Anyone else think that this signals a start of a fight for control of the party between the Clinton faction and the Dean/Gore faction? Has Al finally got a backbone regarding Bill and Hillary and standing up to them? I also agree that I see Hillary lurking in the shadows in all of this.
Originally posted by DrDirtAnyone else think that this signals a start of a fight for control of the party between the Clinton faction and the Dean/Gore faction? Has Al finally got a backbone regarding Bill and Hillary and standing up to them? I also agree that I see Hillary lurking in the shadows in all of this.
Looks like that is indeed the case (from today's NY Daily News... I hadn't even thought about the significance of yesterday's announcement being in Harlem):
Hil puts chill on Al's party plans
By DAVID SALTONSTALL DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF
Once upon a time, the Clintons and the Gores shared everything, from political tickets to intimate White House dinners.
But those days seemed long gone yesterday after the former vice president charged that the Democratic Party - the party of Bill and Hillary Clinton - needed to be "remade" as "a force for justice and progress and good in America."
The usually loquacious Sen. Hillary Clinton offered a stony, one-word answer when asked whether she agreed with her husband's once-loyal veep.
"No," said Clinton.
Behind the scenes, observers said the frosty response had more to do with 2008 - when both Gore and Hillary Clinton are projected as potential presidential contenders - than current affairs.
Under this view, Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean yesterday was aimed at seizing long-term control of the Democratic Party, in part by gaining favor with front-runner Dean and his growing base of active, left-leaning Democrats.
That Gore chose to make his endorsement in Harlem - down the street from former President Bill Clinton's office - was just an added twist of the knife.
"This was not Al Gore taking a shot across [Sen.] Clinton's bow," said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. "This was him putting one right into the solar plexus of both Clintons."
For her part, Clinton (D-N.Y.) has insisted that she has no plans to run for President against President Bush next year. But she has refused to rule out a run in 2008.
Clinton confidants yesterday said she had no desire to get into a philosophical debate with Gore about the direction of the Democratic Party, which is now chaired by Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe.
"Hillary Clinton is focused on reclaiming the White House in '04," said Democratic operative Howard Wolfson, who ran her Senate campaign. "And a big fight with Al Gore is a distraction from that effort."
When pressed yesterday on Gore's comments, Clinton said only that she had no plans to endorse any presidential contender until the primaries are over.
She held out the possibility that Dean could still be beaten, noting that her husband was at only 4% in December 1991 before he went on to win the nomination.
"I think we are in the middle of a primary campaign, and I want to see who emerges as the candidate," Clinton said. "And I will support whoever that nominee is."
Lethalwrestling.com: If you don't read us, you're probably gay
Barbwire, Hillary (and Bill) have to be furious about what Gore did. IMO, the reality is that the Dem's stand a better chance of winning using a more Deanlike approach. They must come across as progressive, caring, and for the little guy. By trying to be Republican lite they can't out Bush, Bush. People will believe the "we are the party of change and progress and anti-big business" better than many think. As I have said before, I am not a Dean suporter, but if it gets Hillary out of the picture, great.
I don't mind Hillary, but I'd rather have Dean in the White House. I'm not sure why, I just trust Dean more than either of the Clintons.
FLAMES: 13-8-1-3; 30pts SURVIVOR: PEARL ISLANDS: 5 Remain [Darrah, Jon, Sandra, Burton & Lillian] TOP 10 FILMS OF 2003 [So Far]: Mystic River, Lost In Translation, Finding Nemo, Seabiscuit, Kill Bill V1, X2: X-Men United, Open Range, Pirates of the Caribbean, Matchstick Men & The Last Samurai
Originally posted by Barbwire MikePerhaps because he's not one of the four people on the planet LESS trustworthy than those two?
Once you get past Castro and Ted Kennedy, I'm stuck.
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business. - Andrew Mellon
I'm largely a libertarian, at heart, but I'll be voting for Bush for one reason: foreign policy.
Really? Wow, I'd have thought that if anything, this nonsense in Iraq would turn people off. Do you really feel safer now than you did two years ago, what with more of the world (even the allies) more pissed off at America than ever before?
Anyone else get the feeling that having Al Gore's endorsement is sort of like having the teacher call you up to the front of the class to congratulate you on having the best attendance?
Americans are a crazy people founded by Puritans and people who wanted freedom and slavery, defined Manifest Destiny, and was ruthless enough to win the cold war. Maniacs who braved malaria and lived on swamps, without women or contact with their homeland, on a completely voluntary basis, were the founders of Jamestown. We idolize John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Gene Autry and all the other cowboys who killed in the name of what's right, The Kennedy clan, formed on a basis of criminial behavior that is ignored to this day because John and Bobby got shot. We invented the War Movie, The Quarterback Sack, Bourbon, Muscle Cars, The Atomic Bomb, Professional Wrestling, and Scrapple. We accepted your poor, your tired, your hungry, your wanting, and we're still open for business. Are we evil? Yes, good God yes. We're the lowliest form of scum wandering the planet; uncultured, uneducated, and unlimitedly. Why are we? We got the balls to stand up and be honest about what sucks and what doesn't, what we like and dislike, and to shoot first and ask questions later.
Shit, it's hard not to like the fact you're on board. God bless America and her fine citizens.
That being said, is there anybody better to lead us than George W. Bush?
(edited by Lexus on 11.12.03 0338)
Kane gets flustered that he didn't get to do something silly this week. Ho hum.
Originally posted by Freeway420I don't mind Hillary, but I'd rather have Dean in the White House. I'm not sure why, I just trust Dean more than either of the Clintons.
Maybe it's because Bill and Hillary are the most pure political animals ever to seek and attain higher office? Maybe it's because they are political chameleons who stand for everything and nothing at the same time? The sad part is that they are two of the best political minds ever and smart as Hell but without any moral compass.
Iran bans torture? They practically invented it, didn't they? Of course, it's timed to try and make the United States look bad. Then again, it's not as if torture in Iran makes the CNN evening news or anything.