Why Al Gore Will Vanquish Hillary Clinton in 2008

The one word answer is Iraq. As much as Hillary will try to spin the issue, the simple fact of the matter is that she like John Kerry voted to give George W. Bush authorization to invade Iraq in October of 2002, a decision which has proven to be the equivalent of tossing a stammering drunk man the keys to drive the country over a cliff. Here is a text of the floor speech she gave in the Senate on October 10, 2002, the day the vote was taken.
In the 2008 Democratic primaries, Mrs. Clinton more than likely will be facing Al Gore, a candidate with equal name recognition and financing, broader international experience, and proven national appeal. Her Iraq vote in 2002 will prove to be the key differentiator between the two, serving as the decisive nail in the coffin of her presidential ambitions.
Al Gore wasn't in the Senate in October 2002, having 'lost' the previous presidential election less than two years earlier by 537 votes in Florida, although he got 543,895 more votes than Bush in the popular vote. This no doubt saved him from making a tough decision regarding the Iraq authorization vote, but the evidence shows that even if he were in the Senate , he would have joined the 23 other Senators who voted no. Here is the transcript of a speech Gore gave in San Francisco on September 23, 2002, some 17 days before Mrs. Clinton gave her talk on the Senate floor:

"The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized... I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted....Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment - right now - is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat."

Sounds eerily prescient, doesn't it? Al Gore was spot on regarding this critically important issue and Hillary Clinton was catastrophically wrong. It is doubtful that either will have a more important decision to make for the remainder of their lives. Over four years later America is still paying an incredibly high price for this foreign policy blunder, an error that Gore said in an interview last month was the “worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.” Hillary on the other hand has steadfastly refused to apologize for her vote, instead trying to muddy the issue by doing things like grilling Don Rumsfeld at Senate hearings, trying to make it seem like she didn't vote to give Bush authorization. Nice try Hillary but it won't work; when it comes to the issue of Iraq, Democratic primary voters have proven to have long memories and to not be very unforgiving. Witness Joe Lieberman's experience with them in Connecticut last summer.
It has been said that the only cure to the desire to be president for a person who has run unsuccessfully before is an autopsy. However if one were to believe what Al Gore has been saying over the past six years, it would seem that he is about as likely to run for president in 2008 as George W. Bush is to be the next presidential bust placed on Mount Rushmore. He has said about a billion times that he is a 'recovering politician', and that he 'has no interest' in running again. Keep in mind Mr. Gore not only has run before, but has run and won by over a half million votes. It is unfathomable that he doesn't harbor a serious desire to run again. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. just to name a recent few are all men who failed in their first try at the White House only to run again and win at a later date. Indeed Gore's coyness on the subject only feeds into the buzz and mania that will occur when he finally does toss his hat into the ring. He has sat on the board of directors of Apple Computer for almost four years now, along with Apple CEO Steve Jobs, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Do you think those two know a thing or two about marketing or brand management?
Time is on Al Gore's side. All of the recent bluster over Barack Obama, and Hillary's status for the past two years as the anointed nominee actually mean very little. One need only look back to Howard Dean and the last Democratic nominating process to witness a candidate who was hot early on and a shoe-in to win, only to flame out when it actually came time for the actual voters to vote. Expect a formal announcement of Gore's running to come in or around May of 2007, roughly coinciding with the release of his next book "The Assault on Reason".
The seminal moment in the campaign will occur in a debate among the Democratic contenders in the winter of 2008. The surviving field by then will most likely consist of Hillary, Gore and perhaps John Edwards. With Iraq engulfed in worsening bloodshed and flames, the dialogue will go something like this, with Al Gore turning to face Hillary and saying, "With all due respect Senator Clinton, you voted to give President Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Faced with a critical decision vital to our nation's security, you chose wrong."
In addition to being the only serious candidate who has been consistently right on Iraq, Gore has been riding a seemingly endless wave of good press after the release of his hugely successful global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". He's even made strides to lighten up his stiff demeanor, with well received performances recently on Saturday Night Live and Jay Leno. His candidacy in 2008 will no doubt be cathartic for Democratic primary voters who will leap at the chance to right the wrong (Bush v. Gore) that happened in 2000. And last but not least, Americans love a good comeback story.

DIGG THIS

John Edwards: Leader or Lightweight?

John Edwards has a problem that most middle aged men would die for, he is 53 years old but he looks like he is about 30. Indeed, if the 2008 election were to be sort of a beauty contest based solely on looks, it would be hard to bet against him going up against the likes of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. As expected Mr. Edwards announced his 2008 presidential candidacy yesterday from New Orleans; although in a twist and displaying some tech-savviness he actually did so a day earlier in a Youtube video.

Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards presidential elections aren't decided completely on appearance, and the same questions that ultimately sunk his campaign in 2004 remain today: Can a former personal injury trial lawyer with a net worth estimated at $30 million, who hasn't had a 'real' job in 8 years, really be taken seriously as a "man of the people"? Does this clearly ambitious man, who Republicans derided in 2004 as the "Breck Girl" candidate and who served only a single term in the Senate, have the necessary experience to be president?

John Edwards has been basically running nonstop for president since about 2002 and recently he has all but moved Iowa, home of the first Democratic caucus. This doggedness appears to have yielded some results, as a recent Des Moines Register poll has him in the lead against his prospective Democratic opponents, although at this early hour that probably doesn't mean much--anyone remember Howard Dean?

On November 13, 2005 John Edwards took what was in effect a preemptive strike at Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and other potential 2008 opponents by penning this editorial in the Washington Post. In it he basically apologizes for voting to give President Bush authorization to invade Iraq when the issue was posed to Congress in 2002. This vote basically crushed John Kerry's candidacy in 2004, as Kerry was never quite able to explain how he 'was for the war before he was against it', and now as the war spirals further and further into complete quagmire status, it looks like it is bound to wreak havoc again on Democrats who voted to give Bush authorization --a decision that in hindsight was like giving a stammering drunk the keys to drive. Will voters reward Edwards and his mea culpa? Hillary Clinton, what say you?

It is clear, then, that foreign policy will not be an immediate strength of the John Edwards 2008 candidacy. He is hoping that economic populism will be. Edwards has taken Al Gore's 2000 mantra of "the people versus the powerful" to a new level, and his strategy is clearly to attack the nomination from the Democratic party's left flank. Since 2004 Mr. Edwards has among other things has taken on Wal Mart for mistreating its employees and as he mentioned about a billion times in his last campaign, Mr. Edwards is a self made man, the son of a mill worker and the first one in his family to go to college.

The main thrust of his 2004 campaign was his 'two Americas' message, that while corporations and the rich got wealthier and wealthier, millions of Americans lived below the poverty level and the number of hungry and poor in the country grew larger and larger. He chose New Orleans to kick off his campaign this time around because it is symbolic to many on the left of the Bush administration's failures and serves as a stark reminder of the 'other America' that he rarely fails to mention.

His underdog campaign in 2004 in which he finished second behind Kerry was successful by almost every measure except that he didn't win. He is an immensely talented politician who, as Bill Clinton once said, "could talk an owl out of a tree." He is wealthy and has a compelling personal story and has apologized for his Iraq authorization vote. Will all this be enough for 2008? Probably not. What exactly has changed since 2004 except that he is two years older? He says he made a mistake regarding Iraq, but when in life are we rewarded do-overs on such crucially important decisions? Although $30 million is a lot of money, it is peanuts to what will be required to run a legitimate campaign--will he be able to convince Democratic fat cat donors that he is a viable candidate? Why should they write checks to him and not the other candidates?

When it's all said and done I do think John Edwards will be a credible candidate in 2008, perhaps even getting closer to the grand prize than Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod of divisiveness, also voted for the Iraq war but hasn't apologized for it, and who seems to manage to alienate her party's left wing at every turn these days. Indeed Edwards would make a great VP for the person on the Democratic side whose election it is to lose if he decides to run, the same person whose hands are clean regarding Iraq, and who actually won the general election the last time he ran. Indeed, an Al Gore/John Edwards ticket in 2008 might just be a winner.

Digg This

David Letterman - An important message from the President

Bill Clinton Kills Santa

Great Moments In Presidential Speeches

US Military in Iraq Winning Hearts and Minds Part Three: "F*CK IRAQ"

This is part three of my video series on the US Military in Iraq "Winning Hearts and Minds" Click here for part one, and here for part 2.

Thanks to Silly Humans blog for this...

Al Gore - Comback Kid?

Barack Obama on Monday Night Football

Our Fearless Leader on Iraq (Letterman Video)

US Military in Iraq Winning Hearts and Minds Part Two: "Chasing the Water Bottle"

thanks to austin vegas for this

. This is part two of my video series on the US Military in Iraq "Winning Hearts and Minds" Click here for part one.

Dick Cheney on Letterman

Ann Coulter gets owned

Is Iraq a Civil War? Decide for Yourselves

There has been much in the news lately over the media using the term 'civil war' to describe Iraq's current state of affairs; as reported on in the above Christian Science Monitor article. It should be noted that today's Iraq Study Group report avoided using the term.

Tony Blair: Political Chameleon

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a political chameleon of a type the world has rarely seen before, making a guy like Bill Clinton seem like Honest Abe in comparison. After months or even years of suggesting things in Iraq were going in the right direction, we find out today that Mr. Blair now agrees with the Iraq Study Group's report that the war "is not being won." Gee Tony, what brought you to that flash of brilliance conclusion? What leadership! Along with Bush, another leader destined to be relegated into the dustbin of history because of the Iraq debacle, a soon retiring Blair will conveniently leave this simmering train wreck of his own creation to his successor Gordon Brown. Good riddance.

Conan O'Brien Spoof Forces NBC to Buy horneymanatee.com Domain Name

President Bloomberg: It's Not As Far Fetched as you Think

Michael Bloomberg has a solid chance to be elected President in 2008 if he decides to run as an Independent mainly because of three things:

1. His net worth, which ranges from anywhere between $3 billion to $20 billion dollars--Bloomberg, one of America's richest men, could literally carpet bomb the nation's airwaves with advertising. The above article suggests he would be prepared to spend an astonishing $500 million dollars of his personal wealth on a campaign. That is an incredible, never seen before amount and would enable even a martian to become a credible presidential candidate. To give you an idea, it is about five times the amount that George W. Bush and John Kerry spent combined in the 2004 election.

2. He has proven to be an incredibly capable mayor of the nation's largest city--Over the past 5 years, crime has been way down on Bloomberg's watch and New York is the nation's safest big city. He has additionally balanced the city budget, and unemployment has never been lower. His approval rating, as the article indicates, hovers around an incredible 70%

3. Americans are becoming increasingly disgusted with the two major parties--There's no question about there being room for an Independent candidate to make headway in the upcoming election, as poll after poll shows that Americans crave more than two choices. Witness the success of Bloomberg friend Joe Lieberman in Connecticut this past election cycle along with other buddy California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Even a loon like Ross Perot wound up with nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992, and Michael Bloomberg is no Ross Perot.

Michael Bloomberg is a serious, calculating, extremely successful winner. He has stated that the only thing holding him from running is his doubt that America will elect a 5'7 inch divorced Jew as President. If he does make the determination that he can overcome that, and decides to run, it's hard not to put your money on him. The guy has come out on top with nearly everything he has put his mind to. And he's got $500 million to spend.

Supreme Court to Hear "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case

Personally, I like the kid's style, and I am wondering just how on earth the school would have jurisdiction over this: it wasn't anywhere near school grounds and it didn't happen at any school function. Suffice to say it's likely that the right wing members of the court, who each probably have 3-5 scotches a night before bedtime, will not be too sympathetic to the student's argument.

Failure: Afghanistan Opium Crop Sets Record

This seems hard to fathom in NATO occupied Afghanistan, but it's true. The country provides an astonishing 90% of the world's heroin, and business is absolutely booming. Afghanistan is often seen as the 'other' war next to Iraq, but with this news it too seems to be going terribly.

Professional English Darts Player Suspended for Smoking Weed

Thank God he was caught, a country really, really wants its' professional dart players to be on the straight and narrow. What a horrible example this lout was to all the aspiring professional dart playing kids out there!!

Thanks to Borat, Real Kazakh Reporters Have Tough Time in America

I'm curious to know why Borat gets a total pass blatantly insulting and disparaging a culture, whereas with others it would be considered racist hate speech. Is there some sort of formula out there?

Scalia:"That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming..."

One might be tempted to think that a Supreme Court Justice would prepare and educate himself enough about a case enough to render a qualified opinion. Scalia is a right wing activist judge who claims to revere states rights over all else, and to be a constitutional 'purist', except when these views conflict with his political views in which case he has proven to be perfectly willing to usurp states rights (see Bush vs. Gore) . In terms of hypocrisy, he reminds me of other heroes of the right wing like Rush Limbaugh and William Bennet.