Here's the scary part: They both might be right.

At least they are civil enough to not call each other Al Gore. That would be harsh.

Hillary and Kerry voted yes on the Iraq War Resolution, Obama didn't. How can they call Obama a Kerry?

/checks article.

Oh. Never mind.

A tax cut here, a tax hike there, WTF does it matter? Until the do something about how they're spending the money they have nothing is going to change.

I'd rather hear what someone plans to do about the billions of dollars over budget we are. But of course that would be addressing an issue directly instead of attacking someone else for something they may or may not have voted on almost a decade ago.

Retards.

TheConvincingSavant: At least they are civil enough to not call each other Al Gore. That would be harsh.

No-one in the race, on either side, is as good a candidate as Al Gore. He was Vice President of the US for 8 years. He won a Nobel Prize, advocating a good cause. He got more votes than the guy who wound up in office in 2000. He has more and better quality experience than anyone who is running on either side.

It's good they're not calling each other Al Gore. Because so far as I can tell, none of them is even close to good enough for that.

The irony of all this infighting in both parties is that it's probably going to end up being McCain/Romney vs Clinton/Obama after all the deal making that is going to be made come convention time.

TheConvincingSavant: At least they are civil enough to not call each other Al Gore. That would be harsh.

Or they could just pretend to be part of the "Core" instead of just saying what they have to say.

McCain = Romney = Bush

DO NOT WANT!

Cowboy Spencer: No-one in the race, on either side, is as good a candidate sucks as much as Al Gore.

FTFY

He was Vice President of the US for 8 years.

So what? So is Cheney, would you want him running?

He won a Nobel Prize,

Euro groupthink circlejerk award. wow, just wow....

advocating a good cause.

Flawed, but it's a good cause. I recycle, have for almost twenty years now. For me, my two kids, the girlfriend, and her daughter we generate about two bags of trash a month. So what? At no point do I expect a medal, which is exactly why the sanctimony of of the preachy environmental movement has absolutely no validity with me. I switched out all the incandescent light bulbs last year and now have all all CF bulbs, and at no point do I expect anyone to care. Just as in the warm months I dry my laundry outside. These things that I have done are more about my personal self interest rather then the planet as a whole, and that's why I consider the modern environmental movement flawed. The preachiness doesn't sell on this issue, people are going to act (en mass) in what they believe is thier own personal self interest. Sell it that way and you'd be surprised how much could get done.


He got more votes than the guy who wound up in office in 2000.

The other guy received the majority of the electoral votes, which since the founding of the republic is how we elect presidents, at no point has the popular vote ever been a determining factor (nationally). If Mr. Gore would have held his home state he would have been president. Even Mondale held his own state against Reagan... One would have to be a particularly bad candidate not to even hold your home state.

He has more and better quality experience than anyone who is running on either side.

So does that mean you would have supported G.H.W.Bush in 1988? In 1988, in the primaries I voted for Al Gore. I thought it was cool (still do) that he admitted to not only have inhaled, but to have done it more then once. I found his handling of the whole PMRC issue to be fair, especially how he dealt with Frank Zappa, it was a shame that the old nags of Washington wives took a decent idea and turned it into a media circus. Al Gore the veep was a decent fellow. Al the candidate (2000) had morphed into something weird. I started out not disliking him but couldn't bring myself to vote for him in the election of that year, I voted Libertarian (seriously). Al has turned into a prissy wonk, maybe if he did a bit of inhaling again he would unwind a bit and be more relatable.

It's good they're not calling each other Al Gore. Because so far as I can tell, none of them is even close to good enough for that.

In reality if Al was so good why didn't he run in 2004?

Sometimes I wish I was a TF so I could vote.

Great headline!

Mr. Romney's version is called "Waltz," and it replays a clip of Mr. McCain on Fox News Channel saying, "I have always been for tax cuts. I have always-although I voted against the first tax cuts-."

Romney is calling someone ELSE a flip flopper?

Ha! There are people working the grill at IHOP fer 20 years who have flip flopped less that Mittens.

McCain the "Maverick" is only slightly less of a poll follower.

Sucking up to the worst elements of the GOP and then pretending he didn't. The guy is a washed up old fart with cheeks like Dizzy Gillespie. He's a lying sack of shiat and a cheerleader of War Eternal.

But he's also the MSM's pre-approved candidate and will prolly get the nod fer the GOPhers.

/The BLUE Danube?
//If you have to work the blue material yer already sunk.

We can't have a flipflopper in office! We must elect someone who will stay the course, someone who will see things through until the end.

/oh wait, we've already tried that

In reality if Al was so good why didn't he run in 2004?

Has anyone ever run the cycle right after they lost an election?

Bill Frist: In reality if Al was so good why didn't he run in 2004?

Has anyone ever run the cycle right after they lost an election?

Adlai Stevenson lost two elections in a row to Eisenhower, in 52 and 56.

Daneel Olivaw: Euro groupthink circlejerk award. wow, just wow....

Thanks. Usually I have to work harder to destroy someone's credibility, and here you did all the work for me :)

Cowboy Spencer: Daneel Olivaw: Euro groupthink circlejerk award. wow, just wow....

Thanks. Usually I have to work harder to destroy someone's credibility, and here you did all the work for me :)

Zing!

Cowboy Spencer:

As if somehow my credibility, or lack thereof, is somehow based on that. It's a cute trick and some of the more weak minded might fall for it.

Al receiving the Nobel was exactly what I said it was. Euro groupthink circlejerk award. The science of global climate change is not settled. In fact it's quite unsettling at how much is still not known. I've read, at length, the positions of both sides of the issue, at no point has there been a clear conclusion drawn to human activity being the cause. Let alone what humans can really do about it. (other then to eliminate mass amounts of humanity, you first)
It's interesting (ok, it's not, it's quite typical and dull) that you would take one instance and base my alleged credibility of my entire point, while I took each of you points and assaulted them in turn. If anything it's reflective of the lack of your credibility that one quip of mine is answered with a quip of yours. At no point did you even bother to tackle the much more difficult positions dealing with your now self admittedly worthless position of Al Gore being a better candidate.

Daneel Olivaw: At no point did you even bother to tackle the much more difficult positions dealing with your now self admittedly worthless position of Al Gore being a better candidate.

Sometimes debate is worthwhile, sometimes it's not. Anyone who would label the Nobel Prize a Euro groupthink circlejerk award ... is pretty much beneath my notice. However, I'll respond for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading.

As for the rest of your points - no I wouldn't choose to have Cheney, and never suggested I would. His time in office has been associated with stupidity, bad choices, and apparent corruption, something you cannot say about Mr. Gore. But you knew that - you were just being disingenous.

You talk about yourself as someone who does some of the right things in regard to the environment, and that's fine. I'm not sure what that has to do with Mr. Gore's advocacy of action on global climate change. The science is a lot stronger than you suggest it is.

You also mention that Mr. Gore didn't get as many electoral votes. I didn't say he did, I said he received more votes, by a substantial margin. And there's also strong evidence to suggest that had all the votes been properly counted, he would have been awarded Florida's electoral votes as well.

You attack my points one by one, without considering them as a whole. As a whole, Mr. Gore would be by far the most qualified candidate to run for President this year.

Wait... I thought Kerry defeated Bush as had Gore defeated him previously... or is there something Obama/Clinton know that the rabid left doesn't?

oops...wrong "sides". Sorry.

And, yes, they sure both seem to be position-challenged.