MSNBC Silliness: Jonathan Alter says Barak Sweep/Buchanan says Gore

[KoKo]

and Hillary. Amazing these "pundits" keep pushing what they "want" to get the Buzz in the "peoples ear."

Alter said: I saw Gore last week and that he's NOT running. Said Obama can get all the money and sweep the early primaries. (HUH?) Buchanan says:".. if Gore comes in then Hillary and Gore take all the money and it's a race between the two and Gore takes it to the finish line because he has the most broad experience."

But...Alter says Gore not running. :shrug:

[Skidmore]

1. Buchanan needs to check into a retirement community

and alter need to go to the Joe Biden Clinic for Hair Plugs for a while. Dump the pundits and get someone on who has actual knowledge and is in a position to do something. Can we hear from Pelosi or Reid, or Kennedy, or....

You get what I mean.

[hippiechick]

2. Is Alter in Gore's closest circle?

If not, then his opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.
And note, Gore himself, in the Rolling Stone <?> Article DID NOT RULE IT OUT.

[KoKo]

3. That's what I wondered. He was hawking for Obama so much it made

me wonder. Alter used to be Progressive but has changed. I don't know what to think of anything he says anymore.

I know that Buchanan keeps pushing a Gore, Hillary run through the primaries. He says because it would make "great news." But, it's hard to know the motivations of either of them other than that they get paid to put out expert sounding silliness. :shrug:

[WI_DEM]

4. Gore has said repeatedly he isn't running, so that is no surprise.

[hippiechick]

6. Not a yes, not a no ...

... from this week's Time Magazine "10 questions for Al Gore"

" ... You have stated repeatedly that you are not currently planning to run for President in 2008. Do you have a more creative denial?

I don't have any plans to run. Nor do I have any creative denials. I'm using the same ones. They'll soon be out on DVD. "

[Alexander]

9. Gore has said repeatedly he "won't rule it out". Surprising how you ignore this.

[Hamlette]

5. Obama does have a following

my son has been working (in paid positions) for US Senate candidates since May. He's obviously not high up but he worked with some who are. He said everyone of them is trying to position themselves to work for Obama.

It's an interesting group of people. Mostly young, all unmarried. They basically plan their lives around "the next big thing" in terms of "every two years" and go home to spend the holidays with their parents (that's the part I love).

They love Obama. I'm a Clarkie and worry about a black being elected, especially one who hasn't been around (I voted for Jesse when he ran and would have supported Powell before his speech at the UN) but I wonder if Obama can excite the youth it might be a good thing. Remember, 60-65% of my generation (42 and older) vote but only 20-24% of younger people vote.

Blumenthal had an article in Salon last month saying one great indicator of how people vote is how they voted in their youth. If they vote Dem when they're young, they'll keep voting Dem. Maybe the way to a "permanent majority" for the Dems is to excite younger voters. If Obama can do that, maybe he's our guy.

[KoKo]

7. Good points there....but one wonders if "exciting young voters" and

being experienced enough to take the helm of this fast sinking ship USS America is enough. That's my worry with Obama for President. If he made it to the Oval Office how would he work with the same "Powers that Be" that destroyed Carter's Presidency and tried to get Clinton impeached.

We are going to need a powerful hand to pull ourselves out of the mess the Bushies have put us in. I don't know that Obama (as nice and articulate as he seems to be) can do this...even though many have hopes that a "fresh face" can stop this corruption...we've had them before in Carter and Clinton...at least there were promises that there would be less "business as usual." Clinton was the disappointment...with the DLC but they were better than what has enabled the Bushies all these years.

[Hamlette]

8. it's not so much experience or the DLC

Carter couldn't stand up to the GOP attacks, Clinton could, and did. (When I think back to that bizarre impeachment BS I get pissed all over again!)

And remember, Lincoln had far less experience than Obama does. No formal schooling (or very little) 2 years in Congress as a bench warmer.

And neither did Bush but here's the difference between Lincoln and Bush as was pointed out in an op ed recently: Lincoln knew if he was to win the civil war he could not leave it to his generals (who were losing). He had to get involved and become knowledgable about the war so he could train the generals and tell them what to do. Bush keeps saying he's doing what the generals tell him to do. Obviously it ain't working. So he should have done what Lincoln did. Problem with Bush is he's a lazy, spoiled, incurious, frat boy who thinks exercize and a belief in god will sail him through.

Yeah, Clinton was too conservative for me but in retrospect I don't hate most of his decisions now as much as I did then. (Welfare reform has actually worked. the reauth of 2006 seems set to screw that up but the 1996 bill turned out to really help a huge number of people.)