Posted on 01/27/2007 8:26:51 PM PST by Nasty McPhilthy
At this moment, there are three declared candidates who are considered “front-runners” for the Democrats’ nomination: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. That rattling sound you hear are DNC nerves.
It isn’t looking good for Hillary. Though polls show her as the early favorite, Hillary is sitting on so many fences that eventually she’ll succumb to splinter-shock. Her past as a radical leftist is bound to be dug up time and time again and used in comparison to her more recent “softer” statements, and Hillary will be forced to do more dancing than Ginger Rogers standing on a downed power line. A tamer and more moderate (read: fake) Hillary Clinton is also bound to anger the Democrat base, and Hollywood is already beginning to shift their support away from Queen Cartpetbagger. Why? Hillary’s support of the war in Iraq and the softening of her position on abortion are only two reasons.
Hillary may well founder, which leaves us with the man in the on-deck circle, Barack Obama. With only two years’ national experience, Obama will ultimately be chewed up and spit out like a dog pill poorly hidden in a hunk of Fido’s cheese. Some say Obama smoking cigarettes and having the middle name “Hussein” will be a big deal, but these two facts will offset each other. How so? Engaging in the promotion of America’s biggest killer will give chills to liberals, but this will be balanced out by sharing a name with an innocent victim of George W. Bush who didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.
As for announced candidate number three, when voters hear “John Edwards,” he’ll be closely associated with John Kerry, and most Democrat primary voters will rightly think “been there, done that.” Clearing forest like a lumber company to build a home ( http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/26/john-im-a-lumberjack-and-im-okay-edwards/ ) isn’t bound to go over well with the tree-huggers, either. Listening to one of the reasons that health care is so expensive complaining about the cost of health care may not add up for some of the more astute Democrat voters.
And then there’s the undeclared Al Gore, who remains a hero to the Democrat base. After all, Gore’s the only high-profile Democrat with experience at winning a presidential election, isn’t he? Gore’s winning of the overall popular vote but yet losing the White House continues to chap Dem behinds, and many would love to give Al another shot.
Couple that with the fact that Al may win an Academy Award this year, and Gore looks like the man to beat in ‘08. Gore’s global warming film “An inconvenient truth” got two Oscar nominations. In late February, the Gore-loving, global warming fearing Hollywood glitterati will jump in their three-mile-per-gallon limos and head for the red carpet, some after burning tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel on their private planes, to back Gore in his quest to save the planet and root for the film to emerge victorious, not to mention urge him to run for president.
It’s been a long road back for Gore since his 2000 heart-break. Ever since, though, Gore’s been rebuilding himself via his environmental work. There’s are good reasons Gore often says that the most serious threat to the world isn’t terrorism, but rather global warming: Gore hasn’t made an Oscar nominated movie or written a book about terrorism.
There’s one way to tell if global warming is actually a greater threat than terrorism. If we start seeing Al Qaeda switching from car bombs and hijackings to aerosol hairspray and leaving an SUV running instead of blowing it up, then we’ll know.
The Democrat nomination is Al Gore’s for the taking. Sure, there will be questions, such as why global warming wasn’t such a big deal for the eight years Gore was actually in a position to do something about it, but this is but a minor point considering that the Democrats are nervous at having three “firsts” on their candidate list: A woman, a black man, and an ambulance chaser. If they ever all walk into a bar, there’s a hell of a joke there.
Al Gore offers the Democrats a way out. Gore is tested, high profile, loved by Hollywood, and he’s the only candidate who has experience winning a presidential election — or so they’ll tell us. He’s the “safest” bet at this point, and who else can be billed as most capable of actually saving the planet? I predict not only do the Democrat suits convince Gore to run, but that they even convince him to wear a cape on the campaign trail.
The stars are aligned perfectly for Al Gore to get the nomination.
Looks like Soros is losing faith that Hillary can do it.
Dean hardly had a monopoly on liberal moonbats, which is of course why he lost. In 2004 the virtually sole criteria of liberal moonbats was 'electability' and that's how Kerry ultimately won the nomination. Of course, Kerry was unelectable anyhow, but he was probably less unelectable than any of the others.
Yes. The medical argument Edwards used to win many medical malpractice lawsuits was later disproved. This was after Edwards and his ilk helped push malpractice premiums so high many oby/gyn's changed specialties and others insisted on performing cesareans rather than risk a lawsuit if the delivery went bad. Here's a link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1061376/posts
Thanks. Reading it now.
It would be ironic if they exchanged one sham for another (Gore).
As a native Tennessean I am sicked everytime I see him.
Dean was put up as the "anti-war" candidate, while Edwards was the "economic malaise" candidate. Both of them turned in abysmal performances during the primary season because neither of these issues got much traction with the voters. Kerry was the only one left who could mount any kind of serious campaign because he had taken so many different positions on both sides of issues that he could twist himself into whatever shape he needed to be.
This is the money shot. Beautiful.
PS. And you seem to have forgotten that Clark is entirely a product of the '04 liberal moonbats who were looking for a more 'electable' alternative to Dean.
Well I for one think algore should be their guy. After all, we Freepers would be sending snail mail if algore didn't invent the internet!
Oddly enough, when looking at DU polls the other day he beat out everyone .. Hillary and Obama.
I was shocked.
In this day and age no one as obese as Gore would ever be elected President.
For goodness sake, you can hear him wheezing when he speaks.
I met him and my sister did an internship in college with his office.
I have never been impressed with him. Like most in congress he has an excellent staff when it comes to dealing with problems from constituents. I know firsthand that very few of the complaints even reach the congressman or senator before being dealt with by the staff.
I don't know if that fits your problem or not and I am glad you got it resolved.
Gore does not and has not represented the values of Tennessee for a long time.
Also, I can't imagine how the Democratic Party would ever allow a guy who couldn't carry his home state to win the nomination. Look how quickly Joe Lieberman fell out of favor with the party after 2000 . . . he was putting up Sharpton/Kucinich-type numbers in 2004 before he called it quits.
Fine, don't have faith in them. 20 minutes on any of the moonbat sites will make it patently obvious that Gore has far and away the most support and far more than Dean had in 2004.
Does he even have any kind of financial support at this point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.