Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: Consulting the Gore-acle

In yesterday's paper, we reported that a number of the Democratic candidates have met with former Vice President Al Gore (henceforth referred to as the "Gore-acle" in this space) in hopes of winning his endorsement -- or at least wringing a positive comment or two from the former veep.

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) met with Gore in Nashville in December. Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) spoke with Gore last week after the former vice president praised Dodd's carbon tax proposal. Gore and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) have also huddled.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Gore -- not surprisingly -- have not met; the two are not particularly close especially after the 2000 election when Gore largely ran away from the Clinton legacy, a tactic that ultimately failed. Neither Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) nor Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) have met with Gore.

While it seems unlikely that Gore will make the run for president that so many within the base of the party want from him, he did say last week that he expects to make an endorsement before the identity of the nominee is known.

Today's Wag the Blog question is a two-parter. First, who do you think Gore is going to endorse and why? Second, how much does a Gore endorsement matter in the Democratic primary? In 2004, Gore's endorsement was supposedly the final piece of the puzzle for former Gov. Howard Dean (Vt.). But, less than a month after Gore threw his weight (ahem) behind Dean the former governor flamed out. Why will 2008 be different?

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 10, 2007; 11:06 AM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sen. Hagel Won't Seek Reelection in 2008
Next: Nebraska Senate Race Shapes Up


Who cares whom Gore endorses? This is the clown that ran a worst campaign than Kerry and almost gave us Leiber-schwartz as a Vice President. Talk about knowing how to pick 'em. Go home, Al. We don't care what you think of Hillary.

Posted by: LuigiDaMan | September 14, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Gore should endorse Obama and here is why.

League of Conservation Voters releases environmental ratings of 2008 Presidential candidates - Obama is at the top of the list!

There is more info. on Obama's environmental record here:

Posted by: Jessica | September 14, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Timing matters so much to endorsements, and even then it probably matters more to our perception of an endorsement's power than it does to the actual power of an endorsement. An "I like this guy" statement can help one day, yet have no effect a few days later.

If Gore's endorsement is to have any meaning, it will need to come early enough in the primary season to influence the opinions of undecided voters in the early primary and caucus states. In other words - pretty soon. With so many states setting earlier and earlier dates - I think Iowa is going to retroactively schedule theirs for last week - voters are choosing candidates very early in this cycle. A Gore endorsement of Richardson next week, for example, might influence enough undecided voters to move him into a tie with Edwards for third in New Hampshire. A Gore endorsement of Edwards next week might influence enough undecided voters to move him into a tie with Obama for second in New Hampshire. But that's only if the endorsement happens very soon. Shortly, the undecided voters will have formed their own opinions and won't bother with Gore's.

Posted by: johnfrankweaver | September 13, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

They are Con Artist Sally Westgate from Monica Friedlander , Linda from Draft Al Gore, Susan Madrak, Neo Libman - NeuvoLiberal, Nicholas Smith , MB Williams from , Jim .
Racist Draft Gore Con Artists Looking for Black Slaves , Jews, Hispanics , Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Iranians, Indians , Pakistani's and other Foreigners for Votes and Donation Conservative Racist Draft Al Gore Con Artists Looking for Black Slaves, Hispanics to work in their Farm, Clean their houses, and asking for their Votes and Urge every Americans to stay away from the Racist Draft Gore Urge every minorities to stay away from the Racist Draft Gore people.

I would urge every Blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, Iranians, Arabs, Latinos and other foreigners (French, Germans, Italians, Russians) to stay away from these Conservative Racist Draft Gore people if you have some self respect and dignity. They hate the minorities and they discriminate against you. Therefore use your own Judgment.

They have made many racial comments about you , they abused you, they insulted you , they called you by names , they criticized you on their forums (,, ) and they don't like you because they are Evil and you are God's children . Now they want your Votes, Money and Support. Have some self respect for your self. Stay away from these con Artists and Criminals. That's why I call them Racist Draft Gore Con Artists.

They stole money from Katrina Victims. Now they steal money from the American people daily, by lying, cheating and conning the innocent vulnerable Americans. As far as I am concerned they are worthless trash.I Predicts that Conservative Racist Draft Gore people will never accomplish anything in this world or in America as they wanted.

Posted by: draftgore | September 12, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Racist Draft Al Gore People discriminate, insult, and abuse Minorities (Blacks , Hispanics, Latinos, Asians, Arabs , Jews and other foreigners) on tRacist Draft Al Gore People discriminate, insult, and abuse Minorities (Blacks , Hispanics, Latinos, Asians, Arabs , Jews and other foreigners) on their forums (,, ) .
Draft Al Gore Videos

They stole money from Katrina Victims. These people are Evil doers and they are worser than the criminals.Racist and Con Artist Sally Westgate (from Monica Friedlander , Linda from Draft Al Gore, Susan Madrak, Neo Libman - NeuvoLiberal, Nicholas Smith , MB Williams from , Jim are racists, thieves and con artistsRacist and Con Artist Sally Westgate (from Monica Friedlander , Linda from Draft Al Gore, Susan Madrak, Neo Libman - NeuvoLiberal, Nicholas Smith , MB Williams from , Jim are racists, thieves and con artists

There are Millions of Democrats and the republicans who are honest, Genuine and who are not racist . However this small group of Draft Al Gore Con Artists are Racists, Liars, Thieves, and Manipulators who are trying to deceive the American people and ruin the entire country. You need only few Evil doers to ruin the entire world or the country. These are the same Cold hearted , heartless Evil doers who stole money from the innocent Katrina Victims.They are evil doers trying to ruin the entire America and ruin Al Gore's name and his reputation by lying , cheating and Conning the American people daily.

Posted by: draftgore | September 12, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

pathetic: only $4800 for Gore on ActBlue?by azizhpTue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:02:17 AM PDTUpdate [2007-7-10 10:3:26 by azizhp]: people seem confused about ActBlue's Draft page. The money goes to Gore if he declares, or the eventual Dem nominee if he does not. So its risk free.Update [2007-7-10 10:7:30 by azizhp]: Fred Thompson, another undeclared candidate for President, is raising boatloads of cash.

According to this Posting on DailyKos these Racist Draft Gore con Artist were able to raise only $4800 through actblue, Lets say if those 100, 000 people donated $1, each person , they shoud have $100,000 in their account and can they show to America that they $100, 000 in their account. Evil witches and Demons why are you lying to the American people and deceiving them. This Evil witch Monica is the Major witch who is responsible for conning the American people and Al Gore.

Posted by: draftgore | September 12, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Racist , Con Artists, thief, Evil witch Monica Friedlander Cheat , lie Con American People \

Racist Draft Al Gore Con Artist are Deceiving America and Al Gore by creating thousands of fake signatures Racist Draft Al Gore Con Artist are Deceiving America and Al Gore by creating thousands of fake signaturesDraft Al Gore Con Artists Created 1000s of Fake signatures to fool the American People and Al Gore so that they can steal more money from America. These people are Liars, Crooks, Con Artists, and worthless Unemployed trashes Monica is a biggest Evil witch and a con Artist.

Group Urges Gore To Run For President

100,000 People Sign Petition To Urge GorePOSTED: 8:38 am CDT July 12, 2007UPDATED: 10:48 am CDT July 12, 2007

Posted by: draftgore | September 12, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and more down to your local US City level...

Posted by: Fred | September 12, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

First, who do you think Gore is going to endorse and why? I think he endorses Obama because its the politically hip pick and, as we know, Hollywood Al is now hip. If he was smart he would endorse Hilary and go with the winner but i don't think past history will allow that.

Second, how much does a Gore endorsement matter in the Democratic primary? I've always been one to question why endorsements matter at all. I think they are a waste of time. I just can't hear myself saying - I'm voting for so and so because Al Gore gives him/her the thumbs up. So to answer, hopefully not at all meaning that people decide based on their own thoughts and feelings.

Posted by: Dave! | September 12, 2007 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Rufus, I already told you why that poll was invalid, in my post yesterday at 3:41. You might have noticed that if you ever actually read anyone's posts.

As JasonL said, the poll is phrased as an "or" question. That's ridiculous. If the pollsters actually wanted to know peoples' opinions, they'd give discrete options. The breakdown could be 30% believe the government knew in advance and 3% believe the government is involved. Or it could be the other way around. Who knows?

And neither option on the poll has anything to do with your original statement, that Bush and Bin Laden are conspiring together to make people vote Republican. It's very possible to believe that the government knew about 9/11 but not believe that. It's also possible to believe that the government caused 9/11 but not believe that. The poll says nothing about whether your belief is popular or correct. Bring it up as often as you want; it doesn't help.

Posted by: Blarg | September 11, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Boko - all of Bentsen's papers are in the UT Library but he only died last year and they are not all catalogued to the web yet. He did have many personal contacts in MX and was a fluent Spanish speaker.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Bokonon, one part of Bentsen's plan became law - NAFTA. He encouraged maquiladoras - plants on the MX side of the border with duty free US trade. These plants used to account for maybe a third of industrial employment in MX, and led to the move of many north, but inside MX.

He was unsuccessful in getting the MX govt. to enforce its wage and hour laws in the maquis and he began to lobby for enforcement of both the labor and environmental laws, when the maquis started polluting the Rio Grande. What I am looking for are some position papers on plans to use NGOs to circumvent the MX govt's unwillingness to play by the rules.

For all the heat NAFTA takes and despite the fact that the maquis were our first huge outsourcing effort, without both, most of MX would have already moved to TX, because there would be less than half the trade with MX we have now.

Our own farm subsidies have done a great deal to crush farming in MX, and I do not
have access to Bentsen's views on this on the web.
I think there is only one positive from our invasion of Iraq - Saddam is gone.
That makes constant overflights by the USAF and RAF to protect the Kurds and Shia unnecessary. Replacing constant overflights with an occupation on the ground seems... an unintended consequence.
I do think Petraeus made an excellent presentation, but not one that could answer the question George Will [today] raises about "the mission".

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 8:11 AM | Report abuse

It strikes me that there are a couple of possibilities here for the type of endorsement Gore could want to make:

1. The "Likely Winners": Hilary or Obama. Gore endorsed Dean last time around at a point where Dean was flying high. Given that Obama's campaign still isn't gaining much traction in the polls and how unlikely an endorsement of Hilary is, I can't see him going for this option. If Obama makes a few early gains however he could well leap on board.
The reasons he might choose this path would be to emphasise his status as an elder statesman of the party.
2. The "Issues" Candidates: Dodd or Edwards. The Goreacle could favour this path for a couple of reasons.
Firstly there is no risk that if his candidate loses, his reputation takes a tumble too. He can say that he endorsed to bring an issue to the table.
Secondly it would likely do just that. I agree with others that Gore's endorsement is a few days of newspaper stories at most - what may be remembered is the story that "candidate x is said to have the best environmental strategy". It'd be little more than the slightest of polling bumps in any case.

Posted by: Aidan Brack | September 11, 2007 6:09 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I'm curious about Bentsen's Mexican plans. did he have anyone he was talking to/working with on the Mex. side of the border? also curious what you and others thought of the Petraeus Show today... I didn't hear a lot of it, but it didn't seem to me that anyone's mind was changed in either direction.
Dave S, you're right to say that the commitment Bushie made to Iraq is going to turn out to be a generation-long one, despite what was said at the time. I am afraid that the only way to keep this from bankrupting our country will be to internationalize it to the extent possible. Yes, this will entail giving up some control over the military ops. Yes, this will mean working with and maybe even fighting alongside some folks who aren't too fond of Americans. And yes, even if we are successful in attracting some nations (back) to Iraq with their troops and funding, we will no longer be able to dictate how the situation will be managed. However, the alternative would be a nation sliding more and more quickly into debt to the Chinese.
Can anyone at this point convince me that anything positive has come out of our involvement in Iraq?

Posted by: Bokonon | September 10, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

What differance does that make jason. Either why, aren't they liable. Elaborate please.

SO your saying a most people were in the "let it happen" group. Ok that's fine. That may or may not be true.

But my point is there is no differance between the two. none at all. The cover-up should tell everybody one of the two happened. Now if that's true then what? Take that poll again. I want these gop'ers to wet themselves.

Elaborate please jason. I still don't get your or blarg's position. If they knew but did knowing, is that better or worse than doign it themselves? I don't see a differance between the two. Same thing to me. The deaths are on gop hands. iraq and that war is also on their hands, with a HUGE jelp of fox "news"

elaborate please.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

So you saw the 33% poll. Now why again is that poll invalid? - Rufus

It's not a good question because it is phrased as an "or" question.

"Do you think that the administration knew or was involved with the 9/11 attack?"

If someone just thinks they knew about it then they get lumped in with the people who think that they conspired to make it happen.

Posted by: JasonL | September 10, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Hey. Who is this Powell guy. He sounds like me :)

""Colin Powell: Terrorists are not greatest threat to nation
In an interview with GQ magazine that's scheduled to be put online here at 11 a.m. ET, former secretary of State and one-time potential presidential candidate Colin Powell has this to say about terrorism and the threat it poses to the USA:

"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?"

Powell adds, in an interview with Walter Isaacson, that to improve its image in the world, the USA should focus on welcoming newcomers. He takes on the immigration debate that has become a hot-button issue in the presidential race:

"America could not survive without immigration," he says. "Even the undocumented immigrants are contributing to our economy. That's the country my parents came to. That's the image we have to portray to the rest of the world: kind, generous, a nation of nations, touched by every nation, and we touch every nation in return. That's what people still want to believe about us. They still want to come here. We've lost a bit of the image, but we haven't lost the reality yet. And we can fix the image by reflecting a welcoming attitude -- and by not taking counsel of our fears and scaring ourselves to death that everybody coming in is going to blow up something. It ain't the case."

As for the Iraq War, Powell -- a retired general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- tells Isaacson that as he and others in the Bush administration debated strategy in the lead-up to the war, he did not think the Pentagon and then-secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had planned for what would happen after Baghdad fell.

"That was the big mistake. Don had written a list of the worst things that could happen, but we didn't do the contingency planning on what we would do about it. So we watched those buildings get burned down, and nobody told the divisions, 'Hey, go in there and declare martial law and whack a few people and it will stop.' Then the insurgency started, and we didn't acknowledge it. They said it wasn't an insurgency. They looked up the definition. They said it was a few dead-enders! And so we didn't respond in a way that might have stopped it. And then the civil war started at the beginning of last year. I call it a civil war, but some say no, it's not a civil war, it's a war against civilians. In fact, we have total civil disorder."

Also today, GQ has already posted a lengthy interview with Rumsfeld. Author Lisa DePaulo sums up her conclusions this way:

"If you're expecting Don Rumsfeld -- out of government now, on his farm, in a moment of repose -- to play the bitter, angry, reflective, tragic fallen hero ... ain't gonna happen. If he feels any of those things, he's not showing it. (And if he did, he probably wouldn't be Donald H. Rumsfeld.) The man does not do regret. Over the course of the next few hours, he will answer every question asked of him, and even when the answer is 'I'm not gonna talk about that,' there's never a flash of anger. Impatience, yes, but never anger."

sounds an awful lot like rufus. If colin powell says what Rufus syas, does that make rufus smarter? If so why?

Listen to THE WORD, and see if you agree, not the SOURCE."

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

""cc is silencing me again."

Posted by: Don't We Wish! | September 10, 2007 06:09 PM "

Alright zouk. You show your fascist face. You wish me gone for making "over the top" statements. does the same rule apply to fox rush and hannity. If not you are a hypocrite. But I'd at least like to hear your defense of them. Once. coward

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin - Kinky Friedman's "Mexican Generals Plan" doesn't count.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"cc is silencing me again."

Posted by: Don't We Wish! | September 10, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Gore's endorsement is a non-factor. Despite the fact that he won and Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth and the fact that he is bringing much needed attention to the issue of global warming, he is essentially irrelevant. If Gore does make an endorsement he will most likely support Obama. Obama represents the most "non-Clinton" element and God knows the recent history between the Clintons and the Gores is not very good (has anyone read the book Sammy's Hill by his daughter? There are some barely hidden shots at both Clintons in there under the guise of fiction).

If Gore endorses anyone it will be news for a few days and then when it is realized that no one cares except the chattering classes the Gore endorsement will fade into oblivion as all endorsements do.

Posted by: Janine | September 10, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Great. So my posts are to up cc's gop lipmus test.

It will be fun seeing what you propogating fascsits allow and what I can say.

Gore fat, ok.

Bush behind 9/11. Not ok.

Blarg. Elorborate, please. So you saw the 33% poll. Now why again is that poll invalid? And why do you think that number woul dnot be a lot higher now. Defend bush, please.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

test. cc is silencing me again. I know you gop'ers make the rules. I know the gop only has free speech.

Just thought I'd let the rest of you fascists know. You got a freind in CC.

If you can't win cheat.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

FOX does not believe Rufus will stop posting if FOX stops broadcasting.

FOX demands that Rufus show good faith by not posting for 48 hours before FOX enters negotiations with Rufus.

If Rufus is not a mere windbag, let him prove it.


Hey. I did stop for 48 hrs. It's called the weekend :). If I don't coem here I feel as though I'm not doing my job as an american. Fighting the fascists who are destroying this great nation. I no longer serve in the army bu tI still serve the country. Who do you people serve and why?

I am a fly to fox. Fox is the big fish. Rufus isn't even a bateria in fox's ocean. They own it all. The right controls everything. What do I control? I don't even control this ONE blog. Share and share alike gop. You have everything as it is. But like 5 year old's that's not enough. You want more. You want it your way. Or what? You'll cheat, you'll lie you'll spin.

I'm am nothing in the grand sceme of things. The only power I have is the power you people give me. Unfortunatly, you don't give me much power. I will take it if you give a part of yourselves. Are you willing to do that? No. Not inthis country anyway. Not when everybody is their own god in their own universe.

God will judge you, not me.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I forgot Baja. There are 6 MX border states - 4 border TX, one borders NMx and AZ, and one borders CA.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 10, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The right wing attack mahicne is so big because the right are full of dittoheads. they take orders well. The left radio doesn't do as good because we are all individauls and do not follow external avatars. And it's the individuals fault the right is doing what it's doing? Lies spin and misdircetion

You gop'ers are responsible for what you have doen the last 15 years. You cannot balme everything on others. Your time is almost up. Say what you will. Just don't expect your children to follow you down down down, into a burning ring of fire.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Gore will endorse Gore. If not, then I'd say head for the hills as The Earth is in the Balance, and he understands that - moreso than any other candidate running for the office.

Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | September 10, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

The strengthening of the Mexican economy, especially in Mexico's five border states, was a strong issue for Sen. Bentsen.

He had even thought of work arounds for the corruption of MX government.

I will try to find some of his policy papers on the web, if they exist, and cite them if an appropriate occasion arises.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 10, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

JasonL--I was against the US going into Iraq in the first place because I believed even though Saddam was crazy, he would not be crazy enough to do something that would lead to a U.S. invasion that would result in his death. Now that the U.S. is in Iraq, it is inevitable that we will stay there in one form or another. If the US withdraws, there will be a real civil war in Iraq, not the low-level fighting (call it a civil war if you want) that they are seeing now. Iran would not be able to resist getting involved, which then destabilizes the region responsible for providing a good percentage of the world's oil. The U.S., EU, and even China are not going to sit around while the oil supply gets choked off by violence and will send a U.N. coalition back in. In other words, now that the U.S. opened the box, there is no good way to close it. Either 1) the US continues to camp in a failed state for years, or 2) they leave, all hell breaks loose, lots more people die, and the US returns and camps in a failed state for years. I prefer option 1 because I think it will lead to less bloodshed. If option 2 would somehow lead to a more stable democracy, then I would lean that direction. It's just that bloodshed in a civil war setting has not been proven to lead to a better democracy. (See Sudan).

In response to your point about timing and why the US could not have waited, if the US had waited more than a year or two, the US never would have gone into Iraq. 9/11 provided the political will and capital to go in. The main problem with the Bush II administration is that in all his efforts to not be his one-termer do-nothing father, he became the two-termer try to do too much son. He was too hasty to use his political capital and put the US in a situation from which there was no way to remove themselves. I chuckle a little bit whenever people criticize the administration for going into Iraq without an exit strategy. What good is a strategy for something that cannot be done? Bush knew this. The administration knew this. Unfortunately, a large enough chunk of the American public believed that we would be able to go in, draft a constitution, build a few court houses, and the Shiites and Sunnis would all sit around singing the Star Spangled Banner.

Posted by: Dave S | September 10, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

After endorsing Dean in 04, I would that Gore is looking _for_ reasons to support Clinton. There would be no surprise in Gore, whom Republicans try to paint as Ted Kaczynski with a Secret Service detail, supporting Obama or Edwards or another 'insurgent' candidate. Supporting Clinton, on the other hand, would suggest a semblance or unity or purpose among Democrats, centred around a figure other than Bush.

Posted by: anticlimacus | September 10, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

FOX does not believe Rufus will stop posting if FOX stops broadcasting.

FOX demands that Rufus show good faith by not posting for 48 hours before FOX enters negotiations with Rufus.

If Rufus is not a mere windbag, let him prove it.

Posted by: FOX | September 10, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"Wouldn't the best solution to our immigration problem be successful economies in Mexico and Central and South America?"

Sure, but how do you propose we do that? - | 04:55 PM

To be honest I hadn't really thought about it before; it simply dawned on me that the Immigration debate focus is on the effects and not on the cause.

I've heard comments about why "illegals" are coming to this country, but the discussion immediately moves on to fences and fines and amnesty, etc.

It's been over 40 years since an Administration paid serious attention to that, with the exception of NAFTA.

It would be nice if some of our philosopher politicians looked seriously in that direction.

Got any ideas?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The right, and to a large extent, FOx "NEws" are %100 responsible for the current level of political discourse. To me anyway. 100%.

Bill O'Reilly brought me into this verbal american war, when I knew nothing. When I was a (verbal war) non-combatant.

The right is responsible for the deep water we are in. Both politically and media-wise. YEt I am the one to be shunned. How does this happen, in america. Why is Imus off the air but Rush, with his magic negro, still on the air? How does ann coulter continue to appear on fox daily?

We have a big problem in this country. That problem is not me, an anonymous poster. Fox is to blame to a large exent, much bigger than me. Get Fox off the air and I'm gone. Plain enough for you. All those that want me gone, do you feel the same way about fox? If not why?

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, free lefty radio is available 24/7 om XM Satellite Radio,Ch. 167. It will make your heart sing!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Sorry blarg. I'm assuming your a clinton supporter based on your posts. I don't read all and remember all.

Enlighten me.

Biden? PauL? What?

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

You think I'm a moderate Clinton supporter? Do you actually ever read anyone's posts? Or would that cut down on your output?

Posted by: Blarg | September 10, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

would like to welcome our newest member Rufus. In writing on this blog he has exemplified everything that we hold dear. By pushing to ban FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh, he has shown intolerance and the willingness to censor viewpoints that disagree with his own."

Like I said numorous times. Fox and rush and malkin and coulter and malkin and savage, all these fascsists, should be "banned" in their current state. Fox is not news. They should not be able to pose as news. They should not have "news" creditials. They should be treated like us weekly or the national enquierer. Stripped of press creditials. Stripped of their apperance of real journalist credibility.

Now rush hannity malkin and so on should have their shows. If they are going to be on FREE radio they should be balanced out. They would never stand for somebody on air telling everytbody how they are lying all day everyday. So they woudl not do it. Not the rest of the countries fault.

I think all these lying propogandists should have to put cd's out. I would have no problem with any of that.

What I object to is fox labeling itslef" Fair and balanced". I also object to them given the same level of respect as cnn or MSNBC or ABC. They should have NO representatives in the white house.

That's not to much to ask, is it? Where is the left "news" station. Where is the free lefties propoganda on the radio? It doesn't exist AND SHOULDN'T exist. We are a self govermnet. In a self-government we need all the real news we can get. And nonne of the lies misdirection and propoganda

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"I went to grade school with one of the dudes on that plane. What happened to him, if you're implying he wasn't actually on a plane that crashed in PA? "

I'm sorry about that simon. Really. I don't have all the answers. The differance between me and the rest of you people is.

I want the answers. I need the answers. Why are not not ten times more angry than me simon? The people being lied to all this time, like the tillman family, sheehan, and you simon, should be the angryist of us all. Why are you people enabling the fascists rather than punching their teeth in (mediforically of course, don't want you cowards crying to the patriot act cronies), like me?

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"While you debate your crackpot theories about disappearing planes and missiles and international Jewish conspiracies, the Republicans are laughing at you. Then the moderates start laughing too, and we lose again. You make all liberals, and all liberal ideas, look foolish. You can attack me as much as you want, but you're the one who's hurting our movement, not me."

Whatever blarg. There was no movement without peole like me. People like me gave us the majority. What have you been doing the last 7 years. Standing by letting the r's destroy the country, that's where. With a big smile on your face. Now you want to reap the progress ME and other s like me are making.

As to the r's laughing at me. WOW. They are the dylusional ones. The r's are the people to be laughed at. I have no love for you "moderate's" blaarg. I have to say. You take all the credit, eyt do none fo the work. YOu moderates. Moderates are sell-out gop'ers that haven't been paid yet. You have no ideals. You have no morals. YOu don't care about this country. This is why clinton's numbers are up

"She can win". That's waht you say. Guess what. I'd rather lose to the gop, than elect a closet gop to do the same thing that they would de if they were in power. Why not just elect them again, if your going to do that.

The moderates hate the left because of our passion. Because we care. Because we are doing something. What are you doing blarg? Parroting talking points. Attacking the voice of the party? Why? You scared the right is going to be scared off?

Screww them? If they choose party over country. SCrew them blarg. If they choose fascism, screw them.

This is not game to win as many fascist gop votes as possible, blarg. This is to change the government. To change the way the country runs

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Again blarg. I care about the gop'ers feelings (that your trying to sway) as much as they care abou tmy feelings. I care about a goper's feelings as much as they care about the constitution.

As to your comment about," Playing into the gop hands". They got YOU fooled. Who is fox pushing for president? Who is rove pushing for president? Clinton.

Now who is playing into their hands? the moderates or the "liberals"

Pick a side blarg. Stick with it. Better to hold your tougue that cause division amounst the "good" side.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Dave S:
So the alternative is sitting in a quagmire of a failed state fighting against insurgents while our primary focus in Afghanistan falls by the wayside?

That reasoning is worse. I'm not against overthrowing dictators and spreading democracy, but when do our needs come before theirs? Did the invasion of Iraq make us safer? Arguably not. Couldn't it have waited while we solved our own problems? Was Saddam the worst dictator alive? Probably not. Could a peaceful, successful democracy in Afghanistan have made a democracy in Iraq better, easier to form? Maybe it could. Maybe having seen the good work we did in Afghanistan the Iraqi people would have asked for our help, really assisted in our efforts to make Iraq better.

What we have instead is an incompetent Iraqi government and a rising death toll and an Afghanistan that is rapidly degenerating.

Posted by: JasonL | September 10, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

! : That is about the only thing that makes sense, because, according to reports, our being there is the best recruiting tool Al Queda has. I am trying to look at this whole mess and what logic there is in arguements from many angles. I cannot justify, in my mind, how the loss of life and limb is worth the Oil/Money for a few, when there is no threat from Iraq.

Posted by: lylepink | September 10, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Nuts. | September 10, 2007 04:55 PM is me.

Posted by: JasonL | September 10, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Wouldn't the best solution to our immigration problem be successful economies in Mexico and Central and South America?

Maybe then people wouldn't want to leave their homes to come here." -| September 10, 2007 04:45 PM

Sure, but how do you propose we do that? We send billions of dollars to Central and South America every year. How do you propose that we eliminate graft, reform their schools, and otherwise assist their economies?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

JasonL--Your archaic, political realism in assessing which people deserve to live under a dictator and which people do not no longer flies in a world where government intelligence and military power have increased to the point that a citizenry can no longer opt to revolt and throw off their shackles. The American and French Revolution never would have happened if the ruling government had machine guns and phone-tapping capabilities. Your "they were getting by well enough" is paternalistic bull#@$! There are plenty of good reasons to be against the U.S. going into Iraq, but the reason you give is not one of them.

Posted by: Dave S | September 10, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't the best solution to our immigration problem be successful economies in Mexico and Central and South America?

Maybe then people wouldn't want to leave their homes to come here.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"They again deny a cival war is going on, and to withdraw would indeed create a cival war. Something is wrong here folks." - LylePink

Well, Iraq has met the technical definition of civil war since 2006. Many scholars and retired officers believe that there will be civil war in Iraq whether we leave tomorrow, next year, or ten years from now. Our, presence is keeping the stew simmering but hasn't, if it ever can, taken the stew off the fire.

As someone else was saying earlier, you don't get a democracy by handing people a ballot. Look at the French revolution and the American revolution. The people wanted change and they took it with their blood and sweat. The Iraq's didn't REAllY want that change. They were getting by well enough before and now they're always looking over their shoulder, certain that a Sunni or a Shiite, or al Sadr's Army, or someone else is going to kill them or stuff them in the trunk of a car to be tortured and dumped on the street.

Posted by: JasonL | September 10, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

drindl writes
"we have a considerable number of 'knowledge workers' who have been displaced because foreigners from a country with a lower standard of lving will work for less, so American workers will always be at a disadvantage against people from poorer countries."

So why can't the displaced American knowledge workers use all of their smartness to create a new type of job that is fun and rewarding?

Posted by: Golgi | September 10, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Actually Zouk, some of those things which you propose in the 4:21 pm post wouldn't be bad at all.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Even though I think that rufus' neurons are misfiring somewhere on Venus, I've always wondered about pictures from the security cameras at the Pentagon.

DOD must have hundreds of cameras all over that place, with "potential attack" being one of the reasons. Which means that all sides of the building would be surveilled.

I have no reason to believe in the conspiracy theories, and am not surprised that DOD has not been forthcoming with tapes, but do wonder just what the cameras recorded.

It's as if the State of Texas wouldn't say that the School Book Depository Building had a 6th floor.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I would like to welcome our newest member Rufus. In writing on this blog he has exemplified everything that we hold dear. By pushing to ban FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh, he has shown intolerance and the willingness to censor viewpoints that disagree with his own. In order to push his views, he demonizes another segment of the population into a soul-less, treasonous mass that is worthy of death and could be stamped out of existence according to the will of his own party. Welcome to the club Rufus, and keep up the good work. Fascists everywhere are cheering you on.

Posted by: The Fascist Club | September 10, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - My guess is that if we leave Iraq that al Qaeda gets weaker, for two reasons: 1) their primary reason for being there will no longer exist and 2) because any that stay will simply be getting in the way of the Sunnis and Shiia as they go at each other. Those factions will quickly dispose of them.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

To answer Blarg's question -- if no candidate deserved endorsement in 2004, Gore should have refrained from making an endorsement.

That said, as an Obama supporter I hope that Gore will endorse Obama but do fear that the Dean onus might stick to Obama because of it.

But Gore's endorsing Obama would still be good so that the Gorelovers won't mistakenly vote for Edwards.

Posted by: Golgi | September 10, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Blarg is right, and I shouldn't respond. But...

rufus writes
"The flight that crashed in PA. Where is the plane? Where are the bodies?"

I went to grade school with one of the dudes on that plane. What happened to him, if you're implying he wasn't actually on a plane that crashed in PA?

Posted by: bsimon | September 10, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

The idea that Al Queda would gain strength if there was a troop drawdown seems to be somewhat of a no brainer. Thinking back a few years, I seem to recall Al Queda was primaryly in Afganistan and most of them were from Saudi, Jorden, and other countries, and hardly any were from Iraq. They again deny a cival war is going on, and to withdraw would indeed create a cival war. Something is wrong here folks.

Posted by: lylepink | September 10, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I think that he will endorse Obama.

Edwards has too much baggage right now, despite the union endorsements to make a great run in the general election. Between the Breck girl clip, the Louisanna mortgage issues, the reform platform that Murdoch's paper called him out on and all he doesn't really have a chance anymore, despite his valiant effort in Iowa.

I think Obama has spent the time to build a great organization and has the money on hand to fight out the nomination and given Gore's support and popularity he could seal the deal in Iowa and New Hampshire and hit the ground running Feb. after winning S.C to boot. Gore going to work for him and Oprah stumping too would mean a lot for Obama and with his message, his lack of baggage and the strength of anti-Rep. sentiment he has a great shot at crossover appeal.

I don't think he'd endorse Clinton because of the baggage between the two families.

I think it'll be Obama and hopefully he'll be right this time, lol.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore will endorse Barack Obama.

The endorsement will be worth 5 points in the primary. [Howard Dean's implosion was exclusively self-triggered. Even the Almighty's endorsement would not have saved Dean from himself.]

Gore has acquired considerable extra stature over the past few years. Hence the huge (5%) impact.

Why Obama? Liberated from his own presidential yearning, Gore is free to do what he sees as the right thing -- at peace, unencumbered.

Posted by: R M Gopal | September 10, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The poll says that 33% of people think that Bush and Cheney were either aware of or involved in 9/11. It says nothing about whether people believe that "bush and bin laden are working together to put fear in the voting public to vote r".

And notice that the poll question had an "or" in it. The poll didn't separately question knowledge or involvement; it lumped them together. I find that very suspicious. There's a huge difference between believing that our government had prior knowledge of 9/11 ("Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US") and believing that our government orchestrated the attack. And even the latter position is more sane than your belief that Bush and Osama conspire to get Republicans into power.

What good do you think you're doing with these whacko conspiracy theories? I'll tell you what you're doing: You're playing right into the Republicans' hands. You, and the rest of the "9/11 Truth" movement, are embodying the most ridiculous stereotypes of liberals. While you debate your crackpot theories about disappearing planes and missiles and international Jewish conspiracies, the Republicans are laughing at you. Then the moderates start laughing too, and we lose again. You make all liberals, and all liberal ideas, look foolish. You can attack me as much as you want, but you're the one who's hurting our movement, not me.

Posted by: Blarg | September 10, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Brave gop. Get teh enemy. An old lady who is broken by the greif of her son being killed for oil and stock profits. I might me angry if I was her too.

Brave gop. You people are so tough.

"Cindy Sheehan arrested at Petraeus hearing
By Klaus Marre
September 10, 2007
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday in or near the hearing room where Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are testifying on the situation in Iraq, according to the U.S. Capitol Police.

Four anti-war protesters were arrested for disorderly conduct. One of them, who was not named, is being taken to George Washington Hospital "due to complaint of injury" and is also charged with assault on a police officer.

According to the information from the Capitol Police, Sheehan and the other three were shouting in a hallway.

Sheehan was the face of the anti-war movement before saying in May of this year that she would "retire" from the cause. Shortly thereafter, she announced that she would seek the congressional seat of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).


Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Iraqi Boys are Looking for Hookers in Basra, Baghdad and Fallulah. I think Condoleezza Rice would be perfect for that job if she can get gold teeth and Gold fillings with her sexy face and Hot Body..

Posted by: Hussain | September 10, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Watch the video blarg. What do you see?

Is it a fake. Let me ask you this question, since your a foutain of knowledge.

The pentegon should be on camera 24-7, right? I'm sure you'd agree with that statement. So if that is a true statement why are the tapes under lock and eky? Why is this video that shows no plane the only video?

I watched something that showed inside the pentegon, through layers of buildings. There was a 10 foot perfect hole in the wall. how is that possible. It is a rocket, not a plane.

The flight that crashed in PA. Where is the plane? Where are the bodies? If you cared one bit you would reserch these things and come to the same conclusion. The fact that you refuse to do the research and instead attack me daily. I have to assume you people are lying propogating fascsits, choosing party over country. Don't I have to assume that, if you people are taking the positions you are? How can any independant thinker think otherwise.

Why are people burying this? Money? Power? fear?

Doesn't matter to me. I care. To much maybe. I will make you hear the truth. What you do next is up to you.

But when you all reach the pearly gates, many years from now, you won't be able to tell peter you didn't know what you were doing.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Activists Take Al Gore To Task For His Diet He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse gases

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I am curious to see who Gore endorses. Does he know what the candidates' stances are on the status of Humanitarian issues? Has that an effect on his choice at all?

Posted by: Erica | September 10, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I say that blarg. Because you are hindering truth and trying to divide and conquer. That is zouk's game. He's got a patent on it (on this site).

The last poll was at 33%. That's high no. You must also take into account the fascist borg gop vote of 10-25% which will always vote for gop no matter the poll. Mindless dittoheads. That makes that 33% that much more impressive, don't you think?

And that was back when people still didn't know fox was propoganda and bush was lying to them constantly. We know that now. It makes the clinton impeachment the 2000 election and 9/11 come under a differant light. To most americans anyway. To people that will not look at the facts or the tapes, not sure what to say to you.

I can't put knowledge in your heads. I'm trying, but you got to put the work in yourselves. I can't make you care.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon: I have been listening to the hearings and both the Gen. and Amb. are using almost the same reasoning for staying in Iraq. This did not suprise me in the least. The deal about al Quida and Osama bin Laden did not ring true, in that everything I have seen and heard seems to be helping these folks in turning the world against us. Another thing I noticed was the seemingly attempt to gain support for a war against Iran. The results are mixed at best, when anyone knows that an increase in troops in one area only takes them from another, and then the violance will increase there. I have read a few stories about "Cooking the books" and this seems to be what is going on. The Amb. wants to prop up the current Govt. Lot of difference.

Posted by: lylepink | September 10, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

You got me, Rufus. I'm Zouk. That's the only reason that I disagree with your statement that "bush and bin laden are working together to put fear in the voting public to vote r". Everyone who isn't Zouk knows that Bin Laden's big goal is getting people to vote Republican. It makes perfect sense. I tried to trick you, but you're just too smart for me.

Posted by: Blarg | September 10, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Gore will pick the one most likely to give Hillary indigestion. I just wish it were Joe Biden--the best candidate in the race.

Posted by: | September 10, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

That or be a child molester dem1 :)

Frickin republcians. And they think nobody knows what they are doing. HAHAHAHAHA.

Your party is done. Criminals and child molesters. That is the current state of teh gop. OH, and war loving liberal hating gun totting fascism. That too. Forcing your political beleifs on the nation. Forcing you ideals (that you don't have any intention on living up to yourselves) on others.

Sell-out gop. You have sold this nation out. And you did it for money and power. What did that used to be called? Treason. What did the people that commited treason used to be called? Traitors.

YOu have a year and a hlf gop. Use it wisely.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

If I want to become Gop Member do I have to learn footsie???

Posted by: Dem1 | September 10, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

they are wholly dependent on state sponsors now

and of course the Democrats in congress

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"xposed. Do you remember the 069 elections zouk"

06 elections. CC is messing with my posts again.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

ZOuk has been a bad boy. A dirty nasty bad boy. I hear his foot tapping. :)

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Bin laden is not stupid? did he foresee that an attack on the US mainland would cause the Taliban to be ousted and his life to be forever confined to a cave? I admit that clinton's perpetual non-reaction might have led him to believe this but with Bush in power, his strategy clearly failed and he is therfore to be considered stupid. al queda is more and more on the run, suffering massive defeats and the killing of the leadership. their money is tied up, they are wholly dependent on state sponsors now - mostly Iran.

and this was not stupid?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 10, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Whatever zouk. That is the differance between the right and left. Ready?

The left are doing what they are doing becasue we love this coutnry. That is the differance. If it was a dem doing this to our country nothign would change. The left would rally against them too. But that wouldn't happen. The dem's tend to listen to the country and rest of the world.

Again, zouk,. Something you would never understand. COUNTRY over PARTY. Ok zouk. COUNTRY over PARTY. The left is not rallying against you people because of your political party. They are rallying agianst you becasue you have destoyed the constitution and country. You have divided the country in to two americas, not the left.

You say the "waccos" hijack the left. Wackos have hijacked ,not only you party, but the country for the last 7 years. Crazies are the one's who are still believing bush and his propogandists. That's crazy. Following who you folow, knowing they are lying to you. That is what's crazy zouk.

The lef tin this country has become you conscince. To listen to the left is to listen you yourselves. The problem is, doublethink. Gop doublethink. Lie spin and discredit. sabotage.

It's ok zouk. The great hing about all this prognostication is, we will find out soon.

Don't cry like a baby when you people are xposed. Do you remember the 069 elections zouk? Wher eyou living in a cave then. The people have already rejecting you. You didn't get the memo?

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Does Gore or Bush know anything about Footsie..?? I can teach them if they are interested.. I think Clinton is a very Naughty boy.. You bad Boy Clinton...

Posted by: Lary Craig | September 10, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I think that answers my question. I will concede the idea that Bin Laden released his video just prior to the Petraeus report to keep America in Iraq longer is a strong argument, as is your argument about the last election. In the pro/con balance that we all do, I come out with the cons of leaving being higher than the pros of leaving, but I hate that Bin Laden has any degree of input in the process.
In terms of Bin Laden enabling, I think that posters like the one that everyone ignores are as guilty as anyone. Unfortunately there is a great deal of guilt by association in politics and having loonies on your side when it comes to national security doesn't help the democrats win elections in a war on terror world.

Posted by: Bin Laden Video Comment | September 10, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

aNyone remember that iraq vet soldier at the gonzales hearing? The one that was keeping a tally of the " I don't recalls".

I saw he was arrested last friday for putting up war rally signs. I saw it on firday. They brought in a bunch of cops and a horse and arrested him and other anti-war vets. For putting up posters.

What country are we living in? Is this still america. What country are we living in where a war veteran is arrested for putting up signs organizing a anti-war march. Seriously.

Blarg, maybe you can answer this. Your defending this. What country is this now? Are we still a democracy/republic? Are we an empire? Are we now a monarchy? What country is this? When and why did it change? Who is responsible?

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, what will you Dems do with the support of people like Rufi and ignorant coward? move on is now calling General Petreus a liar? How will the Dems shake off the loony toons wing of the party? the Rs are moving away from the evangs this time to regain the middle. Meanwhile your party moves ever further into unelectable zone. clinton won with the DLC, hillary will lose with Kos.

Like the muslims, there are few who call out the wack jobs among them. why only you? I don't remember anyone defending the rascist william on the right or other conservatives who went out of bounds. Is it the lust for power thing?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 10, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Well, that does it Blarg, rufus has outted you as being Zouk.

Close the case file.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

We are heading and we are already in Recession... good Luck Repubs and Mr.Bushy

Posted by: BreakingNewsReporter | September 10, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Gore is passionate about Global warming and this country. I bet If All the democrats stop breathing for 30 minutes we can stop Global warming and save millions of people.

Posted by: Dr.Dean | September 10, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

The rest of "you" blarg are sell-outs. You don't care about truth. Your just as bad as the rest of "Tehm" Shoot. Your probably zouk, for all WE know.

Last time I heard 33% said bush/gop/cheaney either knew about or orcastrated 9/11. That's one third and that was over a year ago. YOu don't want to run that poll now. I think the MSM and gop are to scared to run that poll again. I would put that number at least up to %0-50 now.

Blarg/zouk. Enough from the peanut gallery. Post your posts. Don't mess with me today. BAd day. Another bogus petreus report saying we are staying in iraq. " Wait for the sep. report". We could have gave this report 3 years ago.

Gop lies spin and misdirection. And you by playing their game are prolonging it Blarg. Stand up. If you are not stopping the fascsits you are enabling them

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

i know you gop'ers don't awant to hear that. But you don't want to hear a lot, these days. To bad. Reality check.

Who attacked us on 9/11? Read up on the saudi ties between bush and SA. Now who does terrorsim "help"? A terrorist attack is the only hope the gop has in the next election. So who is on the side of the terrorists? What does the "left" in this country want? Does it go in line with bin laden and AQ? No. how about the right? Yes.

Do the research. The gop has hijacked this nation. They are holding the voting populance hostage with fear/terror. not the left. All non-dittoheads know this. The gop is a bout to be voted out for a generation and no amount of tim mcveigh tactics will stop that now. Try it again, gop. See what happens. The american people now see you and what your for. SAbotage. divide and conquer. PArty over country

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, you and the voices in your head might believe that Bush and Bin Laden work together. That doesn't amount to "many on the left". That's a belief of the super-paranoid black-helicopter crowd, not the mainstream progressive movement. Believe whatever idiocy you want, but don't pretend that the rest of us are behind you.

Posted by: Blarg | September 10, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"I don't mean this in a pejorative way or anything, but did anyone else notice in the bin laden video how much he echoed sentiments from the left when it came to the war"

Many on "the left" think bush and bin laden are working together to put fear in the voting public to vote r. If that is the case it would make sense to have the enemy saying what your enemies are saying. So if bush really is behind 9/11 then bin laden's comments would make more sense, no?

Like rove/fox trying to force the dem's to nominate Hillary. The gop is trying to burn the candle at both ends. I have said here repeatly bush is behind 9/11. Again, if this is true binladen comments soundly like a leftist (which if you know anything you know he is a RIGHT-WING fundelmentalist LIKE the religous right in this country).

If you look at the big picture. The gop and bin laden are on the same side. Religous laws. Fascism. Killing those they disagree with. Forcing their ideaology on others. The gop and the terrorists stand to win with the same things. Who does terrorim in this country "help? The gop or the dem's? If terrorsim helps teh r's tehn would it make sense they are aligned?

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Bin Laden Video Comment - I believe that Bush and the hawkish stance (in Iraq, while until recently downplaying Afghanistan) actually benefits Bin Laden much more. Whatever else Osama may be, he's not stupid (nor is Zawahiri, who by some accounts is now running the group) and he knows that his "statement" before the last election helped Bush get back in. Bush is the greatest recruiting tool al Qaeda could ask for, and they want to get as much use out of him as possible before he leaves, not to mention help to elect someone with a similar mindset/approach to foreign policy.

Posted by: Bokonon | September 10, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Do your thing Gore. You must have the gop scared if they are spending so much time on you. You must be on point if all they can talk abou tis your weight or the fact that you to fly private jets. The gop must really be scared of this guy. Maybe it's becasue he has as big a reason to hate bush as anybody. if he were elected vp he would ensure the gop does not walk out of the oval office without some form of accountability. I say 30 years each for bush/cheaney/card/ armitage and so on.

That will make sure this never happens again. The treason that is. The selling out of the country for betterment of a party that can be voted out at any time by the people. The will of the people. A concept that is foreign to the empirical slave followers of the gop.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

does anyone know when Gore would make his endorsement, if indeed he does? If he endorses this fall, before the voting starts, I would guess he would go with Obama. However, if he waits until after Iowa (which might be too late already?) he might go with Edwards, who I think is going to come on strong in Iowa and NH, and then - right before Feb. 5 - he will be looking a lot more electable and might gain support. Of course, if Obama is strong 2nd (to either Edwards or Hillary) in one or both, he will be a lot stronger going into 02.05. then again, if lylepink is right, we may be looking at a Hillary juggernaut. lyle, I say respectfully, I don't think that will happen - I think it may not be over until the spring - but how do I know?

Posted by: Bokonon | September 10, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Gore, like Oprah, like the rest of the flavor of the month club, will endorse Obama. This will save President Clinton from having to reserve seats for him at her inauguration.

Posted by: Paul Donnelly | September 10, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

However I can gurantee one thing for sure No Giuliani or Romney or Fred or Hillary or edwards or Obama will get elected in 2008, Anyone dares to bet me...?? or Anyone has the guts.. Bring dem on...!!

Posted by: TedBundy | September 10, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I don't mean this in a pejorative way or anything, but did anyone else notice in the bin laden video how much he echoed sentiments from the left when it came to the war. It's like he is trying to anticipate which way the country is leaning politically and crafting his message accordingly. Politically I fall into the Lieberman camp, so I was wondering what the anti-war democrats think about Bin Laden using their arguments.

Posted by: Bin Laden Video Comment | September 10, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

It looks like a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation. Try looking beyond the "trees" in the foreground. Lots can happen before the first primary. Both the Big H and Obama have taken questionable funding. They could well duke it out leaving damaged goods on both sides. That would leave Edwards who will do well in Iowa but has big gaps elsewhere. He will likely disappear in a puff of hairspray!

Gore should wait for the perfect moment, that lull in the campaign, and endorse Richardson who could score a series of 2nd places and a first in Nevada. He is the consensus candidate with both foreign and domestic experience. Hey, it could happen!

Posted by: ArizonaJon | September 10, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey Bush used to do cocaine , he was a drug addict, alcoholic, Pervert, Screwed up Frat boy, Now he is The Most wanted muderer who Killed and still killing Innocent people. The white house is full of thugs from Enron, So what if Gore's son smoked whatever he wants . That will not affect Gore's Love Service, dedication for this country.. Bush used to be a Dop Dealer Dude.. Back off Republican Criminals.

Posted by: Hillary | September 10, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

5,258,726 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And, Bush won the Florida electoral votes. Whether by 600 votes, or by the 5-4 vote. Nothing is going to change that!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Why can't people who work hard in this country attain citizenship? Maybe not only by military service (a little Starship Troopers for me"

iT'S FUNNY you mention that JAson. That is the gop plan. Only certain people should be "citizens". All citizens should be gop members. Fascism in action.

If the military brainwashes young men to become republicans and if military can only be citizens, then what do you have? A country dominated by clones, the borg, people that will take orders before thinking about it.

When I was in basic training we were allowed to read a couple books. We had the military training book. With military laws and duties. We could read religous books such as the bible quran torah etc. No other reading were allowed. But our training capt gave us one other book we were allowed to read and have. Do you know what that book was?

Can you guess. Starship troopers. Why? Read above. Only gop'ers are allowed freedom in this country. oinly gop'ers are citizens. In a gop madmans brain, anyway.


Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

No Edward or Hillary or Obama or richardson will get elected into the White House in 2008... Don't hold your Breath Please and don't waste your time and people's money..

Posted by: Kerry | September 10, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I gurantee 20000000% the Gop will not win the election in 2008.. Anyone wants to bet?? whether it's Giliuani or Romney or Fred Thomson

Posted by: DEan1 | September 10, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Gore will endorse Obama unless the Edwards campaign grows legs. Gore is a better issue advocate than elected office holder, but unlike Edwards, he guessed right on his issue, so he could also be an appealing vp candidate. I think Edwards (like many people) did not think the US economy could continue to grow the way it has, so he put all his eggs in the What about the poor? basket. As the economy has done better than expected, the Edwards campaign has done worse than expected, which in turn has helped Obama. While this discussion is interesting, it is irrelevant unless Hillary gets caught tapping toes in a restroom before the election. She will get the nomination, Gore endorsement or no.

Posted by: Dave S | September 10, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

'It seems Osama and Obama have much in common. an osama/obama ticket would suit the Dems perfectly.'

I see zouk is back with his blatant idiocy. LOL at the 'Republican women like men' -- too bad the Republican men like men.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

25,000 Illegal votes (absente ballet votes) were cast by republican right wing thugs in Florida in nov 2000, Black people were intimidated and threatened and disenfranchised in november 2000............. The dady Bush's appointed Supreme court Judges appointed Bush to the white house..

Evidence on th Video

Posted by: hillary1 | September 10, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

"In California, undoc kids who score in the top 4% and get into the UC system could get onto the valued citizenship track, if they keep up the good work. In Texas it would be the top 10% who get into the UT system.
Work visa folks who enlist and serve in the military for many years honorably might get special consideration from me, the ultimate fair judge." -Mark

This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Why can't people who work hard in this country attain citizenship? Maybe not only by military service (a little Starship Troopers for me), but working in other sectors, getting an adult education, doing community service, etc. Imagine if you developed some key benchmarks for citizenship and allowed 10,000 new citizens per year among those previously undocumented. A family or individual who met the benchmarks would have a sort of resume. Those best suited to take fullest advantage of the benefits of citizenship get them. You could have special consideration for undocs who get an education and use their visa's to work in needed fields, like teaching and nursing.

What are people afraid of if we allow more immigrants voting rights? A latino majority electing latino legislators? Oh, no! That would...a democracy! Terrifying.

Seriously, that way of thinking requires that we believe that people of a given color/ethnicity will only elect people of that same color/ethnicity. I'm sure we all know of at least one district or city in our home states or nearby states that has a representative of a different color than the majority of his/her voting population. I can think of a couple of former mayors of Baltimore and some Delegates in the MD legislature right off the top of my head.

Posted by: JasonL | September 10, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

And gore won the elction. What went on after was highway robbery. "If you can't win cheat". Gop model.

The clinton impeachment was gop justification to STEAL the government. What happened after the 00 elections was the practice (of stealing elections).

And the patriot act and stealing iraq oil is WHY tehy did it. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The american people are on to you gop. The only thing saving your party right now are spinless democrats that are scared to go for the jugular. The dem's are the only thing keeping you gop'ers around. You better show some respect. If the dem's wanted to they could stamp out the republcian party, if they so choose.

Luck for the gop we are no longer a free country. Lucky for the gop we are a one party system. Two sides of teh same coin. If there was another (real)party in power both current parties would be gone right now.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Since his son's arrest it's apparant that Al Gore is not running.

Endorsements count very little anymore - can anyone name ten endorsements so far this year?

Avoiding the current senators who voted for the Iraq war he is left with few choices. Obama is the only top tier candidate and will probably get the nod from Gore by default (winnable??).

If "Big Al" is smart he will stay out of the endorsement game and maintain his position as the 2nd Ballot choice at the convention.

Posted by: Peter L. | September 10, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Considering Gore's newfound "hipness" (can't believe Gore and hipness can legitimately appear in the same sentence), I think he's going to go with Barack. Gore's trying to speak for a younger generation, and Barack is the best representation for that. And besides, they have the same alma mater!

And as far as significance, I don't really think it matters that much, but 2004 is certainly not indicative of 2008. The war is much more unpopular now across all demographics- and Gore is on the right side of that issue. 2004 was also pre-An Inconvenient Truth and Gore's newfound pop celebrity. In 2004, he was still an obscure has been who was still bitter about losing and could only get a few visiting professorships and speaking gig. His status and fate has certainly changed, especially amongst the base.

But, I'm still a guy hoping against hope that Gore decides to run!

Posted by: Chilidogger | September 10, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"Monday September 10, 2007 09:25 EST
A one-day guide to war supporters and their enablers
As war cheerleaders and their enablers lay the groundwork for the glorious testimony of Gen. Petraeus, it is hard to recall a day so suffuse with war propaganda. Reviewing just a few selected samples illustrates how fact-free is the campaign to prolong this war. And the activities of today provide a very vivid guide for identifying those most responsible for launching this war and enabling its endless continuation, and for understanding how they behave.

Let us begin with left-wing, liberal war opponent Michael O'Hanlon, who today finds a home to write about the war in National Review -- long renown for publishing the works of anti-war liberals like O'Hanlon -- alongside Fred Kagan, Mark Steyn, Byron York and John Boehner. O'Hanlon, as usual, predicates his argument on the homage he pays to Gen. Petraeus, declaring in the first sentence: "General Petraeus is a straight shooter who does not and will not cook the books."

Citing his fellow surge advocate, NYT "reporter" Michael Gordon (who, in turn, featured O'Hanlon as his principal "expert" in his pro-war front page article this weekend), O'Hanlon argues:

Petraeus will argue that the overall situation has improved substantially this year. He will be right to do so, based on virtually any primary-source data I have seen.
Identically, John McCain and Joe Lieberman said in a Wall St. Journal Op-Ed today that it is "undeniable" that "facts on the ground in Iraq have improved."

Perhaps O'Hanlon, McCain and Lieberman have not "seen" this "primary-source data":

Seven out of 10 Iraqis believe the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad and Anbar province has made security worse in those areas, and nearly as many say their own lives are going badly, according to a new poll conducted by ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp., and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.

The poll reveals a disconnect between U.S. commanders' view of a steadily improving situation in Iraq and a bleaker outlook among Iraqis. . . . Fewer than one-quarter of Iraqis report that things in Iraq are going well, down from 35 percent in March, while the number of people who expect conditions to improve in the next year has declined precipitously.

When determining whether "progress" is being made, fewer things could be less relevant to our genius war scholars and our DC Establishment pundits than whether the Iraqis whom we have Liberated actually say they are more secure. Far more trustworthy are American War Supporters and Members of Congress who take week-long, highly planned jaunts to Iraq, spend every night protected in the Green Zone, spend their days talking to American military officials, and then return and declare Iraq to be Much Safer. That is much more reliable. But whatever else is true, the viewpoint of actual Iraqi is fairly compelling "primary source data" suggesting that Gen. Petraeus' sunny claims about Iraq are anything but "undeniable."

O'Hanlon and his friends -- in order to create a fictitious appearance of consensus concerning Gen. Petraeus' claims -- are deliberately ignoring all sorts of other evidence undermining Petraeus' assertions, literally pretending it does not exist, such as this superb article in the Washington Post several days ago by Karen DeYoung, which documented:

The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends. . . .

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Statements from O'Hanlon, Lieberman and McCain that Petraeus' claims of improved security are "undeniable" are patently false. Most Iraqis deny them, as do actual experts who are not invested in perpetuating the war and whose credibility has not been destroyed by years of false statements concerning the war.

Speaking of which, O'Hanlon -- in demanding that Gen. Petraeus be blindly deemed a "straight shooter" -- simply ignores the obviously critical fact that Petraeus has been making the same exact claims about Great Progress in Iraq for four straight years, only for events to prove those statements repeatedly to be inaccurate. O'Hanlon does, however, address one of the most incriminating actions Petraeus undertook -- namely, publishing a highly controversial and highly optimistic Op-Ed in The Washington Post just weeks before the 2004 Presidential election, in which Petraeus made one optimistic claim after the next about Iraq, proclaiming:

Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up. . . .

Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue.

O'Hanlon acknowledges Petraeus' Op-Ed, but literally decrees -- with no rationale -- that it should not be used to treat Petraeus' motives and statements with skepticism:
Some of Petraeus's critics will argue, as they already have, that he wrote an oped in the fall of 2004 that was too optimistic about the training of Iraqi Security Forces then -- and too closely timed to the American elections that November. To them, that suggests he was and is acting as an agent of White House spin. That oped may in retrospect have been somewhat too optimistic; I was wrong then myself in believing that a very vigorous training program we had created for the Iraqis would suffice to create a professional, dependable force. . . .

However, a possible misjudgment on this matter hardly shows Petraeus to be a spinmeister. If anything, it shows him to be human.

Absolutely. That Petraeus merely published an inaccurately optimistic picture of the war in Iraq at exactly the time -- and in exactly the venue -- most politically beneficial to President Bush's re-election prospects proves nothing. It certainly doesn't mean Petraeus' identical claims of Progess three years later should be viewed with skepticism. No -- O'Hanlon movingly tells us -- it only proves that Petraeus is "human." O'Hanlon here is invoking one of Washington's most cherished rules: for War Supporters, there is never accountability for their "mistakes" nor for their endless record of inaccurate statements.

And then, finally, we arrive at the co-dependent partners of our propagandizing war supporters -- the frightened, mindless Democratic Beltway class, always ably represented by The Washington Post's David Ignatius. They, too, are out in full force today, playing their war enabling role.

Ignatius bases his entire column on the trite and fact-free claims of an anonymous "leading Democratic Party strategist." Both Ignatius and his cowardly anonymous friend believe that President Bush is on his way to doing what Democrats want -- "announcing that he will begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq this year" -- and the primary challenge for Democrats is not to get in the way of the President by giving into their loudmouth radical base and thereby constraining the Leader. Here is the rationale for this brilliant position:

That's the smart Democratic strategy, he argues, to take credit for altering the course of the war. "We have to stop saying we're going to end the war, because we can't," the strategist cautions. But he fears that congressional Democrats, pushed by an angry base, will continue to schedule votes for funding cutoffs and troop-withdrawal dates. That may appeal to the base but not to the country as a whole, the strategist fears.
Do Democratic Beltway "strategists" ever do anything but "fear"? And is it even possible that Ignatius and the anonymous strategist coward hiding behind him actually believe this? For a full year now at least, one poll after the next has proven exactly the opposite to be true: namely, the overwhelming majority of Americans, not merely the radical unserious filthy leftist Move-On/Kos hippies, want a mandatory timetable for withdrawal.

The new poll from the NYT just this morning (.pdf) is just the latest example, demonstrating that Americans overwhelmingly (57-38%) believe "the United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008." How is it possible for Ignatius to continue to be published asserting that only the "base," but not the country as a whole, favors this?

The common thread uniting war supporters like O'Hanlon and Lieberman and their enablers like Ignatius and his anonymous friends is a willful ignoring of any facts that interrupt their self-glorying Seriousness festivals. And along those lines, Ignatius, as he typically does, reveals the true illness underlying our Establishment's behavior here, as he describes the real group that ought to be Listened To:

Centrist Democrats and Republicans -- "the responsibles," as Charles Peters of Washington Monthly likes to call them. . .
This group is "responsible" all right -- responsible for the greatest strategic disaster in America's history, the endless empowerment of the President who unleashed it, and a disgustingly self-serving campaign to deny reality and ensure the war's continuation all in order to salvage their own egos and reputations. Today provides a truly superb picture of the fact-free warmongers, ideologues and extremists -- and their enabling Serious "centrist" comrades -- who are "responsible" for the grave damage done to our country over the last six years, with no end in sight.

-- Glenn Greenwald"

Big girls don't cry. Read or ignore. But no whining today, please.

Posted by: rufus (greenwald) | September 10, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

JEP, you're changing the subject. You said that it wouldn't have helped Gore to have worked with Clinton, because Clinton voters wouldn't have voted for Bush. I brought up a scenario in which some Clinton voters, lacking a Clinton endorsement, stayed home. And now you say that nothing Clinton did would have made any difference because the Republicans cheated anyway.

Gore lost the election. You can say he lost because of cheating and fraud, but the end result was that he lost. Fraud is only possible when the difference between the candidates is small. Even by the most Gore-friendly count of the Florida votes, the margin was razor-thin. A few hundred or thousand votes would have made a big difference for Gore, even if there was still fraud, because it would have made the fraud less meaningful.

Do you really believe that not a single Democratic voter stayed home because they weren't excited about Gore?

Posted by: Blarg | September 10, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Andy R; you should be an historian, this a very concise description of a very complex party. And I agree completely with this assessment, it may seem like a simplification to some, but it really displays the Democrat's "narrow stance" versus the Republican's wide one.

We may have a bigger tent here on the Democratic side, but our ideological stance is noticibly less wide.

Chris, you should believe and embrace that paragraph, it's about as complete as anything we've read here.

"Also it should be noted that the whole Gore hates Clinton thing goes back to the fact that there are two groups of power brokers in the Democratic party, the Clinton/Kennedy group and the Jimmy Carter/Dean group. Gore is a Carter guy which is why Clinton signed him on in the first place. Obama and Edwards are both Carter guys too although Obama is really more of a Dean guy."

I have to add, though, that the ideological spread between these two groups (I call it the DNC vs the DLC) is not nearly as critical as the divide between the big money Republicans and the working class Republicans, best exemplified in the immigration debacle now going on in Congress.

Posted by: JEP | September 10, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I would think Gore would endorse anyone except Hillary. There is a dislike between these two families that goes back prior to 2000. I may be off a bit on the endorsement, but I think it could work both ways, in that Bubba is the most liked pol in the world, and he will have a great influence on the folks that would like to have a simular next eight years as they had when he was in office.

Posted by: lylepink | September 10, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

OH. and zouk. How is Kim doing these days, after all?

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"In one sense, it is quite unhealthy in a democracy for such a large majority of Americans to so distrust the political and media establishment that they even believe in advance that war reports from our leading General will be nothing more than self-serving and misleading propaganda. But in another, more important sense, when a democracy's political establishment becomes as rotted and deceitful and corrupt as ours has become -- enabling the most unpopular President in modern American history to continue what is so blatantly a senseless war for years and years, in complete defiance of what Americans want -- the one encouraging sign is that a majority realizes how corrupt our establishment is and has stopped believing anything they say. "

Nobody but dittoheads beleive you people anymore zouk. You will need a lot more than you 10% to win this time. More people are voting now. The more peopel taht vote, the better for the dem's and worse for the GOP. You do succed it getting out your vote zouk. I'll give you that. Why though? Fear hate intolerance.

When more people vote, liek this year, the gopwill lsoe every time

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza,

You are out to lunch and there you should stay. Your comment, "Gore largely ran away from the Clinton legacy, a tactic that ultimately failed."

If there is one thing that kept Al Gore from becoming President in 2000, it was he didn't start to distance himself from Clinton legacy soon enough.

In response to the questions you asked, at least to the first question, " much does a Gore endorsement matter...?" I think it will help the candidate Gore endorses a little bit, and it certainly won't hurt.

Your second question is a set-up! You are implying that an endorsement by Gore is the kiss of a political death.

Why are you toying with us? Go ahead and say are a Hillary man just like the majority of those who are the Post's liberal columnists.

If there is anyone that can delivery the kiss of political death to Democrats in 2008, it will be the nomination of Senator Clinton as the party's candidate.

Posted by: Vunderlutz | September 10, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

You gotta do somethign Zouk. You can't talk about your candidates and the issues. You can't talk about truth and what is really happening. So do what you do yoou fascist you. Divide and conquer. Lie spin and discredit. Teh way of zouk. It's all you got. Must be a sad lonely existance.

Your party is about to be voted out for a generation. No amount a tim mcveigh antics will give you power this time. No number of BJ hearing wll save you this time. Nobody beleives your propoganda "news" is legitimate anymore.

What will you do zouk? Fade to black? Don't do that zouk. Don't leave this world. Rather than hating everything and hiding in a cave. Why not join humanity? The only thing stopping you from joining reality, is you zouk. Realese your fear and hate. Stop the charade. We are one nation. Stop destroying it.

You fascist you.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

to the zook clone at 12:36 PM
It seems Osama and yo mama have much in common.

Both should have aborted something before it got too big...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Can I just say to all the reasonble people on this blog:

I am very happy to see that everyone is ignoring both the Rufii and the anon poster. They have now resorted to either talking to each other or cutting and pasting random articles, which are very easy to skip over.

Excellent work, let's keep it up. It got rid of Che, and I'm guessing they will eventually tire of being ignored as well.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Gore endorsing Hillary is too far outside the realm of possibility. He could probably get a pretty good deal for himself or his cause in exchange, given what a big deal the rapprochement would be.

Absent that, Dodd wouldn't surprise me at all. He likes him and his environmental proposal...and he'd never be blamed for that loss.

Posted by: Joe | September 10, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"if he endores obama, he's totally sold out.
obama's the ultimate political climber who doesn't and hasn't done anythiing"

sold out to what exactly. Idealism? Lies and spin. What does obama have that gore would be "selling out" to him. Popularity? The will of the people? Ok. Gore is selling out to the will of the people :). I'd like an answer if it's not to much trouble.

He will endores Obama. Hopefully he joins the ticket.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

no, republican men just have a wide stance!!!!!! sheesh....

Posted by: brokenlinks | September 10, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Bush, we fear, isn't looking for the truth, only for ways to confound the public, scare Democrats into dropping their demands for a sound exit strategy, and prolong the war until he leaves office. At times, General Petraeus gives the disturbing impression that he, too, is more focused on the political game in Washington than the unfolding disaster in Iraq. That serves neither American nor Iraqi interests.

Mr. Bush, deeply unpopular with the American people, is counting on the general to restore credibility to his discredited Iraq policy. He frequently refers to the escalation of American forces last January as General Petraeus's strategy -- as if it were not his own creation. The situation echoes the way Mr. Bush made Colin Powell -- another military man with an overly honed sense of a soldier's duty -- play frontman at the United Nations in 2003 to make the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Bush cannot once again subcontract his responsibility. This is his war.

General Petraeus has his own credibility problems. He overstepped in 2004 when he published an op-ed article in The Washington Post six weeks before the election. The general -- then in charge of training and equipping Iraq's security forces -- rhapsodized about "tangible progress" and how the Iraqi forces were "developing steadily," an assessment that may have swayed some voters but has long since proved to be untrue.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"If that happened with a few hundred votes in Florida, it would have made the difference."

Not with that floating decimal point their voting fraud created.

Don't you get it?

GORE WON! But he didn't get to be President because the neocons wanted their no-bid wars. And they accomplished that by gaming the Florida elections.

The public wasn't the issue, it was Jeb Bush's Florida Republican Party that determined that outcome, not Gore's relationship with the Clintons.

My point about Gore and Clinton is that, too many pundits blogpiled on that as an explanation for Gore's loss, that it has become a political urbgan legend.

BUT GORE WON! so how does Clinton's influence have anything to do with Gore's loss WHEN HE WON!

It is just another way to explain away the big lie, blame Gore for dissing Clinton, not Bush and the neocons for stealng the election.

Posted by: JEP | September 10, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"Republican Women Like Men."

... and so do Republican MEN!

Posted by: . | September 10, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"One poll after the next for at least two years has found that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the war and want it to end. But Matalin, a Serious Member in Good Standing of our Beltway Establishment, can go on Meet the Press, sitting there with Tim Russert and her husband and others, and spout lies like this about what Americans think about the war because the D.C. Establishment wants to believe that they are trusted and respected. Matalin also said this about what "Americans believe":

It does not comport with the critics of the president who say progress is being made, including front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and, and Barack Obama. So people are very nuanced about this. They understand not only that it can be won, but that it must be won. They understand the consequences of defeat. Further, two thirds of them trust -- and nobody more than the generals -- when Petraeus and Crocker come and give their report, that will be the positive time.
These are total falsehoods. Yet The D.C. Establishment, including Democratic Congressional leaders, are wedded to the premise that Gen. Petreaus must not be challenged, that we are making Progress due to the Surge, and that -- whatever else is true -- compelled withdrawal (i.e., withdrawal before George W. Bush wants to withdraw) is irresponsible and dangerous. "

When are these lies going to be shot down. how long can these peopel lie to the elderly dailt without recourse. That is these people's only "base" left. The out of touch. The eldery, whose world is changing and closing around tehm. Rather than chaging WITH the world they would rather fear the world and SABOTAGE the growth. I see you gop. Others do to. YOu cannot lie to the elderly everyday and get away with it. It will catch up to you eventually. And those that are lied to WILL become much more angry and agaisnt you, when they realize they are being lied to.

Not sure if we're there yet. But soem eldery gop'ers are, like I said, sabotaging the country rather than changing with it. Fear of change. Fear of teh future. You cannot stop the future. You cannot stop change. no matter if you and your people want to live in a cave of willful ignorance your whole life. Others don't. Change with the world GOP. Change, ro the world will pass you by. John Wayne is dead ( he ate himself to death). Elvis no longer lives ( took to much DRUGS.)

Join reality. We are waiting for you. Stop the sabotage.

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Iraqi Civilian Casualties: 2007 More Deadly Than 2006

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

drindl writes
"we have a considerable number of 'knowledge workers' who have been displaced because foreigners from a country with a lower standard of lving will work for less, so American workers will always be at a disadvantage against people from poorer countries."

In the spirit of free enterprise & competition, I think we all benefit when the pool of competition is widened. That means that if a Bangladeshi can do my job better than I can, I'd better figure out a way to add value that (s)he can't.

I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by not educating our future work force well enough to compete on that level, but that doesn't refute the basic merit of the argument.


Posted by: bsimon | September 10, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

bsimon's comment about knowledge workers is generally, unfortunately, correct.

drindl, I do not want to give the vote to persons who came here illegally because it cheapens citizenship. I do think we gain from having a path for legal immigrants to become citizens and that we always have.
My guess is that the nation would gain more from a merit based system than a family based system, but I am not completely sold on either being exclusive.

JEP, you are surely right in saying that "residency" includes a different bundle of rights from citizenship. I cannot tell what you have in mind, though. Might be interesting.

I have derailed this thread long enough. Sorry. Gore will probably pick someone who commits to his agenda, don't you think?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 10, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"Stop Global Whining" and "Republican Women Like Men."

bumperstickers to consider

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

But it really is a good question as to why the Beltway establishment isn't pointing out that John McCain regularly says things that are, simply put, crazy.

'Today, leading Democratic presidential candidates vote against funding for our troops engaged in war in Afghanistan and Iraq," McCain said in a speech to the California Republican Party convention. "Today, leading Democratic presidential candidates question whether there is a war on terror, offer to enter into unconditional negotiations with our worst enemies, and talk about countering the forces of radicalism by advocating surrender to them in Iraq.'

First of all, McCain's accusation, that Democrats want to 'surrender' to the forces of radicalism, is remarkable for its sheer extremist bent. The only possible meaning is that a policy change in which the US forces no longer occupy Iraq indefinitely is somehow treasonous. The vast majority of the US public disagrees with this assessment, which is increasingly part of a fringe corner of a lunatic right-wing world.

The Beltway world isn't bothering to incorporate this stunning assertion, repeated endlessly by various right-wing bloggers, into their narrative. John McCain, far from a fringe candidate who rhetorically associates with some of the most extreme elements of American culture and seeks an indefinite occupation of a foreign country, is somhow a mainstream Presidential candidate, perhaps a reformer, a maverick, a straight-shooter, but always an honorable guy.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

....give me your poor, your tired....oh no, they're scaling our new physical barrier, SHOOT TO KILL!!!! Got'em! whew, thank goodness god and righteousness is on our side.

Posted by: brokenlinks | September 10, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

if he endores obama, he's totally sold out.
obama's the ultimate political climber who doesn't and hasn't done anythiing

Posted by: barb | September 10, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

How dare you people blog about illegal immagration and not the topic:).

I thought I was the bad guy for doing that. Hypocrite gop'ers you. :) jk

I think you are just scared of what I'm saying and trying to silence me. Why?

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

What ar eyou afraid of gop? Truth?

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore will be running for president in '08. He's smart enough to realize this is his last shot at greatness and he's not going to pass it up.

A Gore-Bloomberg ticket would be unbeatable!

Posted by: George K. | September 10, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

It seems Osama and Obama have much in common. an osama/obama ticket would suit the Dems perfectly.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Rations have been reduced by 35 percent, and of the 5 million Iraqis who depend on them (about a fifth of the country), two million are having trouble receiving the rations because they live in high-risk areas. Now the news is that with Ramadan looming, where square meals at sunset and in the morning before dawn are all that keep people going during the fast, the rations may not be available in nearly the required amounts. Iraqi foodstuffs are increasingly threadbare or rotten, and delivering the rations to risky areas is very difficult. (Imagine the difficulty in feeding the 200,000 Fallujans, 80 percent of whom are unemployed, given that no one is allowed to drive vehicles in that city).

And so is this:

" . . . Oxfam estimates that 28 percent of Iraqi children are malnourished, compared with 17 percent before the U.S. invasion. . ."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin asks
"bsimon, why not reward them with work visas?"

Good question. I guess I'm assuming citizenship would be a more powerful incentive.

Posted by: bsimon | September 10, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"Yet the "debate" taking place in the Beltway regarding Iraq could not be any further removed from the views most Americans hold, and the war-continuing actions of our political class over the next several weeks will be -- yet again -- in complete defiance of the pervasive belief in this country that it is long past time to end the war. Just as they do with regard to the realities in Iraq, our political class just pretends that these facts about American public opinion are not true. As but one particularly egregious (though representative) example, this is what Fred Thompson advisor Mary Matalin said last week on the Meet the Press:

MS. MATALIN: Yes, because what we're seeing for the first time last week, is a majority of people now support and believe that the war can be won.
Matalin's claim that a majority "believe that the war can be won" is extremely dubious (the Post-ABC Poll found the opposite: that a plurality believes the U.S. will lose the war; only a minority (39%) believes we will win). But Matalin's claim that "a majority of people now support" the war is just an outright lie. "

LAst one. This is telling. If the gop disagrees with your points. Not only are your point "invalid" but you are a liar. A propogandist tryign to "mislead" the people. While the opposite is true. If you lie everyday all day gop, does that make you a liar? If you are a "christian" and you lie all day everyday, including to yourself, are you really a "christian"? What does it mean to be a christian?

How do you gop'ers navigate these treacherous personal waters? How do you people live with yourselves. How many more deaths does the hateful pit in your stomach need to be fufilled?

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces,
and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers.
In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses
plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start,
yet failed to inform me until it was too late.
Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command
to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn,
do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
- Robert E. Lee, 1863

works for pols too!

Posted by: NO MATTER HOW MUCH THINGS CHANGE.... | September 10, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- I also think that we are unlikely to ever get hardened IDs -the anti-government wingers [black helicopter crowd] will just not allow it. They don't want to register their guns, and they sure down't want biometric ID.

Posted by: drindl | September 10, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

In an ideal world, Gore will endorse Hillary. In the new Clinton administration, Gore would be appointed the EPA Administrator. Such a move would give him the platform to really make a difference on global warming. It would also help repair our badly frayed relations with our European allies by putting a significant politician in charge of an important area. Gore's experience in the Senate should help make sure that his ideas get enacted in law (as necessary) and that they get sufficient funds.

Posted by: Greg | September 10, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"The majority of Americans have emphatically rejected the Beltway P.R. campaign of the last several months, and are as opposed more than ever before to the war. Perhaps most remarkably, in light of the bipartisan canonization rituals to which we have been subjected, a strong majority (53-39%) believes that Gen. Petreaus' report "will try to make things look better than they really are" (rather than "honestly reflect the situation in Iraq").

Moreover, huge majorities continue to believe that the war was not worth fighting (62-36%) and that the U.S. "is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq" (60-36%). Only a small minority (28%) believe the Surge has made the situation in Iraq better, while vast majorities believe it has made no difference (58%) or has made the situation worse (12%). And a sizable plurality continues to believe the U.S. is losing the war (48-34%).

Posted by: greenwald | September 10, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"Sunday September 9, 2007 07:57 EST
The D.C. establishment versus American public opinion
(updated below)

The Washington Establishment has spent the last several months glorifying Gen. David Petraeus, imposing the consensus that The Surge is Succeeding, and most importantly of all, ensuring that President Bush will not be compelled to withdraw troops from Iraq for the remainder of his presidency. The P.R. campaign to persuade the country that the Surge is Succeeding has been as intense and potent as any P.R. campaign since the one that justified the invasion itself. While this campaign has worked wonders with our gullible media stars and Democratic Congressional leadership, it has failed completely with the American people.

Ever since the Surge was announced (and allowed) back in January, Conventional Beltway Media Wisdom continuously insisted that September was going to be the Dramatic Month of Reckoning, when droves of fair-minded and election-fearing Republicans finally abandoned the President and compelled an end to the war. But the opposite has occurred.

Democratic Congressional leaders -- due either to illusory fears of political repercussions and/or a desire that the war continue -- seem more supportive than ever of the ongoing occupation (or at least more unwilling than ever to stop it). They are going to do nothing to mandate meaningful troop withdrawal. Most Republicans are hiding behind the shiny badges of Gen. Petraeus and his typically sunny claims about Progress in Iraq, and they, too, are as unified as ever that we cannot end our occupation.

None of that is notable or surprising to anyone other than our nation's media stars. It has been depressingly predictable (and predicted) for months that Petreaus would descend on Washington in September, hail the Great Progress we are making, and the entire D.C. Establishment -- and more than enough members of both parties -- would meekly fall into line and support whatever scheme prevailed at the time for ensuring that we stayed in Iraq through the end of the Bush presidency. The notion of the "Moderate Congressional Republican" who will stand up to the President has long been an absurd Beltway myth, as was the expectation that Democrats in Congress would ever force the President to end the war.

But what is notable about all of this, if not surprising as well, is that the overwhelming majority of the American people now harbor such intense distrust towards our political and media elite that they are virtually immune to any of these tactics. Several polls over the past month have revealed that most Americans do not trust Gen. Petraeus to give an accurate report about Iraq. And a newly released, comprehensive Washington Post-ABC News poll today starkly illustrates just how wide the gap is between American public opinion and the behavior of our political establishment.

How can anyone with a spine vote democrat? How can anyone with a brian/heart vote republican? What are we to do? What happened to our great nation? Who ddid this to us? The R's or the d's? Or both?

Why not get a real thrid party to be the party of the people. Both current parties turned away from the people years ago

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Obama and Clinton both say they support a physical barrier along the Mexican/US border? Thus a Obama/Bush or Clinton/Bush pairing seems more likely (kinda kidding). I still like the idea of a Gore/Edwards ticket.

Posted by: brokenlinks | September 10, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"When the surge was announced, the White House said, 'wait til the summer.' And as the summer approached, the White House said, 'wait til September.' Well, now that this much overrated September is here, they cry, 'wait til next year.' The only real mystery about President Bush's September decision has been what new excuse he would offer to justify staying the same old deadly course. And as the American people have seen through the duplicity of each and other excuse, the President has returned to his original ploy: 9/11.

Coincidentally, just as we receive this report on the anniversary of 9/11. He claims that, quote, 'the same folks that are bombing in Iraq are the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.' That is false and he knows it's false."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

My thinking is that he Endorses Edwards but says nice things about Obama too. The endorsement would be HUGE for Edwards, because it would say to all of his supporters "look I am not running but I think this guy can win. And when he does he is going to owe me, and I will use that to get some real change in regards to the environment." It also will seriously increase his street cred with the progressive crowd.

Also it should be noted that the whole Gore hates Clinton thing goes back to the fact that there are two groups of power brokers in the Democratic party, the Clinton/Kennedy group and the Jimmy Carter/Dean group. Gore is a Carter guy which is why Clinton signed him on in the first place. Obama and Edwards are both Carter guys too although Obama is really more of a Dean guy.
Carter has already spoken very highly of Edwards and I think Gore will follow suit, with the understanding that Edwards (if he beats Hillary) will pick Obama as his running mate.

Posted by: Andy R | September 10, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Gore interviewed Edwards for VP in 2000 = but did not choose him partially for only 2 years of Senate experience.

This might make it hard to pick Obama given a similar resume.

However, there is only room for one anti-Hillary candidate. Edwards and Obama are splitting that vote. One needs to go for the other to have a realistic chance. Maybe Gore can help sling-shot one ahead...and only Obama has the backing, $, appeal to potentially beat Hillary.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Oh Loudon -- what's even better is that Craig is trying to stay in the Senate. Please stay, Larry!

Posted by: Jane | September 10, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

JEP, do you think it's possible that some Clinton supporters just didn't vote in 2000? Think about someone who loved Clinton but was lukewarm on Gore. (That's not far-fetched at all, considering how uncharismatic Gore was in 2000.) This person sees that Clinton doesn't campaign for Gore, so they decide not to vote for Gore either. They don't necessarily vote for Bush or Nader, but it's still a loss of a vote for Gore. If that happened with a few hundred votes in Florida, it would have made the difference.

Will, you think Gore would run as VP again? What would he possibly have to gain from doing that? Gore-Clinton is within the realm of possibility; Clinton-Gore is just insane.

Posted by: Blarg | September 10, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Gore's endorsement will matter more in 2008 than it will in 2004 because people actually listen to Gore now.

Posted by: Brendan | September 10, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

'Of course, regarding outsourcing, I think we should be educating our own better - so we have more local knowlege workers in the first place.'

While I agree with you, we have a considerable number of 'knowledge workers' who have been displaced because foreigners from a country with a lower standard of lving will work for less, so American workers will always be at a disadvantage against people from poorer countries.

Posted by: drindl | September 10, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Johnny Edwards. Why? Because its not worth wasting an opportunity every 4 years with embodied nepotism a shrill cackle.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Larry Craig and John Doolittle: The gifts that keep on giving!

Doolittle is just a penny-ante crook, but Craig is a GOP nightmare come true: A closet gay who engages in some incredibly vile acts, and apparently has been doing so since he was in college -- and it's all going to come out, including his fake marriage.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 10, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, why not reward them with work visas?
JasonL - I was for your position in the 80's but it totally backfired!
boko - in the meritocracy of my dreams, I would let undocs who really shine at something and live here a long time apply for green card and then citizenship. I would choose them my very own self. I would be completely fair. In California, undoc kids who score in the top 4% and get into the UC system could get onto the valued citizenship track, if they keep up the good work. In Texas it would be the top 10% who get into the UT system.
Work visa folks who enlist and serve in the military for many years honorably might get special consideration from me, the ultimate fair judge.

I know - that was a ridiculous exercise -
but while I do not know how to make the cut, maybe it could be done.

And I like your idea of encouraging the outsourcing to move [back] to Mexico to create jobs there - that was something Lloyd Bentsen pushed hard for in the 80s.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 10, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"maybe even Clinton-Gore 2008."

That case of the sillies is catching!!

You really think that after 8 years as VP to Bill, Al would sign up for the same job for Bill's wife?!? Ludicrous!

Posted by: bsimon | September 10, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Fundamentally, the Dean flame-out occurred substantially in the two weeks of January '04 preceding the Iowa caucuses. They had everything to do with actions and statements made at the time and in the past by Howard Dean, and not Al Gore. You cannot blame Dean's defeat on Gore's endorsement. The only thing to blame on Gore is perhaps either not announcing his endorsement later, or for endorsing Dean at all.

Prediction: If Gore endorses in '08, it will occur after X-mas, and will be a much bigger deal than '04. I could also easily see him following the firefighters example of making their endorsement irrelevant and and endorsing Dodd as a way of not offending the eventual nominee, and giving a boost to a friend, and bringing more attention to specific narrow policy issues.

Posted by: dry_fish | September 10, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"...(henceforth referred to as the "Gore-acle" in this space) ... Gore threw his weight (ahem) "

You are a jerk. And irresponsible.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon writes, "...I support citizenship for migrant workers if they already have family in the US....

What about the migrant worker who does NOT have family here or has no family at all?

Posted by: BDWESQTM | September 10, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cilizza -- I don't ever recall you making fun of any other candidate's appearance, even though Fred Thompson looks like a zombie and Rudy Guiliani looks like a rabid ferret. All you Beltway Bubbleheads transparently hate Gore and took every opportunity to trash him while he was running and still do, just like you either ignore/trash Edwards.

Posted by: Jane | September 10, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Look forward to no endorsements from Al Gore and a Clinton-Gore reconciliation, maybe even Clinton-Gore 2008. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.

Posted by: NewYorkWill | September 10, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"Someone has a serious case of the sillies. No one voted like that."

Oh, but the Clinton Dems went over to Bush because Gore wasn't respectful?

THAT'S a serious case of the sillies.

I would guess more Mccain Republicans voted for Gore because of Bush's dangerous circle of neocons than Clinton Democrats voted for Bush because of Gore's Clinton-dissing.

Sheer logic...

Posted by: JEP | September 10, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon writes
"I think that we should do sth to encourage those corps who are now outsourcing to India, Taiwan, Singapore, China etc. to put their overseas operations in Mexico and South America. That potentially might go at least a little way toward solving more than one problem at the same time -?"

It ain't that easy. Firstly, there's the education problem. The Mexican education system isn't producing 'knowledge workers' that could do the jobs that are going to India, Taiwan, etc. Secondly, as I understand it, the business environment in Mexico makes it tougher to start a new business there, so even if you can find a talent pool that could, say, staff a help desk, the red tape it takes to get up and running is prohibitive.

In the end though, I do agree with your larger point. We should be using some carrots and sticks on Mexico to get them to change their system so their citizens have good prospects for employment and survival at home. I think spending the 'fence' money in Mexico would be more effective & produce a long-term return, whereas a fence wouldn't be effective & is an ongoing cost.

Of course, regarding outsourcing, I think we should be educating our own better - so we have more local knowlege workers in the first place.

Posted by: bsimon | September 10, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

V. P Gore's endorsement of a candidate will carry as much weight and have as much effect as the Washington Post's endorsement of a candidate for the General Election.

Posted by: NonP | September 10, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I agree with what blarg and bokonon said as well, about the flip side, possible benefits of awarding citizenship. But I'm curious, why wouldn't you want them to get the vote? That doesn't sound like you.

By the way, CC -- you little tugboat, try looking in the mirror. Cheap shot about Gore... and he's got more hair than you, too.

Posted by: drindl | September 10, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Wow, bug typo in my last post...I don't think GORE will endorse Edwards.

Posted by: JasonL | September 10, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"Mark, I don't support citizenship for all illegal/undocumented immigrants."

We need to talk more about residency, not citizenship. And we need to differentiate between residency and citizenship.

Can't an immigrant be a resident of a state or a city, without having to achieve US Citizenship?

We cheapen our citizenship by making it too easy. But residency is much different, should be much less exclusiveand demanding on the individual.

Posted by: JEP | September 10, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

He'll endorse Edwards, I hope. I could be wrong, though it seems these two gentleman have the most in common. What I would of love to have seen, a Gore/Edwards ticket!

Posted by: brokenlinks | September 10, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I think most people stop throwing feces by the time they are in kindergarten... make that sandbox.

Posted by: xx | September 10, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

blarg, I pose that renewable work visas would protect their employment rights. I do not want them to get the vote.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 10, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

'Now that Osama Grecian Formula Bin Laden has endorsed Captain Planet's global warming platform, it would seem that the dems have a new ally in the race.'

I see 'proud' is here to bring the debate down to a kindergarten level...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

tHE COMMENTS ON GORE'S WEIGH ARE OUT OF LINE. bUT WHAT CAN THE GOP DO IF IT CAN'T MOKE PERSOANL THINGS LIKE THAT. tHEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING. tHEY CAN'T COMPETE WITH THEIR CANDIDATES AND IDEALS. tHIS YEAR ANYWAY. So waht do they do instead. Lie spin discredit. Divide and conquer. Talk about that which means nothing, like weight. What are their alternatives. Their party is a bout to be nutered for a generation

Posted by: RUFUS | September 10, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin-- mixed feelings about undocs. On the one hand, it seems to me counterproductive to reward people who have broken the law with citizenship... and it would seem to encourage more of the same. On the other hand, they are only here because people give them jobs. If there were no jobs, I doubt they'd keep coming. So I think cracking down on employers makes sense as a tactic-- I agree with you, there's not enough money in the world to build a fence that will keep out people who are determined to find what they think is a better life. And the length of the border, and the rugged terrain make it even less likely to work.

I do certainly think though, that security at both borders should be tightened, [we are probably in far more danger from the north as it's fairly easy for Pakistanis to get into Canada and that's currently where pretty much all terrorism is emanating from now] and that electronic sensors at specific intervals and more guards would be useful...

Of course, this is a much more complicated issue than the hardcore anti-immigrationists want to beleive. Already I've read a great many [bigger] farmers screaming about how they can't afford to pay what citizens will want to work for's true, if you live here, you can't live on what they pay undocs. So if we completely shift the paradigm prices on a lot of stuff, particularly food, will go up dramatically.

I also think the prospect of making them leave and come back [as with bush's bill] just seems silly.

Posted by: drindl | September 10, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that Obama will endorse Edwards. Edwards failed in '04 and I can't see him doing much better this year. Obama would seem to be a good choice for him, ideologically and pragmatically.

Mark, I don't see how we, as a nation of immigrants, can honestly bar anyone from gaining citizenship if they work hard enough for it. Saying that Jose-come-lately is only good enough for a work visa is just as silly, if not racist, as the round-em-up.

Posted by: JasonL | September 10, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"Gore may have actually picked up some votes from the right wingers of conscience because he avoided Bill."

Someone has a serious case of the sillies. No one voted like that.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 10, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I support citizenship for migrant workers if they already have family in the US. I support renewable green cards otherwise. I do not believe that there should be an automatic path to citizenship; nor do I believe it should be always + forever off the table. How do we make the cut? good question. Family ties, as I said, would be one way... but I guess I think that we should do sth to encourage those corps who are now outsourcing to India, Taiwan, Singapore, China etc. to put their overseas operations in Mexico and South America. That potentially might go at least a little way toward solving more than one problem at the same time -? Of course I am neither an economist nor a businessman, just an editor. What do those with more experience in business/finance think about that?

Posted by: Bokonon | September 10, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Gee, Chris, nice dig at Gore with the (ahem) about his weight... Last time I saw you on Hardball, you weren't exactly looking very svelt yourself.

As for Gore's endorsement, I would suspect Obama or Edwards. Gore is aware that the others are too far down to make any substantial move up the polls.

Dean doomed himself; Gore's endorsement wasn't going to save that.

The question should be - will Gore endorse Clinton in the general election? The answer there will be a resounding yes. The burying of the hatchet will be great political press and both Gore and Clinton team know that.

Posted by: corbett | September 10, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Gore-acle. I like that. Go Obama Gore 08'

Posted by: rufus | September 10, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"But I do not understand the rush to make citizenship a prize at the end of a gold rush that begins with illegally entering the country.... WHY?"

I would use citizenship as a carrot to entice people to rat out the enablers. Have you lived here & worked here peacefully for several years? If you can offer proof that your employer seeks out illegals, report them & stay, or risk getting deported when we eventually find you. If you can offer evidence that results in convictions in fraudulent document rings, you can stay; if we find you ourselves, you're outta here. If you report 'coyotes' that are smuggling others into the country, we'll let you stay; but you're on the next bus home if we find you ourselves first.

In pursuit of other criminals, our law enforcement system regularly offers plea bargains and other incentives to people who help convict the bigger criminals. Treat the undocumented worker problem the same way - if people are otherwise law-abiding (i.e. everything but being here in the first place), let them stay, if they help put the 'bigger' criminals away.

Posted by: bsimon | September 10, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

peter DC;

read my post about Gore and Clinton, and tell me how you come up with Gore losing votes because he refused to let Clinton co-opt his campaign?

Do you really believe those Clinton people voted for Bush instead of Gore because Gore "dissed" Clinton?

Ludicrous. This is another political urban legend with no logical legs.

Do you really believe that Gore lost Clinton supporters to Bush?

Just think about it...

Posted by: JEP | September 10, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Now that Osama Grecian Formula Bin Laden has endorsed Captain Planet's global warming platform, it would seem that the dems have a new ally in the race.

Gore's endorsement may be the death knell for the lucky recipient this year as well. But I disagree with Blarg...his non-endorsement of Hillary Clinton doesn't mean he thinks she wouldn't be a good presidnet, imo. It just means he still harbors all the animosity from before which he took very personally and he will probably never forgive the Clintons for harming his image.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Golgi, who do you think Gore should have endorsed in 2004, if not Dean? There weren't any good choices.

Mark, I don't support citizenship for all illegal/undocumented immigrants. But it would have certain benefits. If illegals were citizens, then they'd get the same legal protections as citizens. That means employers couldn't pay them less than minimum wage, helping to reduce the negative effect illegals have on wages. And they couldn't be payed in cash, so the government would get income taxes on their wages. If they were citizens, illegals wouldn't need to fear coming to the police to report crimes, as they currently do, which may result in a decrease in crime. There are problems with amnesty, but there would be some benefits also.

Posted by: Blarg | September 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"At least then Edwards might get some media coverage on TV!"

help us here, Chris, give us an honest appraisal.

My "media conspiracy theory" theory is that, like they did with Howard Dean, the wingnut media wants Edwards out of this race, particularly because he keeps reminding all us suckers in the middle class that we are not getting an even break.

The Edwards media blackout is so obvious it is blatant. But, curiously, in spite of that effort to reduce him to the lower tiers, Edwards is still here, he's still leading in Iowa and he is still the only Democrat who beats ALL the R's head to head on a weekly basis.

No doubt, they are starting to get worried, because if Edwards manages to win Iowa with his relatively meager funding, he will put a real kink in the poundit's "gospel according to cash money" and will threaten the MSM as the purveyor of all things political.

And what a wonderful day that will be, for all of us who are fed up with lies, half-truths, spin and punditry, when we need more than ever before, honesty, integrity and reliability, just plain TRUTH from our media, not propaganda.

But, since this IS a political blog, you do get a pass, Chris. We just expect the spin here.

It's you job.

Posted by: JEP | September 10, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it matters who Gore will endorse. The only real headline Gore could make is if endorses Hillary- which most people assume he won't.

Had Gore used Bill Clinton in 2002 he would now be President. Gore totally misread the reaction to Bill Clinton in the nation and made the mistake of trying to take credit for the Clinton policies while attacking the man. Clinton could have easily swung Florida to Gore by simply campaigning in a number of areas in South Florida.

Al Gore deserves the kudos he is now getting for his work on the environment but let's not forget his own view of himself as he recently stated, "One thing I realize is I am not a good politician". That is clearly true.

I think that people tend to make their own decisions on who they will vote for and that while endorsements are nice becasue they get newspaper and TV headlines - in the end they are not what makes a winner. Oprah's endorsement of Obama is nice but it won't translate into many votes and Gore's endorsement of someone won't either. Just ask Howard Dean what it did for him.

Posted by: peter dc | September 10, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

This past July I encountered Al and Tipper Gore in a bookstore in Nashville where their daughter was doing a book reading and signing. Al and Tipper have both slimmed down to "running weight." Regarding running for president Al gave his same noncommital response to my question about running. Tipper, out of ear shot of Al, said she will support whatever he decides. I have a gut sense that right now Al really wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize and actively running for president right now would be a significant barrier to that happening. Let's see what he does after the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is announced in the next month or two. I'm sure that in his heart he knows that he would be a better candidate and better president than anyone running right now. If he doesn't get into the race then I think he will endorse either Edwards or Obama. It only makes sense that he would not endorse Hillary given their history and he would not endorse someone with no chance of winning

Posted by: Gil | September 10, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: xx | September 10, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

George writes
"The left is behind Obama and the middle is behind Hillary."

I'm not convinced that their support can be characterized so simply.

Regarding Gore, predicting the endorsement of 'not Hillary' is the easy part. I'm not convinced he'd go for Edwards, though perhaps am clouding analysis with my own opinion of Edwards being an inappropriate choice. I suspect Gore will support Obama.

Posted by: bsimon | September 10, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Gore's endorsment is going going to be himself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Gore/Obama 2008 | September 10, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it matters who Gore endorses. Picking Dean was enough to convince me that Gore is not a good picker. For what it's worth, I support Obama.

Posted by: Golgi | September 10, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Gore won more popular votes than Geeorge W. Bush in 2000 even though lost the electoral vote due to that disaster in Florida. If I was a Democratic candidate, I would want Gore's endorsement.
As of the Clinton-Gore relationship, the public in 2000 had Clinton fatigue just like now when we are experiencing Bush fatigue. Gore was distancing himself from the Clintons just like the GOP are distancing themselves from Bush.

Posted by: Isiah | September 10, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse gore isn't svelte.

and chris cillizza is a pasty looking doughboy.

there, now we've made fun of chris' weight. he has a big forehead too. sucks to be balding.

now, let's get back to substantial things (commenters AND blog-meister)

Posted by: IMGoph | September 10, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Blarg, everything you said makes sense to me, but I never would have thought of it myself, perhaps because I have paid very little attention to Mr. Gore. Thanks.

I have been listening to the Homeland Security Committee this morning and the witnesses were reiterating the need for hardened I.D. that was called for by the 9-11 commission. I understand that the Ds last night all called for eventual citizenship for the undocs who come forward. I do not favor that position at all, but I could understand renewable work visas for those who come forward and are responsible workers, sponsored by their employers, after we have hardened IDs and better electronic surveillance at the borders. Anything beyond that seems to me to be counterproductive the way Raegan's amnesty was counterproductive. I know the conservative views on this and I think I share the more moderate conservative view of my classmate, Sen. Hutcheson. I think of the "long high fence roundemup" views as silly, if not racist. But I do not understand the rush to make citizenship a prize at the end of a gold rush that begins with illegally entering the country. I honestly want to hear from someone like you, Blarg, or Boko, or drindl [if you favor citizenship for undocs],


Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 10, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

What an absurd premise- who on earth in Iowa and New Hampshire is waiting on Al Gore before deciding who to vote for? Would that number be equal to, the same as, or exactly zero?

Primary endorsements matter only in terms of the money, notice and muscle that come with it. The governor of Iowa nets you all three. Oprah Winfrey gets you two. Gore? He gets you 24 hours of mixed press coverage- his very presence overshadows the actual endorsement. Half the story will be about Gore, not you. And another quarter will likely be about Clinton! What other endorsement makes you a bit player in your own story?

Really, the only person really helped by an en-Gore-sement, IMO, is Bill Richardson. He'd at least get a chance to credibly spin a few more "Is Richardson ready to surge to the front tier?" stories out of it.

Posted by: howlless | September 10, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

OOPS! forgot to sign that last one..

Posted by: JEP | September 10, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Gore, I think, will endorse Obama. He dislikes Hillary a great deal and knows that Obama is the one person in her league right now.

I don't think his endorsement will matter much. His endorsement wont matter because Obama is already appealing to that part of the party. The left is behind Obama and the middle is behind Hillary.

Gore's endorsement will just solidify Obama as the candidate for the left.

Posted by: George | September 10, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"a tactic that ultimately failed."

That is, if you forget about the Florida election scam.

Your version of history, Chris, is sadly confused.Gore's separation from Clinton was a statement of character on Gore's part. And it surely did not lose him votes to Bush.

Do you really think Gore LOST votes by avoiding Clinton?

Think about it Chris, do you really believe ANY of those Clinton Democrats you say Gore lost would have voted for Bush, instead of Gore, because Gore refused to lionize Clinton.

Ludicrous. Gore may have actually picked up some votes from the right wingers of conscience because he avoided Bill. I know more than one Republican who despised the Bushes in general and W in particular, they were McCain supporters who feared Bush and the neocons, for the very reasons we all do.

Bush and the neocons were going to take that election by hook or crook. And that is just what they did.

Gore did not lose because of Clinton, he lost because of republican cheaters like Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, Dizzy Dillespie and Jeb Bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Chris: I thought the crack about his weight was both in line and hilarious.

I think that Gore, as the former VP and P-Candidate, carries little endorsement weight, especially given the flame-out of his last endorsee.

But I think that Gore, the environmentalist, and man who many may think stayed out of the race so that he could "get things done" instead of playing politics, may carry a good deal of weight. People might feel like they can trust him because he cares about a real problem, and because he doesn't seem interested in future political favors (like Secretary of whatever or, certainly not, VP.)

Posted by: Sam | September 10, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I hope he endorses Edwards. At least then Edwards might get some media coverage on TV! Although I'm sure they will probably just twist the endorsement in order to smack both Gore & Edwards!

Do I sound cynical? Well, I'm getting that way. After watching Edwards get 4 union endorsements over a 2 week period and watching the TV pretty much ignore him I won't hold my breath for coverage of him if Al Gore does indeed endorse him.

I do want to offer kudos to Chris Cilliza though. He at least talks about Edwards which is more than the talking heads do on the political shows.

Posted by: pmorlan | September 10, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Gore will definitely endorse. Though he likely won't run, he still wants to stay relevant to the current political discourse, which has the beneficial effect of also promoting his agenda.

My prediction is that he will endorse Edwards some time in late November/ early December based on Edwards being the most progressive in his platform. Obama has an outside choice of the endorsement, especially if he picks up momentum and Gore's nod could put him over the edge to beat Hillary. However, if he and Edwards are roughly tied in Iowa, Edwards will get the nod with the expectation that a strong showing in Iowa will give him momentum for NH and SC.

Posted by: BillBolducinMaine | September 10, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

We certainly know which candidate he won't be endorsing...

Posted by: matthew | September 10, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

why would you want Gore's endorsement? While I admire him, he won a senate seat based on name recognition (poppy Gore,Sr.) and managed to run two poor national campaigns. The man lost to Dukakis for heaven's sake. As a politician, he leaves much to be desired. Democrats have to quit appealing to their liberal base, if we want to win and then actually govern. While global warming is a hugely significant issue--it won't win votes where it matters--border states, the Southwest, etc....
As a Democrat, I want to see my party stop trying to win the votes of the converted and develop a liberalism that appeals to working class whites and independents. Winning is only half the equation...we have to govern and you cannot do so effectively with a polarized nation. Don't just win an election--govern. Gore offers nothing in that regard, those who vote on the basis of environmentalism are not voting for the R's. Barak run from Gore as fast as you can.....!!!

Posted by: jeff | September 10, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

He will endorse Obama or Edwards - whomever he feels has the best chance to beat Hilary.

Anyone know if Gore and Richardson interacted much in the Clinton Administration?

Posted by: John | September 10, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

First of all, that crack about Gore's weight is totally out of line. I don't remember you mocking physical features of any other public figure. I guarantee you've named elected officials who are fatter than Gore but didn't make any jokes about them. The comments here get pretty juvenile at times, but I'd hope for better from the actual blog posts.

On to the question. I'd be very surprised if Gore endorsed Hillary, but beyond that I can't really say. Gore might like Dodd's carbon tax proposal, but it's obvious that Dodd has no chance at the nomination, so I'd expect Gore to be more pragmatic. I feel like he's most likely to endorse Edwards or Obama, with Edwards slightly more likely, based on their platforms.

And this endorsement will definitely matter more than it did in 2004. Al Gore's profile has skyrocketed in the last few years. The environment is a major issue, and Gore is a major leader of the environmental movement. His endorsement is like a green seal of approval, and that might help make up a lot of peoples' minds.

If Gore's endorsement doesn't go to Hillary, and I don't think it would, that would make it even more meaningful. Gore worked with the Clintons for 8 years. He knows Hillary. If he thinks she wouldn't be a good president, that's important. Also, much of Hillary's appeal is that she's a link to the more peaceful and prosperous 90s. Gore's endorsement helps give another candidate some of that same appeal.

Posted by: Blarg | September 10, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company