Sunday, April 27, 2008

Hillary, Barack or someone else?

In wide ranging and sometimes contentious debate at yesterday's impromptu sub-committee meeting at our favorite watering hole an unlikely but possible scenario was discussed. After the Obama supporter was shouted down by a room full of Clinton backers someone suggested that the best outcome for the Dems would be to nominate Al Gore. The reasoning is if this goes to the convention the losing side will have a hard time backing the winner so a unity candidate should be found. I don't see it happening but anything is possible. This is not a new idea as I've seen it kicked around the lefty blogs and even by a few talking heads on TV. A month ago our local political historian, the Yonk, even outlined a possible turn of events in Denver.

So what do you think? I put up a poll on the sidebar.

Below we see the winner of the 2000 election showing off his green thumb.




11 comments:

Doctor Rick said...

Remember 2000 when Bush stole the election? You think the party - or Hillary - will let him steal the nomination!?

Gort said...

Rick,

I provoke, you respond:)

Jennifer said...

To my mind, it's all about baseball. The primary process is rather like baseball's regular season. Consider the convention the playoffs and the general election the World Series. My first loyalties are to my favorite team (i.e. the Phillies), but, if they don't make it to the WS, I'll root for the NL team that does make it. That's why I believe that Democratic voters will ultimately come together to support whoever the nominee is. As we near the end of the primary season, it's like the Philles and the Mets are battling for NL crown. Right now, a certain number of fans on each side vow that, if their team doesn't win, they'll root for the Yankees instead. But, come fall, those same fans will be booing the Yankees louder than anyone.

As for your question about Al Gore being the Democratic nominee, I don't see that happening. But, I do see him as a cabinet member in an Obama administration.

Gort said...

Thanks Jen,

Great analysis. I always boo the Yankees.

angelina said...

Excellent and simple Blog- I like this because it’s informative and simple nature. This is a great piece of work appreciable. Mean time an important issue is updations. I request you to update this blog when ever possible. We require most recent information and I am sure your blog can provide them.
.. Cancer is difficult and really dangerous illness that kills millions a year. If we can provide any help to save at least some of them- it is always nice Some times people are saying malignancy is incurable. But I have seen a website detailing that holistic treatment can cure Cancer even in 2ndry stage. You can logon to http://www.helpcure.com/cancer and know further.
What ever it is. My personal request to all of you to work and gather information regarding this subject and let others also know further. I can say you millions of people are still on earth suffering from cancers – some of them even doesn’t know what cancer is all about.
Whether this is holistic or allopathic or homeopathic I want to put and end to the sufferings of millions of less fortunate people – My heart sings for them. I request you people also join.
I Hope for the best

POPE GEORGE RINGO said...

Obama may well be nominated but he has a lot of work to do to win. His famous Rev. Wright continues to spout sewage from his mouth (both FOx and CNN carried his speech to the NAACP live Sunday evening). Yet, Obama to truly win must have a conversation with blue collar America. The gun owners, church goers and bowlers who gave Reagan, Bush I, and W their victories. It is not that Obama needs to identify with these people by putting on hunting gear and toting a Remington 12 gauge (see John Kerry)--in fact an act as that is viewed as a patronizing gesture. What he does need to do is hold town meetings in White blue collar districts and answer questions. If he leaves without their vote at least he leaves with their respect. Please my Democrat colleagues; let us not repeat the mistakes of Mike "don't execute my wife's murderer" Dukakis or John "I will not reply to those who call me a cowardly traitor who didn't really go to Vietman" Kerry. Love him or not Bill Clinton was a dirt bag fighter--as is Hillary. His Holiness was on the fence with these two candidates but now it is time to tell Barack to grow a pair and take off the gloves! Bless You.

Forrest Gump said...

As any frequent readers of this blog know, I am an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton because I believe another 8 years of Bill Clinton in the White House is a good thing. However, like Jennifer's baseball analogy, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it may be. I like the idea of Al Gore becoming the nominee at the convention if either Barack or Hillary don't do something to set themselves apart from the other. Both have positives and both have negatives also. Time will tell.

Anonymous said...

This stuff gets scarier by the moment

Bill Levinson said...

I would recommend Ed Rendell, who has a record of constructive health care reforms and who can appeal to Mainstream America. I would have recommended Bob Casey as well, but not after he endorsed Obama.

There are no circumstances under which I will vote for Obama (even if the GOP puts up "W" for a third term), and there are no circumstances under which I will vote for Gore--in fact, I voted against Gore in 2000. Gore is a self-serving fraud (along the lines of Geoffrey Chaucer's Pardoner, a medieval indulgence seller) who made millions of dollars by hyping global warming. His racket is to sell carbon emission credits instead of indulgences for sins. His own carbon footprint is big enough to hold Godzilla and King Kong put together, and carbon regulations will make energy even more expensive (another incentive for companies to ship working people's jobs offshore).

Global warming may or may not be a problem. Assuming that it is, is it enough of a problem to trash our economy to make only a small impact in it, or is it cheaper to adapt to it? I would go with the latter.

Dana said...

The nominee will be Barack Hussein Obama. Yeah, as Bob Herbert said, you can hear the air leaking out of his campaign, but the super-delegates have no real choice: if they are seen as shoving him to the back of the bus, whether in favor of Hillary Clinton or the Wooden Indian they ran in 2000, there will be a significant number of black voters who will simply stay home in November, and the new registrants who came into the party this year will have a depressed turnout. And, very bluntly put, Democrats need black voters, or they lose.

The super-delegates are, for the most part, elected officials themselves: governors, congressmen and senators. If black turnout is depressed, their own re-elections are jeopardized, and you can bet your last farthing that they care about their own re-elections far more than they care about electing a Democratic president.

pj the wb lefty said...

I don't care if you're a Hillary supporter or an Obama supporter. But if your person loses and you vote McCain, you're fooling yourself and betraying the candidate you supported. Ask Obama if he somehow loses, whether he'd like his supporters to follow McCain....said so himself on MTP today, he wants a Dem as POTUS. You want to vote Nader, or Keyes, or whomever, that's fine. But if you believe in the message of either candidate on the Dem side, a vote for McCain goes against almost everything that your candidate that you supported stands for.