Great Leader material

He's just so smart in so many areas. He's tough and stays on message, but he's also innovative and open to new ideas. Gore is not merely a follower of established approaches-- he things for himself, in a critical manner, and he executes his ideas as well. He's able to think at a very basic level and translate that into productive practice. Very few people, not even the top business executives, are able to do that so well.

Gore's stands on technology, and on investments in renewable energy, mark him as one of the current political crop's most clever and effective minds. Gore is the person that this country desperately needs.

[bdamomma]

149. both of them since they both won.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

151. Gore!

[bamacrat]

152. Gore, hands down.

[radio4progressives]

153. Gore.. hands down. no question

[Mass]

154. Lieberman, as we all know.

Why does a Lieberman supporter starts such a divisive thread.

[killerbush]

161. Tell me how it's devisive?? I don't see a problem here.

[blm]

168. You don't really like Gore, but since Kerry has always been your target,

you will USE the new wave towards Gore's recent transformation as a lefty to garner attacks on Kerry from those on the left who are still mostly unaware of either man's actual record in government.

No mystery.

[killerbush]

170. I voted for Kerry, I campaigned for Kerry, I gave money to him

Your post is total BS. He is not my target.

[ProSense]

171. Do you support the death penalty! n/t

[killerbush]

173. In certain cases, yes

[ProSense]

174. Such as? Do you support a moratorium on the death penalty? n/t

[blm]

175. That just says you're a Democrat. That's all. Doesn't mean you support

Kerry today, and I have read enough of your posts to know that Kerry gets the brunt of your disdain.

[Bitter Cup]

155. Gore

with Edwards being the far superior VP choice.

[TankLV]

159. GORE.

FEH on Kerry.

[Homer Wells]

160. Gore!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Justpat]

163. Gore n/t

[cboy4]

166. Gore

[ProSense]

169. Kerry because he supported the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act n/t

[NNadir]

176. Gore. I supported Kerry as best I could, but my heart's always been

with Gore.

Kerry was, frankly, my third or fourth choice in the Primary.

Kerry's a good guy mostly, but he was running against Bush's record, not his propaganda. It should have been a blow out for us.

[maxsolomon]

178. Gore

he has a challenge for America that can only result in a stronger country.

and that's regardless of whether Global Heating is real.

which it is.

[Meshuga]

179. Kerry

I support him for 2008!!! He would be a great president!

[tom_paine]

181. Gore

Many reasons, too numerous tro mention here and most already listed above.

[VOX]

182. Gore in 2000, because we wouldn't be in the **mess** we're in today...

If anything, Kerry in 2004 had even more urgency, as things were already running way downhill.

But I find myself thinking repeatedly about 2000, and how this country took such a horrible turn -- and it's all gotten so much worse since then. :scared:

[seabeyond]

186. kerry n/t

[feistydem]

188. After Gore's loss I would have said Kerry, but now I'd say Gore after he

got his MOJO BACK!!

[lojasmo]

192. AL GORE without doubt. EOM

[LeftNYC]

195. Gore should be President...nt

[mithnanthy]

202. GORE!

Absolutely!

[beachmom]

205. Kerry n/t

[tandem5]

207. Gore nt

[ArnoldLayne]

208. Gore

[kitticup]

209. Kerry

Looking at Gore's and Kerry's record, I will go with the liberal (that's Kerry).

Here are the issues that are important to me and the facts behind them:

1. Women's Issues.

a. Reproductive choice. Kerry has always supported a woman's right to choose, even when he ran for congressman in 1972 in a conservative Mass district in 1972. Gore voted against women's rights over 20 times while in Congress.
b. Hiring women.
c. Sex Crimes. When Kerry ran the DA's office he hired lots of women attorneys. This was very progressive. He also created one of the countries first victims units and prosecuted rape cases even where the victim was a prostitute. He currently has legislation that will punish perverts who like to download child porn.

2. Environment. Kerry has always been pro-environment. When he went to eastern germany and saw the damage that acid rain had on the forests, Kerry drafted the first legislation to deal with acid rain. His work was used as the basis of the Clean Act. Before it was cool, Kerry blocked drilling in ANWR. Kerry has the highest ratings from environment group. Compare Kerry's rating of 92 from the Conservation Voters (among the highest ratings the League has ever awarded) to Gore's rating of 64. Kerry has the stronger record.

Kerry worked on Coastal Zone Management Act reauthorization. He proposed legislation to deal with eroding wetlands in Louisiana over 15 years ago. Sadly, that might have made a difference during Katrina.

He worked on the international agreement to phase out chemicals that are gnawing a hole in the earth's protective ozone layer. And the Senator also worked closely with a non profit group called Second Nature which helps suffuse environmental principles throughout academia. His wife Teresa Heinz Kerry served on the board.

All I know about Gore is he wrote a book about something a lot people were worried about, but what legislation did he champion.

3. Corruption and Open Government. Kerry opened the books on Iran Contra and BCCI, while everyone, including Gore, wanted to sweep all this aside, but think about had Congress followed Kerry's lead the BFEE would be in prison and the whole Republican Revolution would have died in its crib.

4. Crime and the Death Penalty. Kerry set up the first victim's units in the country. He was instrumental in getting the crime bill passed in 1993. Kerry has always opposed the death penalty, even before it was cool too. That takes courage. Gore has supports the death penalty.

5. War. Expect for IWR, Gore has been more hawkish than Kerry. With respect to the IWR,Gore didn't have Powell, Scowcraft, others lying to him. Kerry listened to these men who had ensured the Bush I had a true international coalition; unfortunately those men were liars or used by Bush.

6. Gay Issues. Kerry stood against Clinton's Defense against Marriage Act, even though he was in a very competitive race. He never threw gays under the bus to advance his career. Instead he co-sponsored legislation to prohibit hiring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

7. Kerry has put his political ambitions aside for his principles when he:

a. Protested the Vietnam War. Anyone who said he did it for political gain is as deluded and disingenuous as Spiro Agnew.
b. Tried to expose the corruption of the Regan and Bush
c. was pro-choice while running in a conservative district
d. voted against the DOMA
e. agreed to chair the committee of POW even though everyone said it was career killer (the only veteran in the Senate who refused to participate was Al Gore.)
f. continued to be anti-death penalty even though Dukakis was reamed for it.

I will give you that Gore has changed as a person after he lost, and then began to champion on progressive causes (as VP he championed NAFTA, Telecommunications Act). My problem is that he is championing these issues when he had nothing to lose. I believe that had he won in 2000, Gore would have governed as a conservative democrat. The Gore that lost would have probably govern more porgressively.

[_dynamicdems]

211. Thank you for this post! It does put things in perspective.

It is my personal opinion that Al Gore is better suited to the types of things he's doing now than politics. I think the years off did him good and I think he has found himself. That is wonderful for him on a personal level, but that does not automatically make him the most qualified to be President.

I think the Al Gore we see today is more grounded, feistier and happier than the Al Gore who ran in 2000. And I think that is precisely because he has been out of politics.

[karynnj]

214. Fantastic summary

Kerry has always fought for what he believes in.

[wisteria]

216. This is just wonderful so well researched and truthful. Thank you! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

212. Kerry

Absolutely John Kerry. He was born to be President. He didn't choose politics anymore than he chose to have thick hair or to be over six feet tall. He has a calling to public service that I honestly do not think Al Gore has.

Recently we have seen another aspect of Al Gore that was all but buried during his years as VP. He's just not a politician at heart. He's the consummate advocate, an educator and an activist. I don't think he'd be happy or shine as brightly as President.

Since the election in 2004, day after day, I've followed Senator Kerry's work and been astounded by his schedule. For any other person, the life he lives would constitute torture. He lives and breathes what he believes and what he preaches. I've never seen anyone so driven by so many causes. After the crushing defeat of 2004, John Kerry did not lie down in defeat or go off and lick his wounds. He stood up, rising stronger and more determined like an avenging angel wielding a sword of fire against the oppression that has a stranglehold on our country. This not only gives a good indication of his drive, his strength and his chararacter, but more importantly, it shows his dedication and committment. Nobody on this earth is better suited to be President than John Kerry.

[Sensitivity]

213. Kerry record is much more liberal across the board: jobs, environment

economy, war & peace, human rights etc.

Gore has become very passionate out of office but was much more
cautious on matters of principle than Kerry.

[NYCGirl]

218. Al Gore NT

[Kerry fan]

219. John Kerry...

Just one thing. Gore couldn't even win his own Home State. I thought that spoke volumes. Why didn't he win his Home State? If he had, he wouldn't have needed Florida. Clinton won Tennessee in both 92 and 96. Gore lost it in 2000.

I would vote for either Kerry or Gore, if either got the nomination, But, John Kerry would be my first choice. IMO, they both were robbed and either would have been better by miles than what we now have.

But, I can't help being bothered that Gore lost his home state after Clinton winning it in both 92 and 96. Has a presidential candidate ever lost his home state before?