could Al Gore be the democratic nominee for president?

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Yeah, a president shouldn't have personality, be young, be eloquent, or be very-well liked by the people electing him. Obama and Bush are not at all alike. Stop trolling.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Yeah, a president shouldn't have personality, be young, be eloquent, or be very-well liked by the people electing him. Obama and Bush are not at all alike. Stop trolling.

Some people just don't learn from mistakes of the past. There is nothing I have to say to you.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Are you a robot programmed with Clinton talking points?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Are you a robot programmed with Clinton talking points?

Huh? Where have the Clintons said what I just posted?

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Are you a robot programmed with Clinton talking points?

Huh? Where have the Clintons said what I just posted?

"rather have a beer with" and "all hat, no cattle" and the idea that Obama will be Bush II were Clinton's main line of attack in her "Meet me in Texas!" non-concession speech after the Potomac Primaries. Hillary, is that you?

edit: pretty sure it was the one after Potomac, there were so many victories I forget. The one where she got up on stage with a little kid in a Mariachi costume.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Your a funny guy, is this what people spew when their tin-foil hat's are on backwards?

Between the two I'd take my 50/50 on getting Obama or "Bush 2.0" as opposed my 100% chance of a Clinton.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Are you a robot programmed with Clinton talking points?

Huh? Where have the Clintons said what I just posted?

"rather have a beer with" and "all hat, no cattle" and the idea that Obama will be Bush II were Clinton's main line of attack in her "Meet me in Texas!" non-concession speech after the Potomac Primaries. Hillary, is that you?

edit: pretty sure it was the one after Potomac, there were so many victories I forget. The one where she got up on stage with a little kid in a Mariachi costume.

You are more familiar with Hillary's speeches than me. I have a real job, plus I was out of the country in February.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Your a funny guy, is this what people spew when their tin-foil hat's are on backwards?

Between the two I'd take my 50/50 on getting Obama or "Bush 2.0" as opposed my 100% chance of a Clinton.

Forget Bush 2.0, I'd take 100% chance of a Clinton over 100% chance of Obama. Hell, I'd take 100% chance of McCain over 100% chance of Obama. Obama stands for nothing. People think he makes good speeches, but 90% of them couldn't tell you what the hell he is talking about. Yes we can? Can what? Change in Washington? To what? If he wins, these speeches will wear off after a couple months, and then the country will be wondering why we elected another empty suit with no plan to fix our problems. It's all style, no substance.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
If Al Gore could have come off in 2000 with as much personality as he's shown with the "Inconvenient Truth" campaign, I think he'd have beaten W by a large margin, but instead, he came off dull and lifeless, with all the personality of a sack of flour.

I believe he'd have made a pretty decent president, but I honestly can't claim that 9-11 would never have happened as some people have tried to say over the years. I think it would still have happened, but Gore might have actually done things better than W did and we WOULDN'T be mired in a needless war in Iraq.

That being as it may, I really don't see any chance they could draft Gore into running. If it were possible, it'd have been done already, instead as a "Johnny-come-lately" into the race.

I have a strong feeling that if anyone else was president, 9-11 would just be a terrorist attack, rather than a defining moment in history that changed the long term focus of America.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Are you a robot programmed with Clinton talking points?

Huh? Where have the Clintons said what I just posted?

"rather have a beer with" and "all hat, no cattle" and the idea that Obama will be Bush II were Clinton's main line of attack in her "Meet me in Texas!" non-concession speech after the Potomac Primaries. Hillary, is that you?

edit: pretty sure it was the one after Potomac, there were so many victories I forget. The one where she got up on stage with a little kid in a Mariachi costume.

You are more familiar with Hillary's speeches than me. I have a real job, plus I was out of the country in February.

If you are so busy that it causes you to be ignorant of political issues please refrain from discussing them here.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Every day it seems the Dems come up with some new way to create a one party system, with them not being it.

I LOL'd when I read that :thumbsup:

Fern

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Are you a robot programmed with Clinton talking points?

Huh? Where have the Clintons said what I just posted?

"rather have a beer with" and "all hat, no cattle" and the idea that Obama will be Bush II were Clinton's main line of attack in her "Meet me in Texas!" non-concession speech after the Potomac Primaries. Hillary, is that you?

edit: pretty sure it was the one after Potomac, there were so many victories I forget. The one where she got up on stage with a little kid in a Mariachi costume.

You are more familiar with Hillary's speeches than me. I have a real job, plus I was out of the country in February.

If you are so busy that it causes you to be ignorant of political issues please refrain from discussing them here.

I am not discussing Hillary's february speeches, you are.

 

[Pabster]

Somewhere, McCain is grinning ear-to-ear right now. :laugh:

This constant bickering and back-and-forth nonsense, combined with the prospect of at least another month-and-a-half of no nominee for the DNC, spells nothing but great news for the GOP.

As for Gore...anything is possible. There's certainly a contingent amongst the hard-core of the party who support him and the idea isn't as far-fetched as one might think.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Somewhere, McCain is grinning ear-to-ear right now. :laugh:

This constant bickering and back-and-forth nonsense, combined with the prospect of at least another month-and-a-half of no nominee for the DNC, spells nothing but great news for the GOP.

As for Gore...anything is possible. There's certainly a contingent amongst the hard-core of the party who support him and the idea isn't as far-fetched as one might think.

I don't know how much this is really helping McCain and the GOP. Sure, they have their stuff together and the Democrats don't, but the result is that nobody is paying any attention to McCain, while Obama and Hillary are on the news 24/7. All this exposure is good for the Democrats, because when the primary is done and the general election starts, McCain's sudden leap into the media will make him look like he just found out the Democrats were holding an election so he figured he should show up too.

The scenario is see Gore stepping in is if Obama and Hillary at just at each other's throats over the nomination, preventing the party from moving forward and getting everyone tired of the whole mess. He steps in as the elder statesman, a guy relatively untouched by the mud already being flung around in great volume, a guy with way more experience than either of the two front runners. I could see people getting energized over him, and despite how much some conservatives hate the guy, he came really close to being President in 2000.

Plus, and I think this is probably the most important reason of all, Gore running for President against McCain would almost certainly result in "Re-Elect Gore" bumper stickers...and you KNOW you want to see that.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
[Plus, and I think this is probably the most important reason of all, Gore running for President against McCain would almost certainly result in "Re-Elect Gore" bumper stickers...and you KNOW you want to see that.

Best part of this entire thread...:thumbsup:


Along this line, since much of the country belives that Gore was elected in 2000, would that mean that he could then only serve one term if he was elected this year?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Rainsford
[Plus, and I think this is probably the most important reason of all, Gore running for President against McCain would almost certainly result in "Re-Elect Gore" bumper stickers...and you KNOW you want to see that.

Best part of this entire thread...:thumbsup:


Along this line, since much of the country belives that Gore was elected in 2000, would that mean that he could then only serve one term if he was elected this year?

As Al Franken says, that's the downside of holding that particular position

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

Originally posted by: senseamp
It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.

Your a funny guy, is this what people spew when their tin-foil hat's are on backwards?

Between the two I'd take my 50/50 on getting Obama or "Bush 2.0" as opposed my 100% chance of a Clinton.

Forget Bush 2.0, I'd take 100% chance of a Clinton over 100% chance of Obama. Hell, I'd take 100% chance of McCain over 100% chance of Obama. Obama stands for nothing. People think he makes good speeches, but 90% of them couldn't tell you what the hell he is talking about. Yes we can? Can what? Change in Washington? To what? If he wins, these speeches will wear off after a couple months, and then the country will be wondering why we elected another empty suit with no plan to fix our problems. It's all style, no substance.

When you have absolutely no integrity, and you have been proven over and over to say what is convenient and do another, what does it matter what you claim to stand for?

Voting for Hillary Clinton makes absolutely no sense to me, unless you're an existing Democratic politician with a debt to pay or something to gain.