Gore, Clinton or Obama for President?

No, it really makes no sense. Gore has held no elected office in the last seven years. Obama has. So how that adds up to Obama "mouthing" and Gore "WAS" really escapes me. Add in the fact that I'm struggling to think of an issue the two of them fundamentally disagree on, and the only thing that's clear is that it's time for Simon to take his pills again.

 

Well, I don't think Gore feels quite as belligerent about Iran as Obama did in that AIPAC speech.

 

Where was Obama on the vote to give Bush unilaterality to invade?

He takes potshots at Clinton's record in the Senate on that vote... well, Obama wasn't even there.

Gore, meanwhile, was loudly, on TV, ripping it, even when Bush was at 80 percent approval. Just like he had been on the global warming issues years before that.

 

Simon, Obama spoke out against the war before the vote was taken. So did Gore. Neither man had a vote in the Senate, but both tried to use what clout they had to speak out. Where you see daylight there is, frankly, beyond me.

Fenian, you might have a point, but I don't honestly know what Gore's position on Iran is, nor do I buy that a call for direct diplomacy is "belligerent".

 

"Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region-that's not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world."


Yes, much of this would be true, if Iran was anywhere close to having nuclear weapons, which it is not. Gore would know that. He also would not have ducked the vote on Kyl-Lieberman, I don't believe.

 

Obama? No one had heard of the guy in 2002. Whatever position he had is immaterial... he risked nothing.

 

And Gore, a private citizen since Jan. 20, 2001, risked nothing either.

 

Egads, you're simple. So, let's see...

What ARE the requirements for one's opinion and thinking having merit? What ARE the qualifications for running for national office in 2008? One has to have held national office before 2002? Do I have that right? And what did Gore "risk," given that he held no office at the time and has run for no office since?

Look, I voted for Gore when he ran and I voted for Obama this time. I like them both. But you are truly making no sense here.

 

Riiiiight.

 

Anyone that spoke up against the war in that climate -- and was an elected official -- gets bonus points. We forget what it was like back then. Absolutely frightening.

 

Obama is an empty suit compared with the overthrown 43rd President of the United States.

 

Gore is to Dems as Fred Thompson is to GOPers.