"Sometimes I feel like this whole political cycle is some kind of weird set up."

[Beam Me Up]

Mods, I feel this is a GD not GDP post but if you disagree, please relocate.

Explanation: The below is a cross post from the "Senior Democrats Mull Al Gore's Nomination" thread in LBN: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3248467#3248559 A couple DUers suggested I post it separately and, with considerable reluctance, I've decided to go ahead and do this.

Disclaimer: The below is simply an expression of my opinion and nothing more. I'm not interested in defending it or arguing about it with anyone. I feel very strongly that we need to stop arguing and begin mending ASAP because, if my intuition is right, this election isn't going to be anywhere as easy as it ought to be if our political system worked the way we are led to believe it does. I have no idea what is going to happen but I'm increasingly worried -- and I think, given recent historical precedent, for damn good reason.

Original post:

In a sane world where everyone knew what we here at DU know, there would be no chance in hell of the Republican party winning the next election. I don't care if they ran George Washington himself. But the problem is the rest of the country doesn't know what we here know -- or, at least, nothing has been "made of it" either by congress or by the media. This has been the most criminal administration in US history and all of us know that is no "conspiracy theory." The evidence is so thick much of the media and most politicians are falling all over themselves trying to ignore it.

Why? What does this really mean?

Meanwhile, as this political cycle unfolds, the Democrats have two worthy candidates who, one way and another, are being set up to fail -- it seems to me -- despite the faith and best efforts of their ardent supporters. I have no idea who is going to get the nomination but what I do know is, whoever it is, this could very well be the most important election in US history. The challenges that lie directly before us as a nation and as human beings on this planet must not be taken lightly. We need to seriously consider who we want to be leading this nation in times of grave crisis.

Anyone with a thinking brain ought to be able to see that the election of John McCain would further lead this country away from its most cherished principles and further engage us in global conflict. The problem is, there are a lot of very wealthy and powerful people who are less concerned with principles of any sort than they are with the corporate bottom line. We also have two presidential election cycles just past us in history and most all of us here know that there were "shenanigans" in both instances. In each case, whatever the truth may have been, the elections were presented to the people by the media as being close races which, alack and alas, what may have been the better man fell just short of winning.

Now, how the hell are they going to pull that off this time? I'm certain that there are strong Clinton and Obama supporters who believe either one of them can beat McCain in a heart beat. I certainly believe that if we were having fair elections -- both in the way they are presented in the Media and tabulated at the polls -- this would no doubt be the case. But given the "dirty tricks" (and worse) that Republicans are known for, I begin to have my doubts. I have to honestly say this primary season hasn't exactly bolstered my confidence, either. In fact, quite the contrary. I find it hard to believe that either Clinton or Obama can UNIFY this country sufficiently to beat McCain in what will undoubtedly be an unfair election. I admit, I could be wrong, it is just my gut feeling.

I feel very strongly that we need a candidate that can unite this country in opposition to very powerful vested interests. In the crises that I fear lay ahead of us I think we're going to need someone who has a commanding stature that can appeal across all the long established social turf lines. Lets face it, there are going to be a lot of Republicans who wont vote for Clinton because she is a Clinton and because she is a woman. It sucks and is stupid but there you have it. Same thing goes for Obama because of his race and because of his name.

On the other hand, I feel strongly that Al Gore may be able to do what neither Clinton or Obama can do -- and that is provide genuine leadership and insight that will appeal across a vast spectrum of this country. In case anyone hasn't noticed, the Al Gore of today isn't the Al Gore we were shown 8 years ago. He's changed. We've changed. This whole country has changed -- and not for the better and most people know it.

If nothing else we need to keep Al Gore as an ace up our sleeve.

[lildreamer316]

1. Nominated! Very sane post!

Thank you!!

[BlooInBloo]

22. Sanity has no place in a primary, just like facts have no place within organized religion.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Here's a great idea for the Democratic party--

let's let a black guy run, work his ass off, run a brilliant campaign, outmaneuver seasoned political pro's, inspire millions as one of the best and brightest orators and politicians we've ever had in our party, inspire youth and party crossovers to become Dems and get involved, develop and sell sound and beneficial policies for this country, and earn the most money and the most votes of ANY Dem candidate in history--and then at the last minute, we'll decide he's suddenly "unelectable" (read: still unfortunately black, no matter how hard he tries), and snatch it all away from him and hand it to a guy who didn't run, didn't raise money, didn't campaign, didn't develop a 2008 policy agenda, didn't earn votes or delegates. Because he's white, and familiar. What a fucking sickening scenario.

[flor de jasmim]

4. I would have phrased it more delicately, but I agree entirely with the content. (n/t)

[movonne]

18. I third it...

[Beam Me Up]

7. I agree completely. That would be sickening.

And it is going to be even more sickening if by crook -- because they can only do it by crook as recent history has shown -- McCain takes the WH.

[TransitJohn]

9. You don't think Al has a policy agenda?

Or just that he didn't develop one around a campaign?

[pscot]

12. You took the words

right outta my mouth. I held out for Al for a long time, but he made his choice, and that's history. He basically turned his back on his party and his country. There are no mulligans on that.

[SeattleGirl]

15. I disagree that he turned his back on his party and his country.

I, too, wanted him to run for President, but he made a choice to focus on something other than continuing a political career. I was disappointed, but accept his choice. He was under no obligation to run again. He's still doing a lot of good, but in a much larger context. I can't fault him for that.

[mopinko]

14. i agree completely, also.

that is exactly what they are trying to do. record turnouts be damned.
if that goes down, i think this country will go up for grabs. finally, we will take to the streets. we will bust out of the free speech zones, and just flood the place with people. i hope.

[DJ13]

3. I think you're reading a little too much into our situation

This quote:

"Meanwhile, as this political cycle unfolds, the Democrats have two worthy candidates who, one way and another, are being set up to fail..."

.....assumes the media wants another Republican, but to the real power brokers in DC (and their media cohorts) its not really an issue of party affiliation, its an issue of the candidates ideology.

Those power brokers never wanted McCain, they dont believe they can trust him to continue the pro corporate policies they desire.

So where does that leave our two remaining candidates?

Well, Obama has been sharply critical of the rampant greed on Wall street, and has expressed his desire to overturn all the top brackets tax cuts Bush enacted, get out of Iraq ASAP, and has placed a great deal of emphasis on empowering the average American to improve the country.

Lets just say those DC power brokers arent happy about any of those policies, and hate the idea of him becoming President.

Now Hillary has been running on her husband's record as President, and that has a significant appeal to those power brokers as he enacted more pro business GOP legislation than even Reagan had.

So why does the MSM make Hillary out to still be in the running?

Its because they do NOT want Hillary to fail.

[Beam Me Up]

13. "Its because they do NOT want Hillary to fail."

Alright, that makes sense.

Doesn't make me sleep any easier, but it makes sense. But, clearly, SOMEONE wants McCain -- just as someone wanted * and wanted him badly enough to steal two elections for him. What I'm saying is, I don't think McCain is any more sane than Bush, quite the contrary and under 'ordinary' circumstances I don't believe Bush would have gotten anywhere near the WH. But, I don't think this is politics as usual. There is something far more sinister lurking just beneath the surface, IMO.

[terrell9584]

17. and because she's still in the running

Neither candidate can reach the required number of delegates in the primaries. Looking at the states ahead, it's just not possible for Obama to, and Clinton's problem is that she plays to the silent majority types, not the activist types. Which is why she and Obama are about even in national primary vote. His edge has come entirely from caucuses (which I argue shouldn't be really considered real elections)

The 1924 campaign has some similarites, in that it was a bitter fight and it ended up with a compromise candidate. However, even if there had not been a bitter fight, a Democratic victory would have been impossible in 1924. There was not a cogent reason to kick Coolidge out of office.

In 1912, the delegate leader was a man by the name of Clark. Clark couldn't get the required number of delegates to clinch it, so they voted again, and ended up giving it to his challenger. His challenger was a man named Thomas Woodrow Wilson and he went on to be elected President of the United States. Keep in mind, if they had given it to the candidate who had the delegate lead, we never would have had a President Wilson and the history of the world might have been very different.

[flor de jasmim]

5. I wonder if this is meant as just a message to Hillary --

if you make Obama unelectable we still have other options...

[Beam Me Up]

8. Interesting. Hadn't thought of that. n/t

[pretzel4gore]

6. whattaya do with a dog that refuses to be housebroken?

rub his face in it. Usually, puppies learn quick from the nastiness not to make 'mistake' again, but oldboy amerka, one of oldest countries on earth, certainly one of oldest democracies, just has to undergo getting bush in the face until, someday, if ever, they're grown up enough to understand. Stealing is bad. Drugs is bad too, if abused, but... stealing is BAD!

[Sperk]

10. or as my 74 year old friend says...."they're all in on it"

n/t

[earth mom]

11. Gore is the answer. Obama & Hillary are simply unelectable against McCain.

Many of us could see the writing on the wall when Edwards was pushed out and Gore wasn't running.

Both Obama & Hillary are too polarizing and will cause some people to either not vote at all or vote McCain.

It's a shame because it would be fantastic to see a woman or an African American as president.

Unfortunately, neither Obama or Hillary are the right representatives of their race/gender.

Between the negative baggage they both carry and the fact they are both corporatists, they are both a losing proposition.

The loud and vocal denial that is rampant in GD-P doesn't erase these facts.


Gore or Gore/Edwards is the answer if we want to see a dem in the White House in 2009.

[depakid]

16. Sadly, I've come to that conclusion, too

Let's hope the superdelegates realize that it's their responsibility to ensure that we don't have another McGovern style disaster in the fall.

This election is too important to try to make a statement about gender, race or some pie in the sky notion of bipartisanship and "changing the tone of American politics."

[Nay]

20. But rejecting a popular candidate (whether it would be C or O) -- IS

making a statement about race or gender. The statement is "we don't want your kind around here." So it's really too late to put Gore in and avoid making a statement about race/gender.

As far as a McGovern style disaster, the Clintons, to me, have made this almost inevitable by their win at all costs campaign. If only there had been someone to rein them in on their excesses, we would not have this problem. The 3 Dems we had in the race at the beginning should have been made to promise not to run neg campaigns against each other, and that the Dem leadership would run interference for them in the media, allowing their ideas to get out and concentrating on tearing down the pubs. God knows the pubs manage to do this -- are we stupider than those morons? Or, for some reason, do we not want to win this one?

[terrell9584]

19. I don't buy that Hillary is too polarizing

Before the campaign, I would have agreed with you, but in this campaign she has taken on the role of Scoop Jackson. You have her husband out in West Virginia using terms like gliterrati, and the whole thing has turned into the stereotypical working-class more conservative side of the party opposed the the liberal, wealthier side, or as the media has been saying for 8 months, beer drinkers vs. wine drinkers. I see more people deserting if Obama wins out than if Hillary does. His core supporters are people who will not vote Republican in a million years. If Hillary is nominee they will turnout and they will vote for her. I am not so sure about Obama.

I thought this was the Clinton's plan all along. This said, Edwards does not need to be on a VP ticket. I like Edwards, but this race has been run before and well, the centerpiece of McCain's campaign will be "I spent 5 years at the Hanoi Hilton" If we do not have a war hero on the ticket, and a war hero that lacks a protest history, for example, General Clark or Admiral Sestak, we will have a vulnerability in that area

McCain's campaign is not going to be a campaign of issues. It will be a campaign of grit and gut. His whole justification for running for President is his service. It's only because of his service that he survived S & L. His legitimacy is based on that. The issues should favor us, but this is not a parliamentary system, we have coalition politics and you don't vote for the party or a slate, you vote for each candidate individually. There is also the simple fact that in the post-JFK era, every Democratic nominee who was a Northerner lacking in Southern ties lost. They just lost. That should be kept in mind.

[JeanGrey]

28. I disagree. Obama can take McCain. Hillary is a disaster.

And the longer this nonsense goes on the worse it is even for Obama.

[warren pease]

21. I think the key point here, as you say, is the near 100 % probability the GOPiggies will...

... try to steal another one, and probably succeed because: a) democrats, Boxer and the Congressional Black Caucus excepted, won't contest the official results; b) the piggies will have so many scams in place that even Palast won't be able to find them all; and c) it's generally understood that any "journalist" breathing the faintest word about the 2000 and 2004 thefts in public will be fired and black listed from the news biz and may actually have to find honest work when savings runs out.

Which begs the question, do you want to win or do you want to occupy the moral high ground while getting cheated out of the third presidential election in a row and accept the consequences of another four years of republican treachery?

I used to be of the opinion that the ends never justify the means, but seven years of BushCo has taught me otherwise. When dealing with republicans, winning is the only thing that matters anymore. This country can't survive another GOP administration, particularly when you consider that means McStain fronting for Bush's third term with Cheney once again the puppet master.

Siphoning off votes to marginal candidates, voter caging, vote flipping, elimination of paper trails, just one or two voting machines for heavily populated dem districts and all the rest of the time-tested GOP arsenal is, in fact, disgusting. However, not as disgusting as the idea of another imperialist administration featuring wonders like endless war, continuing dependence on the oil economy, and even more Federalist Society wingnut judicial appointments. Four more years of this garbage, including the steaming pile of repressive domestic legislation rammed through by BushCo and its allies in congress -- on both sides of the aisle.

Aren't the dems smart enough to figure this stuff out on their own? They seem absolutely out of their element when trying to play hard core politics against the GOP. And then there's Pelosi and Reid, who have perfected the bow and curtsy cave-in routine and use it every time Cheney snarls and makes them all sweaty and uncomfortable.

I'd love to dems run a swiftboat campaign against McLame. Or turn up a precinct where, for once, the votes had been flipped in favor of a democrat. Or the RNC bitching about the dems caging rich white reactionaries instead of the usual black democratic voters.

Let the games begin in earnest. Winning the white house and huge majorities in congress the only things anybody's focused on. Screw this fair play nonsense. Winning begins the long process of curing the disease; losing probably makes it lethal.

I'll have plenty of time to contemplate my compromised ethics once this pack of vampires is safely behind bars and the GOP is completely out of power. Until then, there's nothing too sleazy if it serves to get rid of republicans at all levels of government -- from the white house to the county coroner's office.


wp

[notesdev]

23. Big picture

I pay attention to what goes on inside both parties.

If you think McCain has a chance to win this election, you are quite mistaken.

The conservative wing of the GOP, which makes up a huge chunk of the votes McCain would need to win, simply will not vote for him, no way, no how. The Democrats could nominate Satan himself and it wouldn't make a difference.

The reason why is that the GOP is essentially compromised of five factions - social conservatives, economic conservatives, national security voters, libertarian voters, and old-money country-clubbers (RNC elites and party insiders). McCain truly represents only the last group, which is the smallest of the five. The national security faction is split between those who think that border issues are part of national security and those who disagree. The other groups' opinions of him range from "I'll hold my nose to vote for him... if I must. But ugh!" to "When Hell freezes over, and probably not even then."

The proof is in the fundraising numbers. No GOP nominee for President has ever done as poorly in raising funds as McCain. Obama has about four times the amount of cash on hand as McCain does, and less in debts.

Moreover, the GOP depends largely on its social conservatives for the get-out-the-vote drives, which are crucial in the closely contested elections we've been having since 2000. Some will continue to show up for those out of inertia, but there won't be anywhere near the enthusiasm necessary to make those efforts successful.

There is a very good chance that the 'right wing' third parties - the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party primarily - will end up pulling 15% or more of the general election vote. It will take a catastrophic failure by the Democrat nominee for him not to end up as President.

[Beam Me Up]

24. I appreciate your optimism. Hope it is well founded. n/t

[notesdev]

26. All that needs to be done to defeat McCain

Is publish those pictures of him hugging Bush, over and over and over and over again. By the time the election rolls around, the economy will be so bad that only the most devout Bush loving fanatics will consider his name to be anything other than a vile epithet.

[Vidar]

25. The only thing I disagree with is your use of "sometimes".

[JeanGrey]

27. I'll tell you how. Our party is tearing itself apart with stupidity,

and hillary is a wrecking ball. Already, 20% of voters claim if THEIR candidate doesn't win (i.e., Obama or Hill) they will vote for McCain.

In the meantime, McCain runs around looking Presidential and attacking us while we attack ourselves. If we blow this one, I may never stop screaming. If we do, we only have ourselves to blame!