Gore/Edwards

[Tiggeroshii]

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. why the heck not?

my first choice.

second is Gore/Clark

[Tellurian]

22. Gore/Hillary..

Flame me all you want.

Between these 4 people, they bring 32 yrs of experience to the White House.

and definitely, the biggest thorn in the GOP agenda!

Go Al & Hill!

:toast:

[KAT119]

52. Gore/Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi, unlike Hillary, has been against this horrifying, illegal Iraq war of aggression from the very beginning. Hillary has been and is calling for MORE TROOPS, and Nancy is working vehemently to get the troops home and stop US occupation/torture against an innocent NOW destroyed country. Enough said....

[Tellurian]

63. Sorry, just because Pelosi didn't endorse the war, isn't reason enough

to advocate her for the VP slot. As far as Hillary is concerned, she advocated withdrawal of troops as early as this time last year. You seem to be stuck in a time warp.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/IraqCoverage/story?id=1338211

[mzmolly]

2. Very pleasant thought.

:)

[LWolf]

3. No. Gore/someone who is not

on the constantly referred to "top" of the list would be interesting.

[William769]

4. No Edwards.

[KatieB]

5. Repubs would vote Gore over Hillary-Sadly

My dad is a repub. He says he likes the Dems ideas but doesn't like Hillary's "attitude." THis gets right under my skin, and I ask him "Why?" he can't define it. He'd vote for a Democrat - but not for Hillary....go figure.

[Catch22Dem]

6. New blood (n/t)

[SharonRB]

7. Gore and almost anybody would make me happy

Edwards wouldn't be my first choice, but with Gore at the top of the ticket, I'd be okay with him.

[mentalsolstice]

8. Gore/Clark or Gore/Obama

is kinda where I'm heading. But Edwards would be okay.

[bobbie]

60. Gore/Clark

...

[partylessinOhio]

9. To save America - anybody but a Repuglican.

[rsmith6621]

10. Gore/Feingold

......LETS look to definite winners......

[skipos]

11. I like Gore, but the number of people already committed to voting against him is very high

nt

[zanne]

23. Please show data pertaining to "number of people".

If you talk to a Republican pundit, he'll/she'll tell you that Gore's chances are bad. What else is new? I think Gore is very popular with Democrats and Republicans would vote for him over Hillary.

[skipos]

26. Here is one link, if you google you will find many more.

I realize there is a tendency for DUers to claim that polls are bullshit when they don't like the results, but there are many polls showing the number of people already committed to voting against Hillary, Kerry and Gore, to be very high. Pre-election polls before Nov 2006 were very consistent with the actual results. Polls are certainly not the end all be all, but they are worth considering.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/index.html

(CNN) -- With the presidential election more than two years away, a CNN poll released Monday suggests that nearly half of Americans would "definitely not vote for" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose name repeatedly tops lists of potential 2008 Democratic candidates.

Respondents were asked whether they would "definitely vote for," "consider voting for," or "definitely not vote for" three Democrats and three Republicans who might run for president in 2008.

Regarding potential Democratic candidates, 47 percent of respondents said they would "definitely not vote for" both Clinton, the junior senator from New York who is running for re-election this year, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's candidate in 2004.

Forty-eight percent said the same of former Vice President Al Gore, who has repeatedly denied he intends to run again for president.

[bowens43]

12. You think teaming up two losers makes a winner?

Nope. If we want to win the whitehouse in 08, Gore, Kerry, edwards, clark, kucinick and all the other losers need to be kept off the ticket.

I just don't understand why people here insist on trying to run people who weren't able to beat the stupidest man ever to run for the office. They're losers. They can't win.

[William769]

13. I don't understand why people here keep pounding in Gore lost.

Gore Didn't Lose The election was stolen. Yes there is a difference.

[Tellurian]

24. Gore's election was stolen..

There is NO comparison between Gore's and Kerry's election circumstance.

Kerry gave up and conceded the election to Bush.

[JNelson6563]

46. Ignore the anti-Gore bots

Do a search on various anti-Bore posters and you will see a pattern.

Sad and pathetic.

Julie

[Uncle Joe]

80. I wonder if anyone ever told Abraham Lincoln he was a loser and

should not run for President? He did lose a Senatorial race to Stephen Douglas before Abe beat him for the Presidency. I suppose the same question could be asked of other "losers" who went on to win the Presidency such as Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, or Richard Nixon. Having said that, I believe Al Gore won the election in 2000 and lost the battle with a partisan Supreme Court to have the ballots counted.

Of course Presidential candidates aren't the only ones to be mindlessly labeled as losers by the lazy minded. See the movie "Sea Biscuit" for details.

Regarding your final paragraph, whatever made you think the coup of 2000 had anything to do with intelligence!? Were you asleep while the mass corporate media trashed and slandered Al Gore almost non-stop beginning in March of 99 primarily because he championed the internet, thereby taking some of their power and giving it to the American People, google "Prometheus" for details. This was a direct slam on his integrity or credibility, not his intelligence.

They did this for a reason, the mass corporate media wanted to frame the election on integrity because they knew, after the eight year witch hunt against Clinton, the Lewinsky Scandal and impeachment, it was the only way to prevent Al Gore from coming to power, even then, the mass corporate media were the ones with the integrity deficit. I believe had they actually covered the 2000 race on intelligence, vision or competence in a just manner, Al would have won all fifty states.

You can praise to high heaven whoever your version of a winner is or continue to trash Al, but only because "loser" Al championed the technology allowing you to do so. As for me whether Al ever runs for office again or not, he will always be a winner.

[dddem]

14. That's my dream ticket

Even some of the republicans I work with are looking at Al Gore a little differently now. He's his own person, and a champion of causes that benefit ALL Americans (heck, all humankind for that matter), and I don't think anyone looks at him as Bill Clinton's sidekick anymore (and I love Bill Clinton).
And you can't touch either of these guys on so-called moral issues, if that's what really matters to you.

[Inspired]

15. 8 years too late....should have been Gore/Edwards in '00. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Why Edwards?

He's a nice guy with great hair... but he was an awful VP candidate. VP candidate should be a pitbull. Edwards is a golden retriever,

[benny05]

25. Can we dispense with great hair talk?

The Re-thugs use that criteria. Surely your criticism could be better than what they say.

I for one don't want a pitbull for VP or President. I want someone who really will be a uniter in terms of intellect, personal experience, legal and legislative expertise, great moral leadership, and a dash of empathy for the common person, especially from someone who made his own way from the ground up. I'm sick of dividers like those two asshats in the WH have been for 8 years. Asking for a rapid pitbull (as pitbulls can be nice if their owners are nice and train them to behave appropriately) is asking someone to divide us. Do we want that? I don't think so.

[Clark2008]

33. Um - because some of us think that's about all he's got going for him.

eom

[venable]

35. then don't comment on him

or say you don't think he has what it takes. the hair comment does not reflect well on the commenter. IMO.

[venable]

36. wrong

his pit bull capacity was rendered impotent by the head of the ticket.

For instance - the moment the swift boating began, Edwards said "Let me stop this". Kerry and Mary Beth Cahill said, "no, it's not a problem. don't say anything about it".

When the 'throwing the medals away' thing began, they wanted him to be quiet on that, too. well, he was for a while, then he was on Imus and it was brought up:. Edwards reply:" Cheney and Bush and all these guys did not serve, they found ways to not serve, and they have the gall to criticize him for what he did with the medals he won there. Shame on them." The Repub smear on that count ended at that moment.

That is a pit bull with style.

You say he's a golden retriever, and you are dead wrong.

[Catchawave]

42. Biggest mistake of '04

Holding John back. He's a gifted defender with great oratory skills and he was delegated to rocking chairs on rural front porches.

[elocs]

17. This polling stuff is way, way old already. Really, what purpose does it serve? n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

18. This was close to being the ticket in '00

Kerry was up for the V.P. slot and so was Edwards. Lieberman probably got it out of Gore's desire to distance himself from the perceived taint of Clinton, since Lieberman was the first major Democratic politician to slag Clinton on the "morality" issue.

Whatever.

If neither party can field someone unassailable, those with blots on their records suddenly become much more competitive. There certainly has been quite a series of shipwrecks of late for seemingly promising contenders and many of those left slathering with their hopes will be dogged with many slumbering issues.

What would happen if the Dems did, in their infinite idiocy of machine politics, coronate Hillary as they did Mondale in '84? Well, it would depend on what blunders were made by the Republicans: if they get all hot and bothered by Romney, they may find that a Mormon is so laden with baggage that they can't hold their fundies together, if they go nutso and bless a lunatic like Brownback, they may not be able to pull the moderates necessary to get the general election close enough to steal and if they think straight and go with Hagel, they may not be able to pull the wackos into the fold. In these cases, someone otherwise unelectable like Hillary may have a chance.

We shall see.

[beaconess]

53. Couldn't his lack of experience have been a more significant reason in 2000?

Why is it that so many DUers dismiss Obama for "lack of experience" but seem to think that Edwards is just fine - even though he has less experience in government than Obama does?

In 2000, Edwards had even less - only 2 years in the Senate and nothing else beyond his experience as a trial lawyer. Couldn't his lack of experience have been the reason he was passed over or is that only a problem for Obama? I'm not saying that you're pushing a double standard. I'm just wondering why Edwards' lack of experience doesn't seem to be as much of an issue for him as it seems to be for Obama here.

[PurityOfEssence]

74. It may well have been

Many things were in play with Gore's decision, and I still believe that he was attempting to distance himself from Clinton's "immorality" by picking the first prominent Democrat to attack Clinton in public. The prissy, pantywaist moralism and opportunism of Lieberman was obvious; that Gore was cowed by the moralistic "outrage" from the right showed him to be an appeaser and it was a huge mistake. Edwards probably was flushed due to lack of experience, but the need to distance himself from Clinton was a major factor in Gore's decision.

Much as I'm an unabashed Edwards partisan, I respect Obama and recognize his legislative experience. I've never dismissed Obama for lack of experience; my only missives at his expense have been that many are thrilled with him as a bit of a fad. Nonetheless, the guy's obviously got something, gives a damn and I don't dismiss that.

Others may dismiss Obama as green in comparison to Edwards, but I'm not one of them. Edwards DID take great strides to educate himself on the international situation and served on the intelligence committee and he was tireless in attacking Ashcroft and trying to stop his nomination; Edwards threw himself into the fray and fought hammer and tongs. If you saw him on Russert last night his focal statement was that he thought the last campaign should be more about domestic policy--more in line with his approach toward economic fairness--but that the next one should be more focused on international policy, after all the blunders we've made.

Others may slag Obama for "lack of experience", but I'm not one of them. Check the posts; I'm voluble and fairly unabashed in my ravings and he's not been the subject of my diatribes. I must say that the star-quality fad of loving him to the firmament gets me a bit reeling in my inherent contrariness, but hell, there are a hell of a lot worse sources of enthusiasm in politics.

Having said all that, I pretty much trust the guy and see some great possibilities in him: he's articulate, decent, focused and has quite a cross-cultural appeal. His voting record so far in the senate disturbs me a bit because of his tending toward the center, but this is all armchair politicking; it's another thing when one has to cast the vote.

This country is long overdue to have a woman or black president.

Your ire is well-founded, but it isn't from anything I've done or proposed, so go do the good work of thumping on the others who've smeared him for inexperience. Take that to heart and let's see how the dice roll.

[beaconess]

78. Thanks for clarifying

[Tiggeroshii]

19. This seems to almsot be the one DU likes

Edwards/Obama only got 33%. This has 52% approval. Maybe I'll try one more., to see if I could get a little bit better here.

[Pithy Cherub]

20. Gore would be great, Edwards not anywhere near so much.

Gore has changed his demeanor and his base of support with substantial actions and behaviors on global warming, speaking passionately against the war before it was fashionable and calling out the administartion on the unitary executive model.

Edwards voted for war, has substantial press releases with minute substantive actions and Obama levels of national security experience. Aside from the fact that Edwards uttely blew it on the biggest FP decision of his life which continues to end so many others. At least Obama said NO out loud and showed more presence of mind that the former junior senator from North Carolina. O's not ready yet for the top spot.

More interestingly is why would Gore bring Edwards on a ticket with him when they are ideologically not aligned. Edwards doesn't add to that ticket. Obama has the upper hand on issues of poverty, race and hope. And Illinois would definitely be in Obama's camp and Edwards can't say that about NC. Obama could actually incentivize more votes in the South because of the number of African Americans. Obama just isn't prepared for the top of the ticket yet.

That said Clark is my first choice with Gore in second and Obama third. Even Hillary ranks higher than Edwards and that's near the very dreggy bottom of the list.

[benny05]

27. Gore would not be a bad top of the ticket

I like Gore, but he has some negatives going against him

1) Gore is articulate, but he has trouble speaking on a playing level with everyone. He tends to appeal to mainly Northeasterners and Californians, however, most working men and women who are swing voters (or independents) cannot relate to him. I like the way he speaks, but I know people who personally think he's a snob.

2) Gore cast the tie-breaker on NAFTA, passing it. I think that will come back to haunt him.

3) Gore was against the war, but was not in elective office either, so it's easy to say "no" on the catbird's seat

His positives: global warming, executive experience, his rescue efforts during Katrina (something often overlooked by the MSM), and squeaking on the popular vote in 2000.

Anyone who says Obama is the main spokesperson for the poverty movement has not been paying attention at the local levels. While it's true that he was an advocate for South Siders in Chicago, it's only been been recently with his rising star with the MSM that he's started talking more about this issue. John Edwards has been running a center for 2 years to talk about how to confront the issue of poverty and what to do about it. He started a "college for everyone" program in the poorest county of NC. He is editing a book due out next spring on that should present some pragmatic solutions, as well as other ideas, to tackle one of the moral issues in our time.

I think Obama has tremendous appeal, but I can tell you as a constituent, he seldom ever answers my e-mails I have sent him. I have better luck with Senator Durbin, whose staff replies to every single one of them.

My avatar should give anyone an idea who I want at the top of the ticket. He's more accessible to the common person than Gore or Obama combined. How can I prove it? Here are some facts I read somewhere:

A)JRE attended more than 160 events, which raised more than $8.5 million for Democratic candidates, Party committees, and allied groups during the 2005-2006 election cycle.

B) JRE recorded 41 automated calls that went to 1,960,000 households during the 2005-2006 election cycle for candidates or to let them know he was coming to do rallies and fundraisers for candidates. Kristen Gillibrand, NY-20, was one of them.

C) JRE campaigned for Democratic candidates at all levels of government, not just Senators and Congressmen. Through his “Raising the States” program, attended fundraisers for state legislative caucuses and candidates in over 20 states, helping Democrats win at the state legislative level, so we can build the Democratic Party from the ground up. He campaigned for governors in CA, CO, FL, and OH. Two of those won.

D) JRE campaigned aggressively for state minimum wage ballot initiatives, which passed in all six states (AZ, CO, MO, MT, NV, OH)---that alone my fellow DU'ers is one step towards making progress against the terrible issue of poverty

Some popular netroots candidates among the candidates JRE campaigned or did fundraisers for were:

*Larry Kissell NC-08 (still in recount)
*Ned Lamont, candidate for Senate from CT (who unfortunately lost, but I think he will run again)
*Jim Webb, Sen-elect of VA
*Heath Shuler, NC-11
*Amy Klobuchar, Sen-elect of MN
*Claire McCaskill, Sen-elect of MO
*Sherwood Brown, Sen-elect of OH
*Bruce Braley, IA-01 (I may have the district number wrong)
*Jim Loebsack, IA-02 (ditto on district number)

He also did fundraisers for Patty Wetterling of MN (who lost) and Ned Lampson of TX, who won.


JRE was asked to speak at more conferences and rallies for Union members than most in the past 2 years. Go see my video post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=385

So, if JRE didn't make it to the top, I'd be OK with Gore on it, but I don't think he will run. He's now occupied being a paid consultant to Tony Blair on Global Warming, which is a good thing.

[Pithy Cherub]

28. That's the problem

JRE is using attendance and press releases in the same manner as Obama. Obama will handily win that battle each and every time, plus Obama has a legitimate platform as a popular sitting US senator. Edwards was no where near as requested as a candidate on the stump as Obama in the 2006 election cycle.

Edwards has also been limited in effectiveness of the poverty issues as he has concentrated on beefing up his standing in early election states. Each of his actions have not been part of a collective on poverty that spurs legislation on a national level or a policy prescription that is championed by experts on economic disparity on a wide basis. Its been more posturing and fundraising than it has a commitment to the issue. Edwards is to be lauded for bringing additional visibility, but he's no reincarnated intellectual heavyweight like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or Marian Wright Edelman or even a William Julius Wilson who have spent their professional lives on the issues of the underclass and urban and rural poor. Obama resonates more strongly in that area because of his own experiences early in his career working on the issue - not because it is an issue that seeped into the consciousness of a sitting junior senator form NC who had ambitions to be president.

JRE has many people who applaud his efforts and believe that its just enough to envision him in these dark and dangerous times as Commander in chief. Edward's national security credentials are marred tragically by his immoral vote for war which ironically has impoverished the nation of Iraq. Edwards helped grow a debt that is forcing resources away from the US by voting for the Iraq debacle and championing it with his political being on the campaign trail. Obama at the very least with no national platform at least stood up and said no. That's why though Obama is third on my list as presidential aspirants, he stands head and shoulders on a meager nation security resume and portfolio, above JRE. Obama's judgment was more sound and well reasoned than Edwards.

Gore blows Edwards out of the water on every issue with experience, a hopefulness and he has Earth in the Balance as a common cause.

[benny05]

29. I'll correct you on two points, argue on one

Edwards left the senate as the Senior Senator, not the junior senator. Libby Dole became the junior senator in 2002, and now is senior since Edwards left.

And Obama was not in the Senate then for the vote, so he's also in the catsbird seat.

I would argue it is the other way around, in which Obama is parroting Edwards. If Obama will answer more of my e-mails, I'll feel better about him.

I'm more forgiving towards someone who said they made a mistake, unlike HRC or Joe Lieberman.

If Gore really wants to run, my advice would be the following:

1) Move to California permanently where TN won't matter
2) Get some energy (which means he needs to trim up a little)
3) Work on speaking to the average person everyday and translate/transfer that skill to the camera

[NYCGirl]

30. Your points:

1. Al and Tipper Gore have a home in San Francisco (as well as Nashville)

2.

3. Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"?

[benny05]

40. Have conceded good film

But I'm saying that Gore should run a campaign out of California and declare it his home, if he wishes to run again.

[NYCGirl]

41. And I told you he does have a home in California. NT

[benny05]

50. Right, so your point is?

My point is if Gore wants to run, to declare his residency in California rather than Tenn. Currently, he says near Nashville is his principal residency.

[Pithy Cherub]

31. Those who voted aye

fervently wish they were in the catbird seat. the catbird seat is the place where the moral standing is and those who whether elected or not spoke up and out have a stronger voice and positioning. Those who voted aye will be in a position to apologize and own the poor results repeatedly as they should.

Yes, you are correct! Senior senator is what he should be since he beat Faircloth(sp), his last political victory. :)

[venable]

43. Edwards was most requested by campaigns

You say:


"Edwards was no where near as requested as a candidate on the stump as Obama in the 2006 election cycle. "


This is factually wrong. Edwards was most requested. Obama next. Elizabeth Edwards third.

[1932]

47. I think I read that he campaigned for 160 candidates and raised $8.5M

I've only seen one other likely '08 contender's numbers and they were 40 or 60 candidates with 2M raised, but I can't remember who that was...

[Pithy Cherub]

49. The DCCC says Clark for their candidates

especially in red states. So, based on however the deck is cut anybody could have been the most requested. Methinks, Kerry may have given more to candidates that Edwards.

The money primaries and endorsement primaries will be predicated on whom the 2006 candidates feels helped their cause the most. Edwards fundraising will be the most impacted by Obama should he get into the race. If JRE's was at its zenith now, then he has some heavy lifting to do for 2008. Trial lawyers will not give to him in the same amounts because Hillary will get that. he's not a heavyweight here in California - Gore is a film darling and woe betide if he happens to garner an Oscar nomination. Hillary cleans up well here. There is a wealth of untapped money that is salivating to shower Obama here and goodness knows how much Clooney & Oprah can pull for Obama theoretically giving him a war chest in a much smaller amount of time and then it just snowballs. So how much was given this cycle is now being replaced by who can raise the most and deprive others of a fundraising advantage. So its good that Edwards gave the money to candidates - but is it replaceable once all of the donors, small and big, weigh in.

Let the money primary begin...

[benny05]

54. Edwards Gave No Money to Candidates

He did fundraisers for them, including those on the grassroots level. Many state Dems won races this year too, in addition to some governors, that he helped. I don't think HRC or Obama campaigned much on that level, although Obama did help one state candidate in my area (and I'm grateful for that, because the guy who won is going to be great in our state legislature--I met him personally twice and liked his ideas). Obama was not much on the radar otherwise in campaigning for Congressional candidates in our state (IL).

Otherwise, you raise good points about Gore and Hillary competing for Hollywood dollars, but one has to remember:

The American Association for Justice is a powerful ally for Edwards. He was one of their speakers this past summer. To my knowledge, HRC nor Obama are active members of that association.

Second, while Edwards will have to work hard to win the primaries (ie raising cash), he has more organized ground boots in Iowa, NH, and now a few in NV to be of service if he runs. I wouldn't be surprised if SC'ers are getting their troops together too, as Edwards was there last weekend to give a talk on poverty and a book signing. Additionally, he campaigned for John Spratt (SC) this summer, and Spratt got re-elected to his seat in the Congress. Anyway, getting ground troops organized ahead of time is nearly half the battle, an advantage he did not have last time.

Third, While the geeks do like Gore (and yes, he's on the advisory board of Google), they also like Edwards, especially Elizabeth, as she spoke at two different conferences this year: the Personal Democracy Forum (PDF) in NYC in May, and Converge South (CS) in Greensboro, NC in October. She was welcomed warmly by both groups. It was nice that at CS, Elizabeth was interviewed by two of the keynoters who had not met her before, and walked away very impressed. One of the reasons is that Elizabeth is a regular scout of blogs and did her homework in learning more about them as people, not just their expertise. My point about Elizabeth is that I think people do look at the candidates and their spouses as part of the package.

It would be challenging to refute that Elizabeth is an asset.

Related to my first point, one has to believe that one is capable of winning the general election as well as the primaries. One of the lessons we learned from the last 2 elections is that one has to win the popular vote, but also the electorate. Who makes up the electorate? The state Dems.

Edwards suggested to the press last weekend he hoped Obama will consider throwing his hat in the ring to run. I think the tent has plenty of room.

[Pithy Cherub]

57. No doubt about it

Elizabeth Edwards is a tremendous asset for that campaign. I like her a lot. Even when issuing a classy apology to Hillary for some intemperate published remarks (that were devoid of EE's context in her defense). Certainly, they should all run and see where the rubber meets the road. My repetitive point is when weighing the accouterments needed for a presidential primary all are not equal, nor are the candidates and their portfolios. The limited for time and intelligence mainstream press will focus on horse race aspects, easy process issues, soundbite-itis and the ephemeral WOW factor. Political grassroots/netroots will dig into the rationales and policy ideas as well as experience and literacy in important key national subjects. Political strategists will focus on who can acquire a sustainable base of fundraisers to last for the next year. Handicapping it all is what we all do. They should all enter, but...

Money is the mother's milk of politics. Oprah would not be a Hollywood donor. Most forget her title is CEO and Chicago is one of the premier financial centers of the US. Hillary, a former top 100 trial lawyer, is wowing the investor class on Wall Street, legal establishment and may have a $75 million war chest in no time. She's got this husband... He is a bigger mega asset in many areas than Elizabeth frankly. It's intended to crush opponents' spirits. Gore has access to a large small and big donor base. Clark has Soros and Buffet connections. Edwards has to put together a stronger financial pipeline to be viable up front and rely on wins to carry him through to inhale more cash. Edward's union connections have been good but gone unchallenged by other candidates. Obama could eat into that mightily depending on the union and the number of members who are of color. But it will be interesting to observe.

Edwards doesn't have a compelling biography nor significant achievements to me, and Obama is skating on thin thin experience ice, but this is all about letting a thousand flowers bloom. We shall see...

on edit: Of course Edwards the politician welcomes Obama publicly. ;)

[benny05]

58. here's where I think I disagree with you about HRC

Bill is an asset, but a liability too. Yes, he had 60% pop among Dems, but at the same time, some of my "independent" voter friends believe Gore may have been punished by swing voters a bit because of Clinton's misbehavior with Monica L. If you listen to C-SPAN, the recent "Independents" who were former Republicans still don't like him very much based on Clinton's personal misconduct and they blame him for other things (that Bill doesn't deserve).

Oh speaking of, we forget that Edwards was the one who spoke last for Bill in the Senate hearings, and likely, his ability to persuade others was enough to acquit Bill.

Here's the transcript:

Mr. EDWARDS. I add my praise, Mr. Chief Justice, for the work you have done, but I would add one other thing. The last time I saw you before this impeachment trial you were leading a sing-along at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference. I thought it might be a good idea for this group.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. A healing device.

(Laughter.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I have prepared remarks. But I am not going to use them. I made that decision about 20 minutes ago.

I have been sitting, listening to my fellow Senators speak, and I want to speak to you from the heart. I want to speak to you about a struggle, because I have been through a struggle. It is a real struggle. And I suspect that there are an awful lot of you who have been through the same struggle -- both before we voted on the motion to dismiss and, for me, since we voted on the motion to dismiss.

For me, the law is a sacred thing. And that is part of my life. I have seen what the law can do. It is a powerful, powerful thing. It can do extraordinary things for ordinary people. And I believe we have been given a sacred responsibility. I will tell you what that sacred responsibility means to me personally. It means that when I walked in here the first day of this impeachment trial I was 100 percent completely open to voting to remove this President.

And I have to tell you all something, my friends on this side of the aisle, that wasn't a hard thing for me to do. I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

So I said to myself, what is the right and fair thing to do? And this is what I have done. I have looked -- many times until 3 a.m. in the morning -- at the evidence in this case. Because I think that is the way we need to make this decision.

The perjury charge, I believe, is just not there. The evidence is not there to support it. I know many of you believe it is there. I respect your view on that. I don't believe it is there. The obstruction charge is a totally different matter. And this is the way I have thought about the obstruction charge.

I view, in my mind's eye, the scales of justice. And on one side, where the prosecution makes an allegation, I put their evidence. On the other side I put the defense evidence. And I do believe that for a charge this serious that the proper standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

So after that evidence is put on both sides of the scale of justice, what happens? I want to just very briefly go through what I think are the four main charges for obstruction.

First, the false affidavit. The prosecution side: There is, in my judgment, clearly a false affidavit. The President had a conversation with Monica Lewinsky about filing an affidavit where he said to her, `You can file an affidavit; that might be a way for you to avoid testifying.' That is on the prosecution side.

I want to make a really important point for me personally here. I think there is an enormous difference between what has been proven and what we suspect, because I have to tell you all, I suspect a lot that has not been proven.

What is on the defense side? On the defense side: what has been proven in this case is that President Clinton never saw the affidavit, never had a discussion with anyone about the contents of that affidavit. He didn't know what was in it. He never told, according to her, Monica Lewinsky or anyone what should be in the affidavit.

So that is the evidence on the scales of justice: One for the prosecution; that evidence for the defense. For me it is a very clear thing. The scales tilt in favor of the defense, and they certainly don't tilt strongly enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

The second charge -- and the one that bothers me the most -- coaching Betty Currie. The evidence on the side of the prosecution: President Clinton has a conversation with Betty Currie just after he has been questioned in his deposition where he makes very declarative statements to her -- it happens twice -- very declarative statements to her about what he remembers, many of which we now know to be false. And his explanation for that conversation lacks credibility, to say the least, that he was trying to refresh his memory. I doubt if anybody buys that. That is on one side, that is on the prosecution side.

What is on the other side? On the other side we have Betty Currie saying it had no influence on her. But that is not the most troublesome thing for me. The troublesome thing is this: For that conversation to be obstruction of justice, it must have been proven that it was President Clinton's intent to affect her sworn testimony.

Now, what are the other possibilities? We have a man who has just been confronted with this problem, who is political by nature. And do we really believe that the first thing he thought about is, `I'm going to go protect myself legally'? I suspect the first thing he thought about is `I'm going to protect myself politically.' He was worried about his family finding out. He was worried about the rest of the staff finding out. He was worried about the press finding out. Do I know which of these things are true? Absolutely not. I don't know which of them are true. Doesn't that answer the question? If we don't know which of those things are true, have they been proven? If we don't know what was in his head at that moment, how can we find that the prosecution has proven intent beyond a reasonable doubt?

The third charge, the job search. On the prosecution side of the scales of justice, we have an intensified effort to find a job for Monica Lewinsky. I think that has been proven. I think that has been proven clearly. On the other side, we have testimony from Monica Lewinsky that she was never promised a job for her silence. We have evidence that the job search, although not as intense, was going on before anyone knew she would be a witness. We have Vernon Jordan testifying under oath -- I sat there and watched it and looked him in the eye -- that there was never a quid pro quo, that the affidavit was over here and the job search was over here.
The reality is, when you put all that evidence on the scale -- prosecution evidence on one side, defense evidence on the other -- at worst the scale stays even. And the prosecution has got to prove this case in order to remove the President of the United States beyond a reasonable doubt. They just have not proven it no matter what we suspect. No matter what we suspect. So that is the false affidavit which we have talked about, coaching Betty Currie, the job search.

Now to the gifts. Let's see what the proof is. What is the proof -- not the suspicion. On the prosecution side, we know that the President's secretary went to Monica Lewinsky's house, got the gifts, took them home and hid them under her bed. I have to tell you, on its face, that is awful suspicious, and it is strong, heavy evidence. The problem is, there is evidence on the other side. That evidence doesn't stand alone.

First, we have the testimony of Betty Currie that Monica Lewinsky called her. Second, we have the fact that President Clinton gave her other gifts on that Sunday, which makes no sense to me. I heard the House managers try to explain it away. I have been a lawyer for 20 years, and I have been in that place of trying to explain away something that makes no sense. It doesn't make sense. Monica Lewinsky, herself, testified that she brought up the issue of gifts -- not President Clinton -- and that the most President Clinton ever said was something to the effect of `I'm not sure. Let me think about that.'

Now when that evidence goes on the defense side and the only evidence on the prosecution side is the fact that those gifts are sitting under the bed of Betty Currie, what happens to the scale? At best, the scale stays even. In my judgment, it actually tilts for the defense. There is no way it rises to the level of `beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Every trial I have ever been in has had one moment, one quintessential moment when the entirety of the trial was described, and in this case we have such a moment. There was a question that had my name on it. The reality is, Senator Kohl wrote it -- I tagged on -- but it was a great question. The question was, Is this a matter about which reasonable people can differ? I will never forget Manager Lindsey Graham coming to this microphone and his answer was `Absolutely.' Now if the prosecution concedes that reasonable people can differ about this, how can we not have reasonable doubt?

These things all lead me to the conclusion that however reprehensible the President's conduct is, I have to vote to acquit on both articles of impeachment.

I have one last thing I want to say to you all, and it is actually most important. If you don't remember anything else I said, and you weren't listening to anything else I have said, please listen to what I am about to say because it is so important to me.

I have learned so much during the 30 days that I have been here. I have had a mentor in Senator Byrd, who has probably been a mentor to many others before me. I have formed friendships with people on both sides. Senators Leahy and Dodd, who I worked with on these depositions -- wonderful, wonderful Senators. I have learned what leadership is about from these two men sitting right here -- Senators Lott and Daschle. I have loved working with Senators DeWine and Thompson. And Senator Specter and I worked together on a deposition. He showed me great deference and respect. I have no idea why, but he did; and I appreciate it. I have deep respect and admiration for my senior Senator from North Carolina, who has been extraordinarily kind and gracious to me since I arrived here.

Let me tell you what I will be thinking about when my name is called and I cast my vote, hopefully tomorrow. I will be thinking about juries all over this country who are sitting in deliberation in rooms that are not nearly as grand as this but who are struggling, just as you all have and I have, to do the right thing. I have to say, I have a boundless faith in the American people sitting on those juries. They want to do what is right. They want to do what is right in the worst kind of way.

An extraordinary thing has happened to me in the last 30 days. I have watched you struggle, every one of you. I have watched you come to this podium. I have listened to what you have had to say. I talked to you informally; I watched you suffer. I believe in my heart that every single one of you wants to do the right thing. The result of that for me is a gift. And that gift is that I now have a boundless faith in you.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Now, it's possible HRC would have had a career if her husband had been impeached by the Senate as well, but I'm guessing...not. Edwards was help to the Clintons, but did so based on the evidence. He's plenty smart at looking at those kinds of details that others didn't see.

[Pithy Cherub]

62. uh, seriously, no. Make that a big no.

Democrats collective and politically already knew how the vote was going to come out before Edwards ever opened his mouth for the cameras. Bill is the biggest asset going. He can fundraise while Hillary campaigns. A mega fundraiser to the Edwards' ten or twenty with both of them in attendance.

Edwards can be described as charming, but certainly not compelling in all areas. Compare that with Clinton's rock star status, speaking with heft, dexterity, experience and subject command on virtually any aspect of public policy. Edwards is totally out of his league in that arena. The world is looking for stature from the next president because the current imbecile is so awful. To transition to a candidate that has to be spoon fed national security and foreign policy is an intangible of great import voters will consider. HRC wins hands down there as well as Clark and Gore. It will matter to the political activists when primaries roll around. Edwards will also suffer from being roughed up by the other senator/candidates heavyweights on the campaign trail. That will be part of the equation as well.

You have anecdotal evidence, not empirical on Edwards independent voters and Bill Clinton. Who is an African American voter likely to believe and Edwards isn't in the top five? Bill, Hillary, Obama, Clark and Gore. If Obama runs in South Carolina, the primary voter is predominantly black and that will be a telling moment in the campaign if Edwards does not win on his home turf. Here is an anecdote for you - I am Black. Edwards is not a commanding presence - see debate with Cheney, that was not a quality effort and showed his miniature gravitas. Cheney didn't even break a sweat. What Edwards can legitimately claim is to be infinitely better than Holy Joe Lieberman circa 2000 in his debate.

The attempt to marginalize Bill/Hillary is rather feeble. Bill is a global authority on poverty and the international efforts to eradicate it. Clinton's Global Initiative had a prominent former elected executive present as well to talk about the issues as it related to his stellar work on global warming, hint the name was not Edwards. Al Gore. Laura Bush also showed up.

You like Edwards. I think there are a number of better candidates available. Please understand that when one makes a compelling argument any lawyer will tell you it has to be memorable. What Edwards said at the impeachment, VP debate and 2004 convention were not instant classics of rhetorical wonder. Contrast that to the inexperienced guy who rocked the house and his words are still being emailed and posted two years later because it was infinitely memorable...Barack Obama.

[benny05]

71. I've rather liked our exchange here

You write very well.

I will spar with you another day, but I will leave you with three thoughts.

1) Gore will have to work on connecting with the average person who is not college educated and translate that in sound bites on MSM lenses.

2) Regarding polls, look at http://www.surveyusa.com and see which candidate comes to closest to beating McCain (the one for Rudi is ridiculous as he would not carry Mass).

3) Obama's speech was impressive, but his vote to confirm Condi Rice did not sit well with many of his moderate and liberal constituents in downstate Illinois. At least Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer had the conviction to say no to her confirmation, and they were right. Edwards said he would not have voted for her, but is beside the point since he was no longer in the Senate when the confirmation hearings took place. Rice and her boss have made a total mess out of Iraq.

[Pithy Cherub]

72. Enjoyed it too!

Appreciate your passion!

[venable]

75. nm

not worth it at a certain point

[venable]

37. your estimation of Edwards

seems very strategic, and you make some good points, but it is based on an assumption that Edwards brings very little in all the ways that you say, and I just disagree about that. Edwards is clearly better than Obama on nat. security, based on experience alone, and vastly better than Hillary.

(Obama's resistance to the war is a very different kettle of fish than JE's vote, which was predicated on informatiion - albeit wrong - to which a state senator from Illinois had no access. Please don't underestimate this. Edwards is not a hawk. Blaming these deaths on the dems who believed Tenet is morally wrong, IMO. Blame Bush. Blame Tenet for lying.

Edwards was among the very first to attempt to draw the line, by advocating and voting for a withdrawal of funding for the war - ie the first supplemental 86billion. Take off the anti Edwards blinders for a moment, and you'll see something not quite so ghastly as you now do.

You dismiss Edwards poverty work out of hand.

Anyway, I think you are thinking strategically, and that is fine, but don't be so dismissive of Edwards, and your arguments will be deeper and more helpful.

Peace.

[Pithy Cherub]

39. Strategy is my day job.

Objective analysis is part of the equation. Your vigorous support of Edwards is more emotional rather than rational because of your strong belief in his merits. That's good. On the whole his merits are forever tarnished by being on the same wave length as the bush administration. Gore had more access to intelligence than edwards ever had, and he made a different decision than those who wanted to be president. it was a vote of moral cowardice because of future presidential ambitions. That can never be admitted to publicly, but it played a critical role in their strategic positioning and will haunt them until their end of days on this Earth. Bush stole an election and they trusted a known liar with America's sons and daughters blood, treasure and Honor. As a majority in the senate they had an option of delay to get more facts but chose to rush to judgment so they could prove they were just as hawkish as the president. Enter previous actions by edwards in writing that horrid piece of legislation known as the Patriot Act. So, more than your hopes for edwards, his actions bely them by the fact he was trying to shore up national security credibility while not being authentic in his leadership role. Many a CEO has come to ruin for the same type of bet the farm magical thinking.

Obama is not tainted by the vote so he has an ability to enhance his credibility. Edwards is now in the position of having to defend his and more so as he hits the campaign trail. Politically, he needs people to believe he is credible but he has a history hanging around his neck like the proverbial albatross. Obama can appropriate any of Edwards issues and run with it and emphasize on the biggest issue of the day he wasn't a participant and spoke out against the crime.

My political dismissal of Edwards is based on objectivity as my indifference to him doesn't allow for the possibility of "liking" him as candidate based on his political behavior. He's lightweight in critical areas and has a surface charm that may supersede credentials. Edwards has a huge issue if Obama enters the race and they both have serious issues to overcome on national security.

Everybody gets one vote and yours is dedicated to Edwards at this time as it should be. Alas, mine is definitely not.

Peace

[venable]

44. Gore did not have more access to intelligence than Edwards

in the run up to the IWR vote.

In fact, Gore had none. None at all.

Of course, that is good for Gore, because the intel was being cooked.

So - Gore had no access to what was being passed to the Intel Committee.

Edwards had access to up-to-date intel that Gore did not, but, sadly, tragically, and fatally, it was cooked.

Also, I think it is dismissive, and in this case very wrong, to attribute someone's support of a candidate to 'emotions'. You say my support of Edwards is mainly to do with an emotional response to him. This is as wrong as if I were to say your resistance to him is merely emotional.

fact is, I find him, objectively, the most eloquent and promising of progressive candidates. Obama is someone I respond to emotionally, but not substantively and objectively.

[Pithy Cherub]

48. A former powerful VP

with substantial access to politicians certainly had more access through back channels since the Democrats were in the majority. Gore made a better, more experienced policy judgment as he has served in the military during a war and obviously Edwards had not. Gore trumps Edwards in every metric. Edwards chose to believe the cooked intel without taking into consideration General Clark's testimony, Robert Byrd's admonitions, the policy establishments dire warnings on the perils of a pre-emptive doctrine and the expected widespread insurgency. 22 smarter Democratic pols did not make the mistake and they had access to the same information. Since he has apologized he acknowledges the egregious error and horrifying loss of Life. That is the significant mainstay of his national security record/"experience" that he has to forevermore defend and be held accountable for. Edwards championed the Patriot Act, another lunacy moment in which many new courageous senators are not fond of either. Those are the facts. You find him impressive despite those facts. I regard those major facts as fatal flaws in his decision making and executive leadership capabilities. Anything after that is purely emotion.

[venable]

64. Friend, you are wrong about access to info

A sitting member of the Intelligence Committee has private briefings (with Tenet) available to only a few, including those few in the Executive, and these briefings are classified. The fact is these briefings were filled with cooked intel. Gore can't call up his pals, and ask for the skinny. There's a bit more to this than meets the eye.

The vote was wrong. Edwards won't whine about his bad info, but I will. Edwards will say simply: "I was wrong". If you don't see the courage of that gesture (when he could easily, as have some, including HRC, blamed it on the cooked intel), then you and I have a different reading of political courage.

Listen, there were many voices (the most important being Scott Ritter's, not Clarks or Byrds) that did give pause, serious pause. Finally, confronted with point blank affirmations of WMD and intent to use them, JE made his vote. He was wrong. He knows that and admits it, without excuse.

I believed Scott Ritter, and prayed for the IWR vote to fail, but I also didn't have Tenet's unqualified assertions in my ear. Would I, would you have wavered in the face of that? It would be less than honest for either of us to say that we would just show the Director of the CIA the door.

Some 22 didn't, and for that they have the eternal blessings of the American and Iraqi people. But look a little deeper into the dynamics and the information channels at play.

Also, Edwards biggest mistake is not what you say it is, ie believing the classified briefings. The biggest mistake was trusting W to follow the letter of the IWR. It was not a vote to go to war. It was a vote for a process, which W should not have been trusted to honor. He didn't, and history will curse him. Edwards mistake was trusting the Executive Branch to follow the process outlined in the Congressional authority of the IWR.

[Pithy Cherub]

66. Understanding how DC really works

is not for the average citizen, let alone that another subset comprehends the intelligence community inner workings. Back channels are more prevalent and used for a former VP than a mere inexperienced senator with barely two years on the job. An absence of political and moral courage by Edwards is what made him vote for the IWR. Edwards failure in critical thinking is best displayed by where he went to gather data and intelligence information. He siloed it into a narrow band of DLC shills and pundits, Clinton people and Bill directly. Gore had the ability to get MORE information by having years of inside DC contacts and other sources. The inflation of Edwards to match the resources of a Vice President is amusing and highly misguided knowing DC's sub-culture.

Edwards had ambitions to make his political future viable. It was only wrong after losing an election. Courage is what the 22 smarter Democratic senators did in voting no. Edwards got his Clinton approval stamp and held tightly unto it until it crumbled in his hands. He has class to admit the obvious years later not courage.

Leadership is for those who practice it situationally and on the spot, not Monday morning quarterbacking shoulda, woulda, coulda. That's his problem, he is consistently not politically courageous but he is ambitious. It was inauthentic to claim to trust someone like W with sons and daughters lives without getting an independent knowledge stream, similar to the one Al Gore already has by virtue of the long term relationships he had in DC his whole life. The desperate desire to have Edwards be an authority on getting intel, does not mitigate the fact that he had few relationships in DC at a significant level to truly verify anyone else's information. Edwards had only been in DC a short time and he utterly failed the critical thinking by not having key multi-source relationships to garner opposing views. All in all a junior level performance by Edwards that resulted in the Iraq disaster. Edwards made so many errors that it is hard to pull the strands and not find one. Obama stood up and he wasn't elected yet. Gore stood up after being the experienced VP with multiple levels and layers of contacts. Gore had read PDB's, Edwards never saw one until much later. Gore had met those who had done wet work and black ops and intelligence czars (Hayden, Odom, Bamford, Johnson,) et al, Edwards didn't. So to conflate Edwards access to intel with Gore's is prepostorous.

Edwards is a nice enough candidate that wants the top spot. He failed miserably on the most important issue facing the nation already. He admitted it years later after cheerleading. Edwards now wants the top spot again and he's carrying serious heavy baggage (Patriot Act is in the vanity case) with no message beyond economic populism which can easily be co-opted by Obama or Gore or Clinton or Clark with little effort. Edwards national security creds are in tatters along side Clinton's, who knows how the rehabilitation will occur with Iraq's descent into Civil War. Edwards helped break it by enabling Bush, he owns it. That was a classy statement of fact that he was wrong, not courage.

[venable]

76. say what you want

and dismiss what I say, but Gore did not have 'backchannel' access to classified intelligence.

Period.

[JNelson6563]

21. Gore/someone who didn't support the war

:toast:

[Clark2008]

32. Yes to Gore. No to Edwards.

[venable]

38. beautifully argued

and quelle surprise

[shance]

34. Gore and almost anyone. I'd prefer Gore / Dean

but looks like that won't be happening, at least this time around.

;)

[high density]

45. I'd rather not have Gore. Definite no on Edwards

I would vote for Gore if he were on the Nov. 2008 ballot, but I wouldn't be cheering for him in the primary race.

Gore and Kerry have a lot of the same defects it seems when it comes to playing our wonderful corporate media. Plus I still can't easily get over Gore's whoring for NAFTA.

[Mass]

51. Gore yes - Edwards no.

While Gore is not my favorite, he is certainly somebody I could support and campaign for with enthusiasm. But I hope he would have the good sense of choosing somebody else than Edwards.

While Gore/Kerry would be my choice, Gore/Obama, Gore/Clark, Gore/somebody from the West, would be fine as well.

[Clarkie1]

55. What is the question in this poll? nt

[benny05]

56. There is more of a question than a poll here

Q is Gore/Edwards.

Poll is yes and no I guess to the question.

I voted no.

[bobbie]

59. I don't want anyone who voted for the Iraq invasion--unforgivable

President Gore needs a different running mate.

[benny05]

61. Well, you have your view

May I ask, do you have relatives who are in Iraq or served some duty there? Thanks in advance.

[bobbie]

67. Yes, clearly the point of the post is to ask people's views

And no I don't have relatives in Iraq, and spare me the attempts to discredit my opinion because my relatives aren't willing to be bomb fodder for rich war profiteers.

Your welcome.

[benny05]

68. Thanks

Just curious.

[Superman Returns]

65. ummmm

has a candidate ever run as a VP candidate twice?

[mentalsolstice]

69. Gore/anyone but LIEberman n/t

[guidod]

70. Edwards/Obama

[OregonBlue]

73. I prefer Edwards/Obama but would settle for Gore/Edwards. I think

Gore had his chance, didn't fight hard enough when they were rigging the election. I love Gore, think he's smart, savvy, etc. but not sure he should run again.

[zulchzulu]

77. Both didn't get their home states in their election cycle...

Frankly, I'm getting tired of having to have a Southerner on the ticket.

As for Gore, I'm still a Bradley man...since neither are going to run in 2008, what the hay...

[AtomicKitten]

79. Gore/anybody sounds good to me.