Hillary won't get the nomination

Damocles said:
I didn't "lose", nor did I change my argument. You have attempted six ways to Sunday to pretend that Gore had "no chance at all" in his home state. This is a dishonest argument. How close the vote was there pretty much shores up my assertion that he could have won his home state had he actually worked at it instead of blitzing Florida.

It is bullocks. And if he had won his own state, if the people who elected him three times for office before had voted for him, he would have won the Presidency. And historically, nobody has ever won the Presidency without taking their home state.

No matter how many times you attempt to restretch a new excuse over this guy, it is simply the truth. The people who had elected him before in a statewide election had a history of voting for him. He most certainly had a shot at winning in his home state. Instead he ignored it, lost his previous constituency and it was a mistake in his campaign.

Had he not made that mistake there never would have been a second President Bush.

I have simply addressed strategy in this thread, you seem to take it for a personal attack or something. The go for Florida strategy only sufficed to create a controversy that wouldn't exist if he had actually attempted to keep his previous constituency in his camp. Which he most certainly could have done. Really, it is not even close to "dishonest" to suggest it was a bad strategy that lost him the WH. It is obvious to me that it was.

And it is extremely dishonest to pretend that he couldn't get people who already voted for him to vote for him again. It is, in fact, preposterous to assume he had no chance at all there when he very nearly got it as it stands. The election in other states where he actually had no shot certainly didn't have him with 49% of the vote.
Click to expand...


What you say above is all true, except to call it a mistake. We do not know what would have happened had Gore decided to focus on his home state. He would have had to remove resources from elsewhere and had he done so maybe he would have lost another state like New Mexico or something. To second guess the stragety now, 7 years later is armchair quaterbacking pure and simple.

Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it was his best chance at winning... we will never know!
 
Jarod said:
What you say above is all true, except to call it a mistake. We do not know what would have happened had Gore decided to focus on his home state. He would have had to remove resources from elsewhere and had he done so maybe he would have lost another state like New Mexico or something. To second guess the stragety now, 7 years later is armchair quaterbacking pure and simple.

Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it was his best chance at winning... we will never know!
Click to expand...
He didn't have to 'focus' there, but ignoring it the way he did was a mistake. I believe his campaign advisors assumed victory in the home state, they didn't assume defeat there and work on Florida because of that. I believe that they made a mistake. They realized their mistake near the end, but didn't have enough time. He was stretched too thin at that point and his few trips right at the end of the campaign to TN were not enough to win back the constituency who felt abandoned.
 
blackascoal said:
If republicans were smarter and one or more of them would have come to the Tavis Smiley forum and laid out a specific plan to address the injustice of the criminal system, they could break that 25% threshold of black votes that they've been looking for.

Blacks have always been against this war and have never fell for the lies and deceptions of Bush .. but we weren't listened to .. so most don't think too much of the 11th hour awakening the rest of the country is realizing. Our families and communities are paramount and on the top of our agenda.

Greens not only think of that injustice, it's in their platform and has been for years.

Without coalition with people of conscience like you, everything is harder.

I understand your perspective about Gore, but I do not share them. Democrats avoid looking in the mirror just as much as republicans.

Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate .. how much more clear can the failures of Gore possibly be? How can republicans be blamed for such an incredible intellectual and philosophical failure?

Instead of engaging in after-thought about could he have won, shouldn't intellectually honest examination of failure be more germaine to moving this nation forward? Wouldn't that kind of introspective also be in order for democratic voters who claim to be antiwar but are about to elect Hilary Clinton who has never seen a war she doesn't like? You tell me, how in the hell is that even possible?

In many ways, the Democratic Party is quite appropriate for their constituency because both are seriously lacking in the political courage and principle that is called for in the Declaration of Independence.

I most certainly do not mean to imply you my sister.
Click to expand...

You know, about Lieberman, I was thinking a lot about that election and the 1990s yesterday. I remember that Holy Joe was one of the few democrats to publically scold Clinton for his affair. And the general wisdom at that time, was that the public was sick of the Clinton scandals (so-called Clinton fatigue), and that having Holy Joe on the ticket would give the democrats moral standing. The democrats are always looking for something, whether it be moral cover, or tough talk to show they're not "wimps". I mean, it's disgusting and gets them in all kinds of trouble, I know. But even though I think Gore made a stupid mistake there, in trusting that received wisdom, becasue I think it was wrong as it so often is, I don't think Lieberman was the issue he is today.

As for the introspection, yes, I agree. I'm not going to vote for Hillary, that's why I understand your anger here at democrats taking you for granted. That's how I feel about her. As if she personally looked me up and down, and said f you, you're going to vote for me no matter what. That makes me angry enough that I'm not going to vote her. I think about these things all of the time. I talk about them too. But...when a couple of republicans are sitting around shooting the shit, and talking about how "Gore couldn't even win his home state" as if that dismissed or excused the republican party stealing an election, you know, that I can't take. What I say to a republican who denies that Gore won the 2000 election, isn't the same thing I would say to a liberal who fully understands what the republicans did in 2000, but also understands what the dems did that allowed it to happen, and then allowed it to stand, and, in fact, allowed everything to stay exactly the same so that it can continue to happen. It's two different conversations, to my mind. For instance, that is why I am answering you, but not even reading Damo's post, because I'm done with that merry go around. :)

I can't take it!
 
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
lead·er /ˈlidər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lee-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person or thing that leads.
2. a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
lead1 /lid/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[leed] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, led, lead·ing, noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort: to lead a group on a cross-country hike.
2. to conduct by holding and guiding: to lead a horse by a rope.
3. to influence or induce; cause: Subsequent events led him to reconsider his position.
4. to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, etc.; bring: You can lead her around to your point of view if you are persistent.
5. to conduct or bring (water, wire, etc.) in a particular course.
6. (of a road, passage, etc.) to serve to bring (a person) to a place: The first street on the left will lead you to Andrews Place.
7. to take or bring: The prisoners were led into the warden's office.
8. to command or direct (an army or other large organization): He led the Allied forces during the war.
9. to go at the head of or in advance of (a procession, list, body, etc.); proceed first in: The mayor will lead the parade.
10. to be superior to; have the advantage over: The first baseman leads his teammates in runs batted in.
11. to have top position or first place in: Iowa leads the nation in corn production.
12. to have the directing or principal part in: The minister will now lead us in prayer. He led a peace movement.
13. to act as leader of (an orchestra, band, etc.); conduct.
14. to go through or pass (time, life, etc.): to lead a full life.
15. Cards. to begin a round, game, etc., with (a card or suit specified).
16. to aim and fire a firearm or cannon ahead of (a moving target) in order to allow for the travel of the target while the bullet or shell is reaching it.
17. Football. to throw a lead pass to (an intended receiver): The quarterback led the left end.
–verb (used without object)
18. to act as a guide; show the way: You lead and we'll follow.
19. to afford passage to a place: That path leads directly to the house.
20. to go first; be in advance: The band will lead and the troops will follow.
21. to result in; tend toward (usually fol. by to): The incident led to his resignation. One remark often leads to another.
22. to take the directing or principal part.
23. to take the offensive: The contender led with a right to the body.
24. Cards. to make the first play.
25. to be led or submit to being led, as a horse: A properly trained horse will lead easily.
26. Baseball. (of a base runner) to leave a base before the delivery of a pitch in order to reach the next base more quickly (often fol. by away).
27. lead back, to play (a card) from a suit that one's partner led.
–noun
28. the first or foremost place; position in advance of others: He took the lead in the race.
29. the extent of such an advance position: He had a lead of four lengths.
30. a person or thing that leads.
31. a leash.
32. a suggestion or piece of information that helps to direct or guide; tip; clue: I got a lead on a new job. The phone list provided some great sales leads.
33. a guide or indication of a road, course, method, etc., to follow.
34. precedence; example; leadership: They followed the lead of the capital in their fashions.
35. Theater.
a. the principal part in a play.
b. the person who plays it.
36. Cards.
a. the act or right of playing first, as in a round.
b. the card, suit, etc., so played.
37. Journalism.
a. a short summary serving as an introduction to a news story, article, or other copy.
b. the main and often most important news story.
38. Electricity. an often flexible and insulated single conductor, as a wire, used in connections between pieces of electric apparatus.
39. the act of taking the offensive.
40. Nautical.
a. the direction of a rope, wire, or chain.
b. Also called leader. any of various devices for guiding a running rope.
41. Naval Architecture. the distance between the center of lateral resistance and the center of effort of a sailing ship, usually expressed decimally as a fraction of the water-line length.
42. an open channel through a field of ice.
43. Mining.
a. a lode.
b. an auriferous deposit in an old riverbed.
44. the act of aiming a gun ahead of a moving target.
45. the distance ahead of a moving target that a gun must be aimed in order to score a direct hit.
46. Baseball. an act or instance of leading.
47. Manège. (of a horse at a canter or gallop) the foreleg that consistently extends beyond and strikes the ground ahead of the other foreleg: The horse is cantering on the left lead.
–adjective
48. most important; principal; leading; first: lead editorial; lead elephant.
49. Football. (of a forward pass) thrown ahead of the intended receiver so as to allow him to catch it while running.
50. Baseball. (of a base runner) nearest to scoring: They forced the lead runner at third base on an attempted sacrifice.
—Verb phrases
51. lead off,
a. to take the initiative; begin.
b. Baseball. to be the first player in the batting order or the first batter in an inning.
52. lead on,
a. to induce to follow an unwise course of action; mislead.
b. to cause or encourage to believe something that is not true.
53. lead out,
a. to make a beginning.
b. to escort a partner to begin a dance: He led her out and they began a rumba.

from www.dictionary.com

I think that about covers it Damo.
 
Our president is by definition a leader.
Congresspersons are by definition pretty much representatives of the people not leaders. Now if one of the (Hillary for instance) becomes president then they are by definition a leader.
 
uscitizen said:
Our president is by definition a leader.
Congresspersons are by definition pretty much representatives of the people not leaders. Now if one of the (Hillary for instance) becomes president then they are by definition a leader.
Click to expand...
I would copy and paste my response to this in this thread from the last thread where you posted this strawman, but I'm tired of answering things over and over for you, and I already have BEFORE you posted it.
 
uscitizen said:
The election was Gores to lose? Heck some say he could not even win TN...
I guess that is a new twist on blame avoidance. A bit better than "At least I did not vote for Kerry"

Some even say Gore won....
Click to expand...

Blame avoidance? What the hell is that? I forgot you don't follow sports you you don't have a clue. Being a favorite does not guarantee you are going to win. Hillary is currently the favorite over the other Democratic candidates. Does that guarantee she will be the nominee? No it doesn't. But the race is Hillary's to lose. It's the same idea.
 
To anyone saying that it's "Gore's fault" that we now have the disaster known as "President Bush."

Did you vote for Bush?
 
Darla said:
You know, about Lieberman, I was thinking a lot about that election and the 1990s yesterday. I remember that Holy Joe was one of the few democrats to publically scold Clinton for his affair. And the general wisdom at that time, was that the public was sick of the Clinton scandals (so-called Clinton fatigue), and that having Holy Joe on the ticket would give the democrats moral standing. The democrats are always looking for something, whether it be moral cover, or tough talk to show they're not "wimps". I mean, it's disgusting and gets them in all kinds of trouble, I know. But even though I think Gore made a stupid mistake there, in trusting that received wisdom, becasue I think it was wrong as it so often is, I don't think Lieberman was the issue he is today.

As for the introspection, yes, I agree. I'm not going to vote for Hillary, that's why I understand your anger here at democrats taking you for granted. That's how I feel about her. As if she personally looked me up and down, and said f you, you're going to vote for me no matter what. That makes me angry enough that I'm not going to vote her. I think about these things all of the time. I talk about them too. But...when a couple of republicans are sitting around shooting the shit, and talking about how "Gore couldn't even win his home state" as if that dismissed or excused the republican party stealing an election, you know, that I can't take. What I say to a republican who denies that Gore won the 2000 election, isn't the same thing I would say to a liberal who fully understands what the republicans did in 2000, but also understands what the dems did that allowed it to happen, and then allowed it to stand, and, in fact, allowed everything to stay exactly the same so that it can continue to happen. It's two different conversations, to my mind. For instance, that is why I am answering you, but not even reading Damo's post, because I'm done with that merry go around. :)

I can't take it!
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it and never give up. None of us can change what happened in 2000, but we can change the outcomes of the future if we have the political will to do so.
 
blackascoal said:
I respect your opinions as well my brother, but doesn't the current crop of hapless democrats speak volumes about expecting results from democrats? Did you not expect them to end this war and bring our troops home? Is that not what they were elected and restored to power to do?

The excuse that republicans are mean and it's their fault that there hasn't been more progress on this most critical issue is bullshit, as I'm sure you are aware. They could cut off the funding .. and the bullshit excuse that Americans don't want that has been nothing but an excuse for political cowardice. Americans want our troops home even if it means cutting off the funding, and bringing our troops home is the sane, honest, and correct thing to do regardless of political fingers in the wind.

Building an effective third party is not easy I grant you, but in my opinion, continuing to be played the fool isn't smart, nor does it demonstrate any political will.

Like you, I believe Americans should have nationalized healthcare just like all the other industrialized nations on the planet. However, I also believe that the injustice of the criminal injustice system needs to be addressed with the quickness as it is devastating African-Americans communities and families. Addressing that evil isn't even on the democrats radar because they don't want to be seen as "soft on crime", thus, the Democratic Party itself perpetuates the stereotype and doesn't care about what has traditionally been their most loyal constituency. It has nothing to do with being soft on crime and everything to do with being committed to justice and addressing the disparities in arrests and sentencing. Democratic capitulation to this evil is sick and disgusting .. but most democratic constituents who call themselves "liberals" don't truly give a fuck either and have and will do abso-fucking-lutely ZERO to push their party to do the right thing.

As with the Jena Six case, blacks fight their battles alone. If it does not impact white people, neither the Democratic Party nor so-called liberals can be counted on for support .. other than lip-service .. YET .. come election time, both are counting on the negroes to show up at the polls and help send their politicians .. who don't give a fuck about the plight of African-American communities .. into office.

Personally, if there was a republican, like Jack Kemp, who seriously listened to the agenda I believe needs to be addressed, I would vote for that republican in a heartbeat. "D's" and R's" don't mean shit to me. I'm looking for politicians and agendas that make sense, not promises. The Green Party and its platform make a lot of senbse to me and I will continue to challenge blacks on why we continue to vote for a political party that is not hearing us. The good news is that blacks who identify themselves as democrats has been steadily declining since 2000 and now only about 60% of blacks call themselves democrats.

I do a lot of freelance writing, and a couple of years ago I wrote an article called "What if there was a party that gave you a reason to vote." I've considered posting it here, but don't because it is specific to black voters. I got more postive feedback from that article than any I've ever written.

For black voters there are two options .. vote for the democrat or don't vote at all. I'm doing my part to make a third option .. vote for a party that listens to you.

I look forward to the day when the Democratic Party can no longer count on black votes and they will have to actually work to get them.

Let me ask you .. is your vote going to be counted? Do you blame republicans for not ensuring your vote will be counted or do you blame the party you vote for whose responsibility is to make sure their constituents votes get counted?
Click to expand...


You touched upon a whole lot of stuff here.

Yes, no political constituency - whether it be african-americans or another one - should be taken for granted.

Yes, the democratic party leadership, has been relatively lame at challenging the war, confronting voter suppression, and standing for economic and social justice.

Anyone who wants to vote Green or Libertarian is fine by me.

The criminal justice system in this country is a joke. The racial disparities are really a crime in and of itself.

Here's my take, however: you can't have social justice, without having economic justice first. The drug war, the criminal justice system, the failure of adequately funding urban and poor rural schools are all critical issues. But, without economic fairness and justice, those issues will never get any significant traction. Reactionaires understand this: keep people on the edge of desparation, keep them worried about losing their healthcare and pensions, keep them worried about their jobs getting outsourced, keep them worried about making it to the next paycheck, and they are going to pay little attention to the inequalities in the prisons or in the urban schools. Broadly speaking, of course.

Here's the deal, IMO: Economic empowerment leads to self empowerment. And to political empowerment. A political constituencie's weakest link in the chain, is the fear that comes with economic anxiety and despair. You address working americans (e.g., poor white americans, working hispanic and african americans) concerns about adequate health care, you protect their pensions, you pay them a living wage, you unlink the government from the stranglehold of multinational corporate interests and alleged "free" trade crap and outsourcing, and you free people up to be more concerned about social change. Do you think its a coincidence that some of the greatest social change came about in the 1950s 1960s when the nation was fat and happy; when labor unions were strong; when the public interest at least played a strong role in policy making? I don't think it was a coincidence.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
To anyone saying that it's "Gore's fault" that we now have the disaster known as "President Bush."

Did you vote for Bush?
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself. I voted for Bush in 2000 and I'm not saying its Gore's fault. My whole point this thread has been Gore was the leader going into the race and he did not win. I specifically point to his home state where had he won Tennessee he would have been the President. That is just my comment on the race. It has nothing to do with me wanting Gore to win or me blaming Gore for having Bush as President.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm you can only go so far with the pile of crap politicos we have now.
Click to expand...

Hence bac's point. Change must come from the people. We have the "pile of crap politicos we have now" because the people put them there. We will not get better ones according to bac until the people change who they put into office. You understand that correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top