I tend to agree with you, but Gore's demanor rubs too many people the wrong way. And there's no way of fixing it. I'd like to see how Richardson comes across in coming months.

"Gore's demanor rubs too many people the wrong way. And there's no way of fixing it."

I would argue that he has done much to fix it, and that his demeanor is a lot less of an issue than Hillary's at this point, who tends to come off as phony and political to most Democrats, or outright despised by most Republicans.

I think Democrats are spoiled for choice. Gore, Clark and Richardson I think would all be excellent presidents, and I think whoever wins the Democratic primary will win the presidency fairly easily.

I don't see Clark as being a winning candidate, in large part because he was so unimpressive in the last election. Richardson may have more of a chance, but he lacks access to the deep coffers that Clinton does.

I think someone is going to have to break away and establish themselves as a populist candidate and start racking up serious fundraising on the 'net, a la Dean in the last election. I think only Obama and Gore would have a decent shot of going up against Clinton in traditional fundraising circles, however, but I also think that both could do well in raising $$ online, given the chance.

Paragraph 4: "Omama"
Not that that wouldn't be an interesting slogan: "O'Mama it's Obama!"

I'll take some cherry Obamarama with Scalia Sprinkles!

I just don't think Obama can win it

I think the main issue he has is his name. it shouldn't be a factor, but it definitely is. Any politician will tell you name recognition is what often makes or breaks an election. And he's got... that name. I can not even imagine him winning.

Ah very good point, I have to say. She was way off, but I think everybody makes poor predictions at some point. I know she's a supporter of the war, and well, I am not. I think she wouldn't continue it or drag it even further than it should... which yeah, it shouldn't have even happened in the first place. ;)

I also like Obama and Gore... so if it came down to it, I'd just have to listen to everybody's views.

The Democratic race should be a fun one next year. And you bet I am voting even if I'm overseas.

Thanks for your journal comment too at my website. I appreciate it.

I'd clarify that a prediction is when you know something as it currently is, and try to determine where it will be a few years down the road.

What Hillary Clinton did was substantially different than predicting. It was assuming, despite all UNSCOM inspector's evidence to the contrary, that there were WMDs that the inspectors hadn't found, and assuming further, that contrary to what the inspectors seemed to indicate, that Iraq hadn't actually destroyed a very substantial amount of WMDs back in the early 1990s, and assuming further still that Iraq's apparent lack of connections to Al Qaeda were hiding some kind of longterm plan to put WMDs -- which could potentially link right back to Iraq -- into the hands of terrorists. And then assuming that the U.S. had the right under international law to declare preemptive war against a assumed possible future threat, and that it should do so unilaterally, without the kind of strong U.N.-supported coalition you'd legally want and expect to have if you were upholding a U.N. mandate.

And, of course, assuming that Congress can give the president carte blanche powers to declare war when and if he saw fit, rather than obeying the letter of the Constitution, which says that only Congress has the power to declare wars.

So, really, there was no prediction on her part at all, but rather a long stream of logic, law, and Constitution-defying assumptions, based more on political expedience than anything else.

Everyone in Congress was taken in in October 2002. Well, everyone but Pelosi. Now, sure, I'd rather vote for Pelosi than Clinton. But a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket would be my choice in the end.

Hardly every politician was.

In fact, 23 members of the Senate and 133 members of the House opposed granting the President the power to declare war... and even more expressed serious misgivings about not being convinced as yet by the evidence they were presented, especially when UN inspectors, numerous nuclear scientists, weapons experts, etc. said straight out that many of the President's claims were either untrue or unsubstantiated.

Many of those who ceded the President ability to declare war were also concerned that the White House were refusing to turn over valuable intelligence necessary for them to make an informed decision.

In the end, several members of Congress supported the decision, simply because the President said at the time that he could go to war with Iraq, with or without their approval.

I've been impressed by everything I've heard from Obama so far.

Clinton would be a divisive disaster; enough swing voters who would vote for the right Democrat won't vote for her, and I really think running her as the Democratic candidate is equivalent to handing the election to the Republicans. Don't do that!

Gore will not run again. Tipper has had enough of this crap.

I have to wonder how good that marriage is. Gore is on the road an awful lot...

There is one problem with Hillary. She's already been in the whitehouse for 2 terms.

hahah.amen.

1. Hillary NO, in a millin years. And not becuase I'm some conservative freak.

2. And what, exactly, would the good Mr. Obama know about wars, just or unjust?

I agree with you about Hillary, for perhaps several of the same reasons.

Admittedly, Obama isn't a military expert. He majored in PolySci/International Relations at Columbia, and went on to graducate from Harvard Law School, was President of the Harvard Law Review, and went on to teach constitutional law at Chicago Law School before going into politics. Very respectable, considering that he grew up with his white mother in a pretty typical white middle class neighborhood.

That said, is it necessary to be ex-military to be able to suggest before a conflict has broken out that such a conflict would be rash, because despite the horrible nature of Saddam's rule, he posed "no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors"?

Obama was correct. Saddam posed no imminent threat, could've been contained through diplomacy or dealt with later, and invading Iraq would make successfully achieving U.S. objectives in Afghanistan considerably harder, drawing off the kind of manpower needed to stabilize that country.

Shouldn't he -- and Al Gore, who served in Vietnam -- get some credit for saying that going to war in Iraq would be rash and not immediately necessary, because Iraq was essentially contained?

After all, it wasn't just Gore and Obama saying such things. Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell both said as much, prior to 9/11. The verifiable intelligence just wasn't there to support such assertions, and every place that UNSCOM inspected which the U.S. said there were WMDs/missile sites/etc. turned out to be in error. The intel had to be cherry picked and shaped.

This in no ways minimizes the sacrifices made by U.S. soldiers, nor does it mean that their sacrifices have all been in vain. I really do hope the best for the people of Iraq, but we can "surge" into Iraq for a year, two years, five years... and the Iraqis will still keep killing each other, and the militias will get their guns out and start staking claims on turf the moment our forces leave.

The only longterm hope that Iraq has is dependent on two main things:
1> That the primarily Shi'ite Iraqi Army and police will be able to take over from us and keep the peace.
2> That they'll be fair, and won't insist on killing and driving out the Sunni.

If that doesn't happen, there will be brutal civil war for a long, long time until either the Shi'a win, or both sides get tired.

These aren't things the U.S. Military can really compel the Iraqis to do, especially when they're willing to play a *VERY* longterm waiting game. They've done it before with the British, and they're doing it again. Sadr is already getting back on the political track, and his followers have started taking off their black clothes and are trying to blend in with the civilians.

They'll force U.S. soldiers to piss off ordinary Iraqis through increased raids and checkpoints, will take potshots amidst the civilian population in order to increase the level of "collateral damage", and will piss off the Iraqi powers-that-be, until Maliki starts caveing again in order to save his political career.

And if Maliki's coalition collapses, he's already said he won't run. Someone with even closer ties to Sadr will take over.

Gore may realize being a politician stinks

I have heard he really is a fun guy in person, including knowing somebody who knows somebody who says so. He was dumb enough to listen to the PR vultures in the past but might do it differently with another chance.

Hillary? Anyone who supports torturing only the ones who really deserve it is beneath my contempt. And would be an embarrassment to the heritage of Washington and Jefferson and to whatever we can salvage of an image around the world.

I've heard so many good things about obama that I like him by proxy... but I don't actually know anything about him or his politics, what he believes in (except, i guess, that the war in iraq was a mistake and that he supports gay marriage); and time in the senate tends to detract from your credibility as a presidential candidate. we've had how many congressmen elected president? one?

As for al gore: he's a smart guy, or at least it seems like it, but I get the impression that a lot of voters think he's a nutcase due to the whole global warming thing.

Hilary clinton winning the primaries would be the worst thing to happen to the democratic party. Edwards would be a close second.

it comes down to that it seems like an obama/gore ticket would fucking own if it weren't for that whole "elect a black man as president" thing, which IMHO, the democrats seem way to eager to push on a country that isn't ready for it... not even an oreo like Obama.

**NOTE THAT THIS COMMENT WAS MADE BEFORE I READ ANY OTHER COMMENTS**
Surely, you've heard about Bill Richardson throwing his hat in the ring. He's got more experience in the fray then the other two put together, plus he sounds like a class act, based on his announcing speech this morning. In my book, it's between him and Obama. Hillary bears too much of a resemblence to the right for me.

Gore is the Best!!!

I agree that Al Gore is better than anyone. BUT the media makes AL Gore out to look like Dan Quayle they are so scared of Al Gore for some reason. Just like Howard Dean. Howard Dean would be great too.

I would not say never with Hillary because we would be better off with her than McCain (two-faced) and the other "Repugs" running.

Jon (at) livereal.org

Obama

Obama is the man. The Dems are not forgiving to those who have had their moumentum and lost, that is Gore. Regardless of how qualified Gore is the thought of Tipper as the First Lady makes my skin crawl. Remember the 80's and Tipper's embarrassing censorship drive against music, MTV and video games? Gore might have the goods but way to much baggage between losing to W and his wife for my vote.
I am totally with you on Hillary too. She may have huge reserves of money and momentum at the moment but the elections are a long way off. I like Obama; I like his qualifications, his thought process and his chances. Call it wishful thinking but I see him leading the ticket with Hillary as the Vice President.

Re: Obama

"I like Obama; I like his qualifications, his thought process and his chances."

To me, it's not so much his qualifications, but I definitely appreciate his thought process.

Frankly, I suspect (hope?) that Hillary had significant reservations about the intelligence behind going to war in Iraq too, but to her, it simply didn't matter. It was simply good politics to go to war with Iraq, and, from her perspective, there wasn't that much downside... if things went wrong, maybe the Republicans would even commit political suicide.

I can think of at least 3000 Americans who had a lot more to lose than her, though.

Great!

Hello! Author, I agree...
And glamourous blog, interesting site name insomnia.livejournal.com :), I see you you're are not newbe. Keep up with the nice work!