Zen and the Art of Politics

I tend to agree with some media opinions that say he is waiting to run in 2008. I think that's a smart move assuming by then a war with Iraq should be just history, Bush's popularity numbers would be back to average (assuming reelection), the economy should be back on track and maybe the Democrats could regain control of the House and/or Senate by then (thanks to Lott). Of course anything could happen in six years but whoever takes over in 2004 will have a whole lot of crap to deal with and I think it will be tough for a Democrat to take the presidency while the conflict with Iraq continues to loom (I think that's partly why the Republicans keep pushing it). Who wants to change presidents/staff in the middle of a potential crisis, even if they aren't doing such a great job?

Too bad Gore waited until now to show he can be a "normal" guy. Reminds me of when Dole lost and all of a sudden became a charming guy on tv.

You pretty much summed up how I feel about Gore. What is interesting to me is how Lib-rals/Democrats who have retired from public life are so much more better than they were in office. (Carter and McGovern jump to mind). By the way, McGovern's spirited defense of Liberalism in this month's Harpers is an excellent read.

What was scary was that despite everything that happened with Clinton, with Gore's campaign and with this year's Democrat BBQ, just prior to his announcement I heard he was still the front runner for the party nomination. As someone who is left of the left, because they are so far into the middle, that was a concern. For now, my eye is on Kerry.

At the emotions coding lab where I volunteer, Al Gore is always used to exemplify the emotion, "domineering," a key component of which is a patronizing tone of voice. Every time I think of him, I picture that wagging finger and his raised outer-brows.

Just try it - wag your finger and raise the outer part of your eye brows, you can't help but feel domineering! Ha!

Once a politician, always a politician. Todd, I think he's pulling the wool over everyone's eyes in an attempt to regain the popular vote. (and he's doing quite a swell job of it) He'll be back in the running soon enough.

I'm sorry but anyone who can host Saturday Night Live like Gore did last weekend deserves the popular vote.

Andew Sullivan comments on Gore's decision not to run, and makes the point that Gore is ignored by voters, but worse, distrusted by both centrists and lefties in the Dem party, and loathed by the press. Reason? follow the bounching ideological ball: "I'm centrist, I'm on the left, wait, I'm back, etc..."

I would just like to ask Brad Lauder how in the name of Pete you raise the *outer* part of your brows??

I bet you can wiggle your ears too, cantcha?

... and I'd ask the same question of Brad Lauster at the same time...

Hi, you know very little about politics

Al Gore did not decide to stay otu of the 2004 race because he's emotional. Please. Get a clue.

He knows he can't win. The Big W, unfortunately, is the most popular president in history. Why end your elected political career by throwing your name in the hat?

Al Gore is obviously more comfortable being the guy that "was robbed" than the guy that lost for a third time. This guys is smart, but has no balls. He's a pandering, pathetic politician in the worst way.

He's not going to be back in '08. The party has little need for someone who was virtually handed the job and lost. Has no support now, will have less in '08.

Says he's gonna throw out the polls and the pollsters and run this time from the heart. BS considering these statements came in the midst of a national media blitz to see if he's got enough friends (read cash) to support him for another run. Sounds like polling to me.

I echo an earlier comment that pronounced the Clinton/Gore era is over. Hallelujah! Clinton's stumping had little to no impact on key democratic midterm elections and now Gore is gone. It's a Merry Christmas after all!

Gore never struck me as the leader type. Too soft, too feminine. He makes a good third stringer, but he isn't the man. His posturing to be all bad during the last election was humorous. A threat of phyiscal violence would have him hiding behind Tipper so fast, it would make you cry. We need a President like the one in that Tom Clancy movie - one that can take a punch, fly a plane and deliver really good one-liners. A cross between the actor Bruce Willis and the politician Bruce Willis. Hey - how about Bruce Willis? Or a clone of Theodore Roosevelt - America's First Bad Ass President. JFK was pretty tough, I heard - for a Democrat.

See people, what we need is a guy that makes the whole world scared. They would say "is he for real?", "nah, wait he did seem serious". When I watch Fox's American Candidate, I will be scouting that kind of fierceness. God Bless America.

Furby, i think you're forgeting the most qualified action hero, Ahnuld. He's like Charlton Heston and a Kennedy all rolled into one.

Shutup! No wait! You are onto something. Ahnuld has been dippin his dick in Kennedy pink for years now. After Terminator 3 ruins him, we may see Politician Terminator once and for all. He knows all of the lefts secrets - sleeping with the Democratic skeleton princess yet remains a soldier for the right.

Hot damn!

Kennedy pink? My my. A good rock band name, now that I think about it.

See people, what we need is a guy that makes the whole world scared.

We already have that, that's a big part of the problem. It might have worked for Reagan, but he was just looking to scare the shit out of the Russians (which he did). Georgy boy scares the shit out of everybody, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

No sir, not a all. Especially when there are nukes / nerve gases / diseases involved. You can only initimidate so much...

Are you kidding? W is too dumb to be scary. He's lacks the passion and intelligence to be intimidating. Problem is, he comes off like a nice guy - we need a mean guy. That crying bit on Oprah ruined that.

Are we all that hollywoodized that we can only think of good leaders from the ranks of actors who play tough people in movies (and whose action bits are all done by stuntmen?)

I hate to say this, but with a two-party system, the American public don't really have much of a choice; it's like a choice between Coke and Pepsi, or more accurately, Coke and New Coke.

While arguments can be made that third-party candidates (like Nader) "split the vote", arguments can also be made that the two-party monopoly on power fails to accurately represent the interests of all citizens. The all-or-nothing approach has poisoned and warped American political discourse to the point where true debate doesn't exist anymore.

Legally, there's nothing preventing 3, 4 or more parties from participating in all levels of government, but bodies like the Presidential Debates Commission deny them participation in televised debates, and thus choke off the vital oxygen of publicity they need to put their views before the American people.

I don't claim to have the answer to America's political problems, but in Canada, we have enjoyed a multi-party democracy with a relatively civil level of debate for over 200 years now. Thanks to legislation that ensures equal access to media and sensible limits / equalizers on campaign funding, having more money isn't a deciding factor - it's (usually) about the leaders and the issues.

In our system, it's the government that decides when to call an election (unless triggered by a vote of non-confidence, etc.), and the same people can hold office for 30 years or more. In some ways, this is bad - there is ossification, corruption - but in another sense, ideally, not having the political landscape scrambled every 2 years means governments can take the long view in planning and progress. It generally works, and occasionally, when it doesn't, people get booted out of office. :)

Unfortunately, this is America, the land populated by a lotof good people who make sense and a bigger lot of idiots that want to hold on to their conservative political views and deny all the problems they have caused. I think many (although not most) people in America would support heavy campaign reform. It's just been held back by the politicians and their big money supporters.

Yes Vergil, that was exactly my point. Al Gore is not running because "he's emotional." Ummm...yeah.