What would you think of a '08 Unity ticket: Gore/Kerry?

[WI_DEM]

The last two Democratic nominees who had their victories stolen from them ('00 was certainly stolen and as for '04 there is strong evidence that Ohio was stolen from Kerry). It would be a very strong ticket--with two seasoned and experienced pros--a former Vice President and one of the most respected voices in the United States Senate. Between them they received more than 110 million votes in their presidential runs.

While it is unlikely that this ticket will ever happen, it would, imo, be formidable against any possible GOP ticket including a McCain led one.

p.s.
or how about Mondale/Dukakis !!

(haha, I'm only kidding about that one--though I think Mondale would have been a wonderful president!)

[the other one]

1. I like it, but Kerry won't.

He wants to be top banana.

[WI_DEM]

2. Maybe so

but he would get his chance if he were VP.

[johnaries]

3. That's my dream ticket! n/t

[Paulie]

4. Meh

They both chose the wrong campaign team. How can we trust them to not do that again?

[Warpy]

5. They also chose the wrong platform

and Gore even removed universal healthcare as one of the options.

I don't trust either one of them not to do that again.

[rzemanfl]

6. I want to see a Kerry-Gore ticket in 2008 as incumbents after the

Democrats take over Congress in '06, impeach Bush and Cheney, a congressperson resigns so that a Democratic Governor can appoint Kerry to the House where he then is elected Speaker, becomes President and appoints Gore as Vice-President. I say Kerry instead of Gore only because Gore is the younger of the two. This would offer about 18 years of sanity in the Executive Branch if these folks can stay healthy.

[bambo53]

7. I think the results would be worse than before

Why not Shrum & Brazel, or Lieberman & Dick Morris?

[WI_DEM]

9. But didn't Gore actually win in 2000?

and a strong arguement could be made for Kerry in 2004. Not that I would want Shrum or Brazel running the campaigns in '08--and as for Dick Morris he has been on the dark side for years now.

[bambo53]

10. YES! Gore DID win in 2000!

That's the point! Why isn't he in office? Why did he give up so easy?

We really need some STRONG candidates this time, with balls & backbone. Nearly all of our front runners are part of the problem we have in losing elections. They don't seem to wanna win.

[corbett]

19. Great Point About Campaign Advisors!

Bob and Donna each made MAJOR mistakes in his/her respective campaigns. I suspect that their candidates are smart enough not to hire them again!

[TahitiNut]

8. I like Gore/Kucinich better.

:shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

11. I'd like to run Jimmy Carter again, personally.

He should still be eligible to serve for one term, and can have a good successor in place as his VP. Unlike the ones you mentioned, he actually won an election by a large enough margin to actually spend a term occupying the White House.

I know many people thought he was not a good President, (I strongly disagree with them), but my guess is that he's looking pretty damn good right now in light of what this country's currently got. Plus, he would have a unique ability to reach out to Southern Christians in a way that would get the Democratic message out to many who are normally completely closed to it.

If I have to go with anyone from the past, I'll go with Jimmy. (He's also been kicking ass lately.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Gore maybe. Kerry no. No more pro-war dems.

[benddem]

13. interesting idea

just so lieberman isn't anywhere nearby.

[Chipper Chat]

14. The Dem ticket in '08 (regardless who's on it) will surely lose ---

if we dont concentrate on the '06 elections and win back Congress. If the Pubs keep control of both houses Diebold will insure that Jeb will be in command until 2016. Scary thought isn't it?

[Benhurst]

15. Yes. And Diebold et al is ready and waiting for 2006. NT

[DemFromMem]

16. Nice if you want a Republican President for four more years

Both of these guys should have won there races by WIDE margins. They are both decent men who would likely have made good Presidents. But they ran miserable campaigns and don't deserve another shot.

I also sincerely hope that we pick someone from outside of Washington. No matter how good someone's voting record is in the House or Senate, the Republicans can twist it into a pretzel. A governor or someone from outside of politics may not have the problem.

Personally, I'd like to see a Clark/Edwards ticket. The Democrats almost always win when they pick a southerner and Clark's record in the military will be tougher to go after (not that the Republicans won't be their disgusting selves and try).

[Peace Patriot]

17. It would be "poetic justice"! And that's a very strong point in its favor!

I've been hot for Gore ever since I heard his speech against torture. Wow! It's something! The man is on fire. He seems to have benefited greatly from his time out of the political fray and limelight; seems to have re-thought everything, especially basic democratic principles and war. (I'd like to know what he's thinking now about NAFTA.)

I think it would be a very strong statement by the Dems: Here are our two decent, intelligent guys, strong men, good men, men of integrity and wisdom, great leaders; we nominated each of them before; and now you get ANOTHER chance--indeed, a double chance (two for one) to do the right thing!

SOMETHING is going to have to be done about Diebold and ES&S--perhaps a national exposure of their fraudulent machines--to make it impossible for them to cheat in '06 and '08. I don't think we can get rid of them in time. Bushites owning and controlling the "trade secret," proprietary software in the voting system is just AWFUL! They stole Kerry's election, I'm sure of it. And they just dramatically reversed a raft of ELECTION REFORM initiatives in Ohio, flipping 60% majorities in pre-election polls to 40% losses. Maybe they've tipped their hand now, and will be disgraced.

See Bob Koehler's new column on the Ohio initiatives:

http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1824

If not--if election system conditions are the same or worse--we'll need a 10% to 20% blowout to win. I think we can do it, but it's going to take unity and an all out effort. I do think that Gore/Kerry would bring unity--because of the sense of justice that it would generate. I think a whole lot of fedup Republicans would vote for Gore (more even than voted Kerry, which I think was substantial), and they would get even more of the independents, former Nader voters, new voters and Green voters. Kerry got big majorities of those; Gore would get even more, I think. I think Gore will be a sizzling campaigner. He does not mince words. He's been telling it like it is, in all his recent speeches. I think he will ignite the nation.

I think McCain is a washout and a Bush toady. I intensely dislike him. I think he's been too close to the Bush Cartel to be stomachable by the American people (if we had transparent elections). He would not be their strongest candidate. It would have to be somebody who exited the Bush Junta (Powell?) or someone with cleaner hands (--maybe Dole or Whitman?). (Rice is much too dirty with oil and the war.) If they're smart, they'll go way outside--f.i., Joe Wilson (now THERE's a thought!).

I still think Gen. Clarke is viable, and also Dean. But Gore/Kerry has a beautiful ring--the ring of justice!

[Burried News]

18. Reasonable approach. I would prefer either Clark or Dean to Kerry.