Jim,

Excellent review in the Globe. You made me feel like it's almost my responsibility to read Gore's book. For that I am very angry at you because my reading list is already too long.

Also, great use of the Internets in this post. I love how you engaged the passionate discussion about Obama that started yesderday.

Alas, I don't believe that the right is going to allow anything as tawdry as an election to take the White House away from them. They will launch an attack on the next Democratic president that will make the attacks on Clinton look tame. I think we should prepare for a some pugilism. If we win in 2008, we'd better be ready to defend our gains.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Corvid

Make it a Gore/Edwards ticket and you've got a deal. Obama talks a good game but in point of fact, he's a highly compromised Chicago Machine pol. I encourage people to check out the progressive Chicago Web site beachwoodreporter.com, click on the "politics" category and go down to the "Obamathon" heading. Some of what you'll find there is inside Chicago politics, but it's pretty disturbing stuff and if you read enough, you'll get the drift.
.
But if you've absolutely got your heart set on an Illinois senator, how about the one with integrity, Dick Durbin? If he were running, he'd be head and shoulders above the entire Dem crowd.

I've been wearing my "Gore/Obama '08" button for MONTHS now, and get nothing but positive responses. Most want one for themselves.

Gore has taken a break from politics, and is in the best position to positively affect change after the mess that was/is the Bush Admin.

Obama doesn't have the experience to try to fix this mess, but there is something in him that engages and inspires people, so he could bring a built-in base to the ticket.

Hillary...I'd rather see her on the Supreme Court.

PEACE

"Make It Right" is a good slogan not because it would right the wrong of the 2000 election, but because of the GWB Administration. In fact, we should, I think, completely avoid making this about some kind of 8-year-old grudge about the 2000 election.

Sphealy, BTW, has a bit of a two-dimensional outlook on politics, thinking that a small group of determined people can just ruin the whole thing. Let me tell you: The Democratic Party was that small group for 6 years, and it didn't make any difference.

Obama is the new Kennedy, bringing in fresh air and an enthusiasm about public service, starting with the refreshing proposition that people aren't evil because they are of another party. That's the kind of talking which reverses the WWI -like warfare that some would have us continue--a reversal of the "51% mandate." Let's get at 'em.

It is an astute strategy, the reluctant political warrior being called on or drafted to run. A Gore-Obamma ticket would be as strong as a Reagan-Bush ticket in recent memory, pulling together two major party coalitions.

Another example is JFK-LBJ ticket that did similar measures. The presumption of 16 years is far-flung.

That said, Gore would invoke the personal strength of being there and Obamma the fresh new influence.

My guess is that unfortunately we need to have a violent stormy summer/early fall. Unprecidented tornados, a few category 3 or 4 hurricanes to really shake the public that Gore's central message of environmental collapse is on the horizon.

My other guess is that Hillary with all her money and position and tactics will run in the ground.

Radicals plan is to (1) lose in 2008 (2) attack attack attack from 2009-2012 (3) run a white-horse-and-sword Strong Republican(tm) in 2012.

 The election of 2012 will most likely to be more about fear than ever and if a Republican wins, and I agree it is likely, it will be with the implicit mandate to carry Bush’s moves towards a completely authoritarian government [to protect us] even further.

The thing about Obama (machine pol or not--and I don't think he is) is that he's got charisma. He's got a charm and a humanness and a likability that is sorely needed if this country is going to heal after the divisiveness of the last decade. I don't think Edwards has the same charm, and I know that Dick Durbin doesn't.

Small margin?

We pretty much won in 2000, lost in 2004 by a hair with record GOP turnout and an incredibly flawed candidate in John Kerry.

I say if we put someone up that is halfway competent, 2008 isn't close.

Edwards comes across as a fake. Whether he is or not. Cold, hard facts.

Obama comes across as being gifted politically, in the Bill Clinton mold.

Edwards is closer to what I believe politically, but Obama stands a better chance of winning. Guess what? I like winning.

howyouwas:

I can live with the Gore/Obama ticket. I would rather see Obama/Richardson but it may be a little to much in the unknown candidate area. Perhaps it's just that I like the speaking rhythms of the latter duo. I think I would tire quickly listening to Al for 4 (8) years.

I am familiar with this Electoral College you speak of :)

I don't think you can count on the 2004 GOP base turnout for 2008. If that were the case in 2004, a couple states easily flip to Kerry, and we're having a different conversation.

I think Dems have a reason to be positive when you think about a Not-Kerry running and lower GOP turnout. It's not like Bush had landslides in either of his elections.

Durbin is one of Obama's most enthusiastic supporters.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Mau-mauing? Weatherman? Sex police? What, is that like, really old political stuff, dude?

Gore, Hillary, Bill....it's no longer 1996. Isn't it time to move on?

Does anyone really want to hear about whitewater and monica for all these months up to the election, and beyond? Just read Maureen Dowd's column from yesterday -- she pulled out all the stops: Gore's sighing and eye rolling, he lectures when he talks. No mention of him inventing the Internet, but I'm sure it's just that an editor struck it.

Look, Gore was a terrible candidate. Yes, he's a great speaker now. But are you really, really, really convinced he'd be a great candidate now?

Really?

Cause the stakes are pretty damn high. Two, maybe even three SCOTUS picks the next winner gets....

Regarding reading and books, Gore needs a dose of Marshall McLuhan. We're already post-books. We're post-TV, too. And what we're doing here isn't just about reading -- it's more conversational.

It's readingwritingtalking, all at the same time.

I think there is an element of the "meritocracy of ideas," but we may be oversimplifying what new media is all about if we only limit it to this notion of rational discussion and debate.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

 A Gore-Obama ticket would be very attractive.

How about a Dodd-Obama ticket? I like Gore but at least Dodd is running and that makes it more realistic as a ticket at this juncture. Both Dodd and Gore come from political families who stood for something and who have been committed to civic and public service for decades. Also they both have outstanding statesmanship.

.> An unlikely scenario as the GOP and
> neocons have not only shown that they
> do not plan to lose but that they will
> steal elections to win

Evil people are not necessarily stupid or lacking in perception, and the Radical Right has shown that it can make a short-term sacrifice for long-term gain.

Also, I don't think even the Radicals understand that Karl Rove is out to maximize Karl Rove's power (or just have as much fun[sic] as he can), not the Republicans' or even the Radicals'.

sPh

I guess I don't think this particular language can be altered. The divide between left and right is a pretty old one. It's not just the divide between individualism and communitarianism, either. In fact, I don't think that's the argument at all.

It's a battle for resources and for the preservation of an American oligarchy. Those oligarchs and the hopeful oligarchs, will not change their minds and the Republicans will seriously destroy any candidate we put up who won't fight back.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

The Republicans were weak during the 1990s after Bush's recession. They were nastiest when they were weakest. It won them the house and senate and sure, almost cost them the same, but it scared Gore away from Clinton's record and won them the White House as well.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

It's a good idea. And I'll always appreciate that Dodd stood up for Lamont after he won the primary.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Well, you might want to read John Aravosias's comment on the Iraq Continuation Bill today:

=== Congratulations Dems, You Caved and Bush Just Bashed You on TV for it

Well that little surrender of yours on the Iraq supplemental was quite effective. Bush just went on TV, praised how all of your bad un-American ideas were struck from the bill, and then he told the country that you still have too much pork in the bill.

So, basically, he just made fools of you. He attacked, you caved in order to stop the attack, and he attacked again. No one could have predicted that. [...] ===

That's the way its going to be folks, Obama or no Obama.

sPh

Your opinion is not a cold hard fact. Others (Carville for one) have called Edwards the most gifted speaker they have ever seen.

If you like winning, go with what you believe. If you like platitudes instead of action, go with Obama.

SPHealey pointed this out down thread but while we've been discussing the new politics of reconciliation, our representatives reached across the aisle to deliver the war funding bill that Bush wanted and Bush responded by mocking their patriotism.

The worst thing you can give a bully is what the bully wants. They smack you even after they get your lunch money. Also, the bully mocks your craven attempt at placating them.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I think Obama is a reasonable guy and wouldn't have a problem supporting him in a general. But, his whole optimism and changing the way the game is played line is not something really novel. Every candidate from city council to president says something similar. So I don't find it refreshing or inspiring, just old and stale.

I'm not an expert in presidential politics, being just old enough to have voted in three elections, but I remember Clinton espousing much of Obama's game in just as an articulate and charismatic way. But that didn't stop the GOP from killing his health care bill for purely political reason (see Kristol). I want someone who will be a fighter because we have a lot of problems that need to be fixed that the GOP is going to fight to the death. I don't think a fight is the first choice, but we may have to and Obama has not had to deal with tough political situations.

I'll be voting for someone in the primary who has a demonstrated ability of toughness and political will. Neither Obama or Edwards fit that bill. They do have their strengths, but it doesn't matter if they aren't tough enough to stand up to the GOP.

I may be in the minority, but we don't need a "Help us all get along" candidate. We need a slash and burn candidate who will fight the right on every single front and do it ruthlessly.

We are perceived as the party of weakness, and current leadership enforces that. Only one candidate (and for better or worse Gore is not one) is taking it to Bush and his cronies on every issue, and that candidate is John Edwards.

If you want an ineffective president who will get 25% of what we want while having a majority in both houses, pick a conciliator. If you want someone who will use the bully pulpit to sway Joe Sixpack with simple language and a fighting spirit for real change, you have only one choice.

Good point. Obama was a letdown there.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Wish in one hand, shit in the other -- see which one fills up first.

Face it -- Gore isn't running.

I may be in the minority, but we don't need a "Help us all get along" candidate. We need a slash and burn candidate who will fight the right on every single front and do it ruthlessly.... We are perceived as the party of weakness

I disagree. Blacks were perceived as shiftless, dumb, weakwilled and lazy yet it was MLK not MalcolmX who was most effective at changing their status as second class citizens. When it comes to winning a non-physical fight you must win the hearts and minds of independents and moderates to make a majority. You do not do that by trying to demonstrate a more lack of integrity, deeper resentment and greater obdurancy.

I agree that the two-party system is too integral to the American psyche, and that the rhetoric of the "right" and the "left" has been, and will be, around for a long time to come. But the context has changed, and will continue to change. There was a time when Republicans fought against slavery and for preserving the natural environment, when their "right" was much closer to what we now call the center. And there was a time (i.e., for the past twenty years) when Democrats' notion of the left was shockingly conservative and pro-business. The center moves.

In fact, conservatives spent much of the seventies and eighties successfully and subtly moving the center further to the right. They created Democrats like Lieberman. Heck, they even created Democrats like Bill Clinton. It was this manipulation of the political landscape that made the Clinton presidency into a conservative victory--by Clinton's time, the moderate democratic platform had become so pro-business that even in defeat the conservatives were victorious. I continue to say that true victory is not so much about winning the next election as it is about moving the "center" back further to the left.

That ticket would be more like Gore's wisdom and Obama's cynicism. What is this guy thinking?

I think he rhetorical powers are over-rated as well. He's very "self-helpy" in both tone and substance.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

How is Hillary any different?

She has no foreign policy plan, her universal health care proposal was a huge failure on top of that she also voted against the same credit card bill as Obama since the alternative was worse, in addition she is a hawk that voted for the AUMF and feels no need to explain how that was a huge error in judgement.

Despite Hillary having been in the US Senate longer she has no policy proposals whatsoever, yet no one in the media addresses how shallow and lacking in substance Hillary is. All she is doing is trying to ride Bill's coat tails without ever coming up with a single original or effective policy proposal.

Hillary is nothing but a re-tread of the same slash and burn politics of personal destruction and warmongering that has dominated the political scene for the past 8 years. Who in their right mind wants more of that?

Worst of all she lacks the ability to work well with others and because she feels she has something to prove due to her gender she is ready to retaliate and attack without even figuring out who the enemy is.

Sorry, I do not want a state of perpetual war and that is what Hillary offers.

Edwards doesn't know how to stand up when it counts. He too, voted for the AUMF despite sitting on the Senate Intelligence committee and having access to all the intelligence, he did not even bother to read it, yet he voted against the ranking member. Now, he thinks apologizing for sending Americans to die is sufficient. It isn't. He also demonstrated that he lacks the resolve to meet hard issues head on when he wimped out in his debate against Cheney.

I would like a Dodd/Obama ticket as it represents proven leadership and statesmanship with new leadership and a way forward for the future of the USA.  Both Dodd and Obama sit on the Senate Foreign Relations committee and have a good grasp of what America needs to do to re-establish her goodwill and global reputation. It also helps that Dodd speaks Spanish as well.

I encourage people to check out the progressive Chicago Web site beachwoodreporter.com, click on the "politics" category and go down to the "Obamathon" heading.

Enough with the myths. Just what Gore wisdom are we talking about? Please remember that Gore would be some footnote buried deep in the Senate records without Clinton's overwhelming political wisdom. As good a man as Gore is, and he's as good as they come, he has never shown a drop of political wisdom, which is the only wisdom that really counts when you are the nation's leader. Let's just mention three examples of Gore's wisdom. One, choosing Lieberman as his running mate. This was bad enough and we hardly need to mention two and three. But I will anyway. Two, shunning Clinton and refusing to run on Clinton's record. Three, telling the entire Democratic party to give up the hunt in 2004 when it was clear to him and him alone that Dean had locked up the nomination. Dean didn't win a single primary.

Gore's wisdom abounds!

Dodd also backed Lieberman as an independent in the general election..

A republic needs not just a skeleton of laws, but the cartilage that holds the skeleton together.

A particularly effective metaphor in a nice post; thanks. 

The Depression-esque, when it comes, will be visited upon our children and grandchildren, who will wish they'd never been born or hate us for leaving them a world in such a mess. I don't think we can count on them to take care of us old folks either -- they'll leave us to fend for ourselves just as we did to them.

Debra Morgan Pardee

"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw

Did MLK seek compromises with racists down south? Or was he single-minded in the pursuit of equality To compare acquiescence with non-violence is intellectually dishonest.

I'm not talking about physically hitting people or burning things down, I'm talking about not giving in on matters of principal and not seeking compromise simply to avoid confrontations.

To compare MLK's struggle with a methodology of keeping everybody a bit happy by allowing some injustices, and not fighting back in the face of an enemy labeling you everything from traitors to soft is an insult to Dr. Kings's legacy and the causes for which he fought.

It was Christopher Dodd who nominated Joseph Lieberman to return to the United States Senate at this month’s convention of Connecticut Democrats, in spite of the fact that grassroots Democratic voters are in open revolt against Senator Lieberman’s right wing re-election campaign, supporting progressive Ned Lamont’s challenge instead.

Dodd must consider whether his support for Lieberman alienates liberal voters who tend to dominate presidential primaries. Dodd backs Lieberman, but he won't say whom he would support if Lieberman loses the primary and launches an independent run.

 

Lieberman has suggested he has felt especially wounded by Dodd, Connecticut's senior senator, with whom he had shared a close bond since arriving in the Senate in 1989. Dodd had supported Lieberman in the primary, but endorsed Lamont after he won. Dodd's appearance with Lamont at a Democratic "unity" rally and in a campaign commercial infuriated Lieberman, friends said.

Wait! I heard the Republicans have a plan to let Democrats win the next 10 elections, after which they really make us regret having run the country for forty years!

I refuse to second-guess endorsing a viable, progressive ticket just because progressive policies might somehow give an edge to the opposition sometime down the road. How self-defeating is that?

At what point can we actually implement policies that are good for this country?

--Andrew Hiller

Exactly. Whether or not the scenario comes true, none of us can say.

But... right wingers out of office for 8-12 years? History has shown that they would respond to that viciously and perhaps effectively. We had the White House for 8 years in the 90s, with a centrist President and they got him impeached at a time when all "reasonable" observers thought that it would be impossible for a president to wind up impeached when all they had on him was a dalliance with a woman.

We can never forget how vicious they are. Or, more importantly, how effective they can be.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

America needs someone who had enough brains to know before the war that George Dubya was full of s***, and that starting wars is not a good idea.

Particularly when the Commander in Chief is a ignorant liar without a conscience.

On May 24, 2007 - 9:41pm Jim Sleeper said:
Jim Sleeper On Equating the Sins of the Left with those of The Right

I do accept the criticism that my essay sounded as if it equates the violent and sometimes hateful spasms of the radical left with thuggery from the right. Perhaps 20th Century world history haunts me here, but it shouldn't be applied to American contexts.

I'm thinking of Orwell, who arrived in Catalonia in 1936 to fight fascism and discovered that Stalinists were killing Trotskyites, social democrats, and liberals, and that no one in Britain's left press wanted to hear about it, much less report it. Years later, in the spring of 1944, Orwell couldn't even find a publisher for Animal Farm on the left, because the novel was rightly seen as a send-up of the vicious side of Stalin, who was of course Britain's desperately needed ally at the time, what with Hitler still just across the Channel and the Eastern Front so crucial to England's survival.

Back then, in other words, as we now know, the sins of the left (Stalin's left) were incredibly fateful and, by some reckonings destructive, overshadowed though they were by the even greater monstrosities of fascism. Was Orwell being too prissy to feel that it was his duty to tell the truth, anyway?

Should I reserve my criticisms of the relatively powerless American left because, even though I have come to believe, in good old Calvinist fashion, that every man's heart is divided and that therefore the left,too, has the potential to commit the sins of Stalin's "evil empire" if ever it got enough power? I think we can afford to remind ourselves of this periodically without lending aid and comfort to the radical right.

Not yet rated.

Professor, that's a thoughtful response.

But, you need some context. When most of us think of the excesses of the right, we think about the 1990s and the impeachment of a centrist Democratic president by a truly radical group of US politicians.

The modern left is so far removed from Stalinism as to make Orwell, dare I say it, irrelevant to the current debate. Orwell was right to face the excesses of a dictatorship but it was a dictatorship so authoritarian that while it claimed to be "left," it had actually gone full circle and become the kind of fascism that we'd tend to call "right-wing" today.

To get more modern, the Weathermen and the Black Panthers or whoever else you'd want to call a violently coercive "liberal" group are now relics of history. And, when you were discussing this, you mentioned things I'd never heard of, such as "heterophobia," which has not existed in my life time.

The worst I'd say about the left, in my 32 years is that they went way too far with the "PC" movement and that they made me hate them because I thought they were telling me what I could and couldn't say. But even then, they were using peacefully coercive means, no matter how much they annoyed me.

In my lifetime there simply hasn't been, outside of fringe exceptions, an angry, violent, powerful, left.

All I've grown up with is the opposite -- an angry, violent, powerful right that has sought to stifle dissent.

The modern leftist just has nothing in common with a Stalinist. When Orwell bravely called attention to the mainstream left's blind support of Stalinism, times were surely differant.

These days, the general debate between communism and capitalism has been replaced by a more moderate debate between communitarian life in a capitalist society and a libertarian life in a capitalist society. Heck, both sides even agree that capitalism needs to be somewhat regulated in order to keep the markets functioning.

We've made a decision: Representative democracy and a capitalist economy. Now, we're debating the details. The issues are important, vital and visceral, but totally separate from what Orwell dealt with.

In this environment, it's the right who are the extremists and it's the right who have been abusive and oppressive.

That's why there's no way to equate both sides.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

The best guy is the one who had the judgement to know that this was a dumb war from jump. That would be Obama.

That's fair. Sorry if I misread you.

--Andrew Hiller

DEAR GOD, NO!!!

Lest we forget, Al Gore ran possibly the worst campaign in the history of American politics, disassociated himself from the most successful peacetime administration record in history, hired a consultant to "tell him who he was" (which I believe resulted in his wearing earth-tones), and then couldn't wait to graciously concede defeat even as the British press and Greg Palast had direct evidence that massive election-tampering had gone on in Florida. The Bush campaign played him like a fiddle. He is living proof of the political axiom "show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser". Gore had his chance and HE BLEW IT. He promised to fight for us and then weenied out in the worst possible way. He needs to stay on the sidelines this time around.

Corvid

But what about the actual substance of what Rhodes says? Curiously, you don't touch on that. And believe me, Rhodes isn't alone. .

Do you dispute that Obama curries favor with and takes money from corrupt property developers? Do you deny that he's a creature of the Daley machine? Believe me, if you lived in Chicago, you'd be furious with Obama over his repeated endorsements of absolutely the worst political hacks imaginable.

He bills himself as a breath of fresh air, but he's just as much in the pocket of big corporate donors as any of the others. Admittedly, the Chicago political angle may be beyond the grasp of non-Illinoisans, but here's a bit from Beachwoodreporter that's mostly a long quote from other sources. Since you seem to think Rhodes is a hack because he once worked for the Tribune, you may now wish to also lower your opinion of The Hill, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times:

1. "Some of Obama's K Street boosters keep their support a secret to uphold Obama's image as a Washington outsider untainted by D.C.'s influence," The Hill reports. "When Obama declared his presidential candidacy in February, he said he would re-engage Americans disenchanted with business-as-usual in Washington who had turned away from politics.

"'And as people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void,' said Obama. 'The cynics, and the lobbyists, and the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter; they think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back. The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page.'

"In a fundraising e-mail distributed yesterday, Obama emphasized his stance against taking money from lobbyists and PACs. "Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama's campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.

"One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama's campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist's wife would be interested in making a political contribution. "'I was quite taken aback,' he said. 'He was very direct in saying that you're a lobbyist and we don't want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network.'"

2. Last week, The New York Times reported that "Obama . . . has told some donors that their support enables him to run a new kind of campaign by refusing fundraising help from federal lobbyists. But a list of his top fundraisers released over the weekend shows that his campaign has defined the term in a way that allows him to accept contributions from people who were federal lobbyists at the start of his campaign.

"One of the best-known Democratic donors on his list of 130 top fundraisers, Alan Solomont, was registered as a federal lobbyists as recently as the last filing period for such registration, at the end of 2006. "Mr. Solomont, who helped raise more than $35 million for Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, founded a nursing home and assisted living company. During the Clinton administration, some Republicans claimed that he had used his clout as a fundraiser to argue against tougher regulations of nursing homes.

"Last year, he reported more than $90,000 in income from lobbying the federal government about Medicare and Medicaid. "In an interview, Mr. Solomont said he had withdrawn his lobbyist registration as soon as he signed on as a fundraiser for Mr. Obama."

3. The Los Angeles Times reports that "the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists." The Times reports that Obama has said in his e-mail solicitations that 'It may sound strange for a presidential candidate to launch a fundraising drive that isn't about dollars. But our democracy shouldn't be about money, and it's time our campaigns weren't either.'

"In another e-mail seeking money, Obama decried the 'special interest industry in Washington' and warned it would spend more money than ever to 'try to own our political process.' "'We're not going to play that game,' the e-mail said." The campaign has all but admitted, though, that its position is all about symbolism, not substance.

"This ban is part of Obama's best effort to address the problem of money in politics," spokesman Bill Burton told the Times. "It isn't a perfect solution to the problem and it isn't even a perfect symbol. But it does reflect that Obama shares the urgency of the American people to change the way Washington operates."

Um, okay.

"Obama's biggest single source of corporate money - $160,000 - came from executives at Exelon Corp., the nation's largest nuclear power provider, and its subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, an Illinois utility," the Times reports.

Finally, what's with the cheap shot at Rhodes? In any event, what's so damning about being a "resentful ex-Tribune employee"? I should think that would be a strength. And how does it link up to Obama in any case. His Web site is mostly about other matters and is widely respected among Chicago journalists.

Anonymous sources and from Hillary's camp as well, are less than credible when it comes to providing evidence to support your insinuation that lobbyists are supporting Obama.

BTW, in case you missed them, you'll find responses to this comment below, at its, um, third entry...(I'm sure it was a technical glitch; I don't think there's a way to delete comments, but you can edit these down with a "duplicate post deleted by author", eg...)

As an FYI, one can edit one's own comments unless or until someone has replied.  Then it's set in internet stone.  That was the compromise, I believe, between those who wanted to fix typos and those who worried about rewriting history.

Please see my response to a point like this somewhere up above.

Okay, but those "nice" Democrats who were in power for 40 years were liberals, not leftists, and this distinction, too (not just between "liberals" and "conservatives")is important to understanding my argument, which is that "liberals" vs. "conservatives" isn't and shouldn't be the same thing as "left" vs. "right." Yes, liberals and conservatives will never agree about certain fundamental principles, but for a long time these disagreements were possible thanks to the fact that the legitimacy of Constitutional principles remained uncontested.

It's true that the "conservative movement" got conquered by a more extremist right. But it's also true that, in consequence, a lot of conservatives are bailing out of it and are feeling homeless. No, Gore/Obama won't appeal to them on most things, but if they cast their campaign as a campaign persuasively to defend the republic and the constitution, a lot of people will vote for them who wouldn't otherwise have done so. The point is, they have to make an issue of it. Gore has recently done so, in a speech, "Democracy Itself is in Grave Danger:" http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0624-15.htm

Gore, Hillary, Bill....it's no longer 1996. Isn't it time to move on?

Does anyone really want to hear about whitewater and monica for all these months up to the election, and beyond? Just read Maureen Dowd's column from yesterday -- she pulled out all the stops: Gore's sighing and eye rolling, he lectures when he talks. No mention of him inventing the Internet, but I'm sure it's just that an editor struck it.

Look, Gore was a terrible candidate. Yes, he's a great speaker now. But are you really, really, really convinced he'd be a great candidate now?

Really?

Cause the stakes are pretty damn high. Two, maybe even three SCOTUS picks the next winner gets....

I've asked myself some of the questions you're asking, cscs. But as far as Dowd and the others of swiftboat ilk are concerned, let's face it, they're eventually going to pull the same stuff on whoever is running. I'm not absolutely certain, but the Gore/(Obama OR Edwards OR Richardson) idea is looking better to me (this presumes he would be willing to run). I keep looking at the candidates, and trying to anticipate the attacks. They all have negatives (and for our Republican readers, don't think for a moment that your guys' negatives aren't far worse). It's possible that Gore's negatives (real and imagined) have been so over-played that they won't be as effective the second time around.

I happened to read Gore's statement about his book on Amazon, just before I read your post, and I think it may address some of the issues you raise (Can I provide a link? I'm not certain, because it's a commercial site):

I've dedicated my book, The Assault on Reason, to my father, Senator Albert Gore Sr., the bravest politician I've ever known. In the 1970 mid-term elections, President Richard Nixon relied on a campaign of fear to consolidate his power. I was in the military at the time, on my way to Vietnam as an army journalist, and I watched as my father was accused of being unpatriotic because he was steadfast in his opposition to the War--and as he was labeled an atheist because he dared to oppose a constitutional amendment to foster government-sponsored prayer in the public schools. The 1970 campaign is now regarded by political historians as a watershed, marking a sharp decline in the tone of our national discourse--a decline that has only worsened in recent years as fear has become a more powerful political tool than trust, public consumption of entertainment has dramatically surpassed that of serious news, and blind faith has proven more potent than truth.

We are at a pivotal moment in American democracy. The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, has reached levels that were previously unimaginable. It's too easy and too partisan to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush.

We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. Reasoned, focused discourse is vital to our democracy to ensure a well-informed citizenry. But this is difficult in an environment in which we are experiencing a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time--from the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson trials to Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith.

Never has it been more vital for us to face the reality of our long-term challenges, from the climate crisis to the war in Iraq to the deficits and health and social welfare. Today, reason is under assault by forces using sophisticated techniques such as propaganda, psychology, and electronic mass media. Yet, democracy's advocates are beginning to use their own sophisticated techniques: the Internet, online organizing, blogs, and wikis. Although the challenges we face are great, I am more confident than ever before that democracy will prevail and that the American people are rising to the challenge of reinvigorating self-government. It is my great hope that those who read my book will choose to become part of a new movement to rekindle the true spirit of America.

This is a guy that I would want to choose the SCOTUS nominees.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Danthforth was one of Thomas' most ardent supporters for the Supreme Court. Go figure

But that's the point: the mainstream political spectrum in this country has never, ever stretched that far left. I'd argue, in fact, based on our history and the world's, that the only way we're likely to see an ascendent extreme "left" such as you fear is if we fail to well and truly vanquish the extreme right. Your reaction seems to come from someone looking through the wrong side of the glass; I can't help but wonder whether your perspective was skewed by your own experiences in the '60s and '70s that cause you to so overweight the left side of the risk scale. (Sorry, don't mean to get personal...)

As for the difference between liberal/conservative and left/right, I don't know where you got the idea that we're lumping together everyone who isn't left of center. I had already read the piece you referred to upthread, and John Eisenhower's, and countless others. Bob Barr's a good guy in this fight, for crying out loud. But those voices, like ours, have been largely ignored, or drowned out by the relentless barrage from what I can only call brownshirts. Since before the '04 election I've eagerly sent every new article by a principled conservative I could find to a smart, decent Republican I know and love, hoping every time that the dawn would break. It hasn't; it can't get through the din. (Forgive me, mixed-metaphor police; it's the hour.)

I've long wanted to see an aggressive campaign that exploits the romance of the Founders -- most Americans can't recite the Bill of Rights, but phrases like "a government of laws and not of men" can, I'm convinced, be made to resonate. But judging by my lovely Republican friend, it won't truly register as long as the right-wing scream machine keeps spinning, unchecked by a craven, cowardly or simply lazy media, and opposed by Democrats who don't seem to have the heart to put up a real fight (which, incidentally, extends to their image problem in other areas). In fact, the two terrific comments you cite as opposing points in your original post are of a piece: sPh's describes exactly what the radicals have accomplished, and stevelu's prescription is the only healthy way out. But note that that prescription is to "call [] out" the specific perpetrators on their specific "bullshit," exactly the opposite of the "we're all sinners" approach. If the terms of the campaign don't include the decisive discrediting and permanent disabling of the radicals and their ideology, any victory will only be a speedbump for them. Gore actually seems to realize that in a way that you, and I fear Obama, don't.

Corvid

Good point re Durbin backing Obama. Durbin's a good guy, but not perfect.

I'm keeping an open mind about Obama and I appreciate the Beachwood link, although I haven't had time to explore it much.

My feeling about Obama receiving lobbying money is: You don't have to like the game but you still have to play it, if you want to change it.

However, I don't approve of his trying to obscure the donations to maintain a "holier than thou" reputation.

It's a great article, which is actually an excerpt from his book. Here's a direct clickable link to the article, for anyone else who wants to read it. And a sample:

The Bush administration's objective of attempting to establish US domination over any potential adversary was what led to the hubristic, tragic miscalculation of the Iraq war - a painful misadventure marked by one disaster after another, based on one mistaken assumption after another. But the people who paid the price have been the American men and women in uniform trapped over there, and the Iraqis themselves. At the level of our relations with the rest of the world, the administration has willingly traded respect for the US in favour of fear. That was the real meaning of "shock and awe". This administration has coupled its theory of US dominance with a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, regardless of whether the threat to be pre-empted is imminent or not.

The doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that Iraq is not necessarily the last application. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states - Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran - but the implication is that wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to, or participant in, terrorist operations, the doctrine will apply. It also means that the Iraq resolution created the precedent for pre-emptive action anywhere, whenever this or any future president decides that it is time. The risks of this doctrine stretch far beyond the disaster in Iraq. The policy affects the basic relationship between the US and the rest of the world. Article 51 of the UN charter recognises the right of any nation to defend itself, including the right to take pre-emptive action in order to deal with imminent threats.

By now, the administration may have begun to realise that national and international cohesion are indeed strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet. From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among all Americans and between our country and our allies. The gross violations of human rights authorised by Bush at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and dozens of other locations around the world, have seriously damaged US moral authority and delegitimised US efforts to continue promoting human rights.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

This is a guy that I would want to choose the SCOTUS nominees.

Me too.  And if he doesn't get to be the one who chooses them, I hope he gets to be one of them. 

aMike

<guffaw></guffaw>

aMike

Others (Carville for one) have called Edwards the most gifted speaker they have ever seen.

Even the most astute sometimes make mistakes in Judgment:  Carville also married Matalin.  Nonetheless, I like Edwards despite Carville's endorsement, not because of it.  I suspect he says nice things about Edwards in order to weaken Obama and strengthen Clinton.

aMike

And if he doesn't get to be the one who chooses them, I hope he gets to be one of them.

An interesting idea and one that I hadn't even considered. He'd be a breath of fresh air on the SCOTUS, particularly because he tends to take a long view, is concerned about the needs of all Americans.

One of the things that intrigues me about Gore is that he is a statesman and intellect, but at the same time a politician who seems to be in touch with the younger generation (cscs, above, appears to think differently, but maybe he doesn't know about Current TV*, the interactive cable tv network - Gore is one of the founders and owners.) and is open to innovative ideas regarding technological development. While there are other candidates who have these qualities, none of them combines all of them as Gore does.

*Here's the wiki on Current TV. 

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Illinois???? Certainly you're mistaken. Illinois is a solidly blue state, easily carried by both Gore and Kerry. Perhaps you meant to say Iowa.