Gore in '08?

MrSpall · Post by **MrSpall** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:25 pm

Heard about this from my boss, then read about it a little online.

Hereand Here

Yes, I know that one of those is from the Huffington post - no snide remarks Jones

An interesting idea, but I'm fairly sure it would destroy the Democratic Party. If the entire nation goes to the polls and pulls the lever for either Obama or Clinton and neither of them get the nom, it'll cause revolt from the common folk in the party. I realize that party rules dictate that convention insiders can vote however they want on a draft ballot, but i they did this then only those convention insiders would have any loyalty to the candidate.

It'd be a bad move all around, IMO.

Thoughts?

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:46 pm

This convention is going to be pure chaos and fun to watch. Neither will have the required number of delegates, this Reverend Wright issue is not going away no matter how badly Obama wants it to, Clinton is not going to give up her fight to be the nominee and it's going to get ugly.

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:40 pm

Yeah, it is all shaping up to be chaotic. I don't think Al Gore needs to jump in and confuse everyone even more. Though I think if he had been there from the start...he probably would have won.

I was watching MSNBC earlier today (don't even give me Liberal bias BS - it was on, I hate commercials, and I was eating lunch) and they were talking about the whole Reverend Wright thing, and "was Obama's speech enough?", "will it surface again?"...all that stuff. I realized, these two are going to tear each other apart before the Election. McCain won't have to do anything! He'll sit back and coast and watch them slander the hell out of each other before the general election even rolls around. That's no good. Well, it is for McCain, but not for the Dems!

poopstains · Post by **poopstains** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:26 pm

Morphine Child wrote:I was watching MSNBC earlier today (don't even give me Liberal bias BS - it was on, I hate commercials, and I was eating lunch) and they were talking about the whole Reverend Wright thing, and "was Obama's speech enough?", "will it surface again

Simple answers, no, and yes. I didn't see that much of the speech, but I base my answer only on the fact that Rev. J. Wright is still being discussed. It hasn't gone away at all. From what little I did see of the speech it appeared like Obama did what he does alot, just tried to move around it saying it is the same old politics, and that he disagrees with the Rev. This may be true but why then bring him on the campaign, stay a member of the church? These things couldn't have been a secret to Obama, while he may not have like all the things the Rev. says he must have been liking something.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:16 pm

Well, honestly, how many of you church goers explicitly agree with everything that each one of your minsters say in their sermons? Just because you decide to remain the member of a parish or congregation doesn't mean that you're in bed with the preacher.

Okay, so the guy went on the campaign trail with him. I'm sure that even Obama and his TOP aides/advisers disagree on key points daily. This is a fluff argument and what his reverend says really, truthfully, bears NO TRUCKING RELEVANCE on the man, himself.

It's just absurd, and anyone who goes to a church, temple, synagogue, mountain top guru, or whatever knows the flimsy bull squat weight of this argument/issue. It's childish and irresponsible if you ask me. . .

[edit]By the way. . .I am not an Obama supporter by any means, so I couldn't care less about his nomination chances except that in this case the PEOPLE are being snowballed by a giant blizzard of bull sh*t[/edit]

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:13 am

"Words matter. Speeches matter." - Obama on Don Imus

I may not agree with everything (although it's close) my pastor has to say, but giving awards to Calypso Louie and going on trips with him to Libya to meet with Qhadafi... That would get me to leave, not to mention the pure hatred coming out of Wright's mouth. I liken it to a white politician going to David Duke's church. That sh*t ain't gonna fly. Obama will still get the black vote, and if he wins the nomination, he'll still get the votes of a lot of hardcore democrats, but the crossover white male vote - forget about it.

Latest polls show McCain whuppin' Hillary by 10 percentage points and Obama by a closer margin, but still beating him - and it was a likely voters poll, not just registered voters.

I wonder if there's any footage of Obama "amen"ing any of this stuff... If the Republicans have it, they're not going to release until about October 15.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:28 am

Garr wrote:Well, honestly, how many of you church goers explicitly agree with everything that each one of your minsters say in their sermons? Just because you decide to remain the member of a parish or congregation doesn't mean that you're in bed with the preacher.

mostly agree...cept,..if I witnessed the vile hatred for this country, the white race, etc,...this dude is/was spewing I'd be distancing myself in NY minute.

IMHO, I believe B.H.Obama just want's it both ways. Don't neccessarily think its wrong,..I take it as a character issue...which matters to me.

On the good side,..he's probably the best orator in politics I've seen in a long time.......better than Bill.

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:08 am

Barack always struck me as a pretty secular dude. I have to wonder if he didn't just choose a church because he had to choose a church because he's a politician. If he were a non-church going politician, he wouldn't even be able to run for president. Unfortunately for him, he might have picked the wrong place!

I wish all the non-religious politicians would step out or "come out of the closet" about their true beliefs. They're all phonies. Not that we didn't know that about them, but they're all religious phonies too!

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:08 am

While I'm not an Obama fan, I see this as a non-issue. It's guilt by association.

Talk about wanting it both ways: Hillary always says she has the EXPERIENCE necessary to be president, since she was in the white house for 8 years. However, whenever anyone calls her on some of the stupid decisions her husband made while in office, her standard answer is something like, "I'm the one running for office, and Bill's not here." You can't have it both ways, lady.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:40 am

as to Gore... he pretty much has one issue and it's an issue McCain agrees with him on, much to my chagrin.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:02 pm

Morphine Child wrote:Barack always struck me as a pretty secular dude. I have to wonder if he didn't just choose a church because he had to choose a church because he's a politician. If he were a non-church going politician, he wouldn't even be able to run for president. Unfortunately for him, he might have picked the wrong place!

I wish all the non-religious politicians would step out or "come out of the closet" about their true beliefs. They're all phonies. Not that we didn't know that about them, but they're all religious phonies too!

...maybe you mean like this!
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... -surfaces/

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:35 pm

WBOB wrote:
Morphine Child wrote:Barack always struck me as a pretty secular dude. I have to wonder if he didn't just choose a church because he had to choose a church because he's a politician. If he were a non-church going politician, he wouldn't even be able to run for president. Unfortunately for him, he might have picked the wrong place!

I wish all the non-religious politicians would step out or "come out of the closet" about their true beliefs. They're all phonies. Not that we didn't know that about them, but they're all religious phonies too!
...maybe you mean like this!
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... -surfaces/

That's horribly long - could you summarize? haha

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:38 pm

=^-..-^= wrote:While I'm not an Obama fan, I see this as a non-issue. It's guilt by association.

Talk about wanting it both ways: Hillary always says she has the EXPERIENCE necessary to be president, since she was in the white house for 8 years. However, whenever anyone calls her on some of the stupid decisions her husband made while in office, her standard answer is something like, "I'm the one running for office, and Bill's not here." You can't have it both ways, lady.

There was actually an article (I believe it was the cover story) in the new TIME Magazine about what she actually did in the white house. The difference between what she "says" she did, and what she actually "did" are rather substantial. If you read TIME, I'd recommend it. Somethings she worked on more, and some she didn't do so much...or as much as she claims to have done, anyways.

MrSpall · Post by **MrSpall** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:29 pm

The Rev. Wright thing should be a non-issue. Every Republican candidate I can remember went after Rev. Jerry Falwell's endorsement and he talked about bringing back slavery all the time. Most still try to get an endorsement from Pat Robertson even after he was found guilty of discrimination for drastically underpaying his black employees. No one mentions these things when the Republicans do this.

Talk about your right-wing media bias.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:56 pm

Falwell talked about bring back slavery?????!!!!!!!!! Come on. About the most controversial issue about race with him is requiring both sets of parents approval for bi-racial dating of students at Liberty U, and that changed in the mid-80s. Robertson is an ass.