Wondering what you all think about this...I am going to be watching and listening to what he has to say about this, as well as the other candidates...

After Hillary Clinton's vote in support of giving Bush more power to attack Iran, I've just about had it with her. I'd vote for her over ANY of the Republicans, but still, I'm just tired of and disgusted by the games she's playing with the neocon crowd. Obama is doing the same crap and trying to float about the fray. Edwards...I mean, I'd vote for him, but he can't even change the discussion the Republicans and their media apparatchiks have created about his haircuts and wealth. Richardson needs to come out of his fog. The other Democrats running have no chance of being elected.

So if Gore were to run, he'd have my unalloyed support. He was elected in 2000 by the majority of Americans, he had the presidency stolen from him, and he's spent the last 7 years acting as a moral and ethical leader. I hope he wins the Nobel Peace Prize and I hope he can be drafted to run for the presidency. He'd work his damnedest to end the horrible war in Iraq and turn this country around. Unfortunately, I can't say that about Clinton, who keeps canoodling with the neocons, just yet.

Cheers to that fantomas. I don't give a flying f*ck if he's stiff. Some people in this country are influenced by the SIMPLEST of sh*t its disgusting!!! They like Fred Thompson because he drives a red pick up truck? WTF is that?!! They like Bush because they can envision themselves having a beer with him. I mean...seriously people!!!!!! You won't be riding in Thompson's red pickup truck and you won't be having a beer with Dumbya!!!!!!!

And for heavens sake...I hope the next president makes some kind of statement about how we should be separating Church and State. This president clearly can't tell the difference.

Not that big a Gore fan. He had a chance to stand up to Bush and fluffed it. He might do well in a post or role in a democratic administration, but I think he has set a good course for a career in private life in a specific field that he is passionate about.

Likewise for Jimmy Carter, who would be a great advisor for any president on human rights.

Edwards was actually very impressive in the PBS solo interview. He is passionate about a cause that is at the root of the problems in the USA and the world: economic disparity.

It was just announced this morning that Gore has won a Nobel prize. Congratulations Mr. Vice President!!!

This may be question for another thread and I don't want to hijack this one, but I always find statements such as this curious. When you say "end the (insert adjective of choice here) war in Iraq" what exactly is it that you mean?

Is it simply a removal of all US forces from Iraq?

(This, BTW, was a question posed to me by a group of Iraqi lawyers in a Baghdad courthouse this morning. When I saw the reference, I just thought I would pose the question to you, because I, honestly, don't know the answer.)

Good question. What I mean is both removal of US troops and a concerted effort to find a political solution, meaning actively involving all of the neighboring countries, the Arab League, and the UN in establishing, to the degree possible, a functioning entity in what is now Iraq. That would also mean recognizing that the Bush administration's disastrous bungling empowered Iran, which they were too stupid to have envisioned, and thus Iran, rather than being subjected to constant threats of bombing, etc., will be dealt with diplomatically in such a way that we help to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan AND also to ensure that the Sunni nations nearby do not feel threatened. This may be naïve, but I don't see it as any more unfeasible than the pipe dreams we've been sold now since 2002-2003, when Bush launched his crusade. We see what that's brought.

Good luck over there in Iraq. You've mentioned more than once that you're over there, so let me say I genuinely hope you're okay.

Let me just add a heartfelt congratulations to our former Vice President and almost-President (in 2000), Al Gore Jr., for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

I don't think he's going to run, since Hillary Clinton is looking increasingly like a juggernaut, but if he did, I think he'd defeat ANY of the Republican candidates in a landslide.

And also congratulations to Doris Lessing for winning the Nobel Prize for Literature!

where in her vote to lable the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization does it say that she voted to give Bush the go ahead to attach Iran?

Hillary is a realist and that's why I'm supporting her

the Democrats need someone like her who isn't saying stuff to get elected like Richardson, who I used to support, and Obama, who I really want to like but can't

Did you read the language of that amendment? Labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization" can easily serve as a prelude to a Bush administration attack on the sovereign nation of Iran. Since Bush, Cheney, etc., along with their dupe General Saint Petraeus are constantly stepping up the rhetoric to blame Iran for every crisis our troops face--while saying ZIP about Saudi Arabia, which is a major source of the "insurgents" and funding for the Sunni insurgency--this "vote," organized by neocons Lieberman and Kyl was another gift to the Bush administration's extraordinarily dangerous and destructive hackery.

Said Senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd (D-CT)



Said Senator Jim Webb (D-VA)



Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization without fully reading up on it, and she's let herself be duped again. What does this say about this woman's judgment, or, was it for other reasons, which also redound to her questionable judgment?

Hillary is nobody's "realist." She is a craven opportunist who tries to see which way the wind is blowing and gets out in front of it. She'd still be better than all the buffoons the Republicans are running (save perhaps Ron Paul, and yes, I know he's made racially inflammatory statements in the past, but he's really the only sane Republican running), but she's nobody's realist. That vote in favor of Bush's war plans was not "realism," it was political opportunism. The realists voted AGAINST that authorization, which is why they've been smeared to the nth degree. She's now shillyshallying on pulling the troops out. Well come on, Mrs. Clinton, do you want them out or not? Or are you going to keep them their to further the oil companies' gains and games and then try to blame it all on George Bush? Seriously--I mean, I'm not fooled by this woman. Or do you equate craven opportunism with "realism"?

She is saying all kinds of things to get elected. Like her "new" health care plan. She knows full well it's not going to cover everyone. She's full of BS in claiming it will. Edwards and Obama never launched such a plan, but Clinton tried and she could marshall support to do it right this time through. Instead, she's playing games again.

Okay, you don't like Obama. Am I surprised? No. The man could walk on water and I'm sure you'd find some knock against him. So what about John Edwards? Is he not good enough either? Not ruthless enough? Hillary Clinton is not annointed, though the right-wing media are telling us she is. As I said, I'll vote for her against any of the Republicans, but I would far rather see someone who's not part of a longstanding machine, with double-side playing pollsters like Mark Penn, much of Bill Clinton's right-leaning, inept DLC gang, and creeps like Sandy Berger, in tow. (Millions of Americans rejected the DLC crapola last year--we want to get our troops out of Iraq NOW.) Because you know she's got Sandy Berger on the payroll again. Or does she? Who can say, she's equivocating yet again on something so basic. KEEP THAT CONVICTED FELON AWAY FROM YOUR CAMPAIGN. Yes. It's that easy, Mrs. Clinton. If she's a realist, Lord help all of us.

I still think Gore would make, would have made an outstanding President, but it sure sounds like this ain't gonna happen. At least not this year anyways. I think it would be a step down from the pedestal he now finds himself standing tall on, and it appears he will most likely be an environmental counselor/advisor to which ever Democrat ( I am planning on!) gets into office next year.....The talking heads said he maybe could think about running in 4 years again, but we could be in an entirely different scenario by then of course.

I'll go with other reasons. Her judgement is pretty sound when it comes to achieving short-term goals, such as getting elected, but questionable on long-term ones, such as implementing complex policies.

Unfortunately that is how USA politics is played. And may work again. Should she win she will probably serve two terms unmemorable for anything other than being the first woman president and more competent than 90% of the men who served. Whether there will be anything on the order of Lincoln's handling of keeping the nation together or Roosvelt's New Deal is highly questionable in my opinion.

I also do not believe Gore could manage such momentous and historical travesties as the Civil War or The Great Depression. Great presidents have occurred at the times this nation has needed them. Hillary I think would be a competent president, but not a great one.

As long as we do not face anything on the scale of the two previously mentioned events, we will not need a president to rise to them. But that is asking a lot of a world that is facing the possibility of extinction of its primal species: us - due to either environmental transformations or to world-wide military-industrial conflicts.

It seems that there are some who disagree with Mr. Gore's selection as Nobel winner. Story here.

Regardless, I don't find anything wrong with trying to clean up the planet.

Well thats interesting, and his opinion, and he is entitled to it, but, according to everything I have heard and read on the subject, he is in the minority...whereas a clear majority of scientists now believe that global warming is primarily caused by humans.......time will tell of course....

Okay, you don't like Obama. Am I surprised? No. The man could walk on water and I'm sure you'd find some knock against him. So what about John Edwards? Is he not good enough either? Not ruthless enough? Hillary Clinton is not annointed, though the right-wing media are telling us she is. As I said, I'll vote for her against any of the Republicans, but I would far rather see someone who's not part of a longstanding machine, with double-side playing pollsters like Mark Penn, much of Bill Clinton's right-leaning, inept DLC gang, and creeps like Sandy Berger, in tow. (Millions of Americans rejected the DLC crapola last year--we want to get our troops out of Iraq NOW.) Because you know she's got Sandy Berger on the payroll again. Or does she? Who can say, she's equivocating yet again on something so basic. KEEP THAT CONVICTED FELON AWAY FROM YOUR CAMPAIGN. Yes. It's that easy, Mrs. Clinton. If she's a realist, Lord help all of us.

Okay-why aren't you surprised that I don't like Obama. He's had what two years in the Senate and some experience in the Illinois state legislature. He doesn't have enough experience to handle the Repug smear machine let alone anything else.

John Edwards-he reminds me a bit of Mitt-both knew that he couldn't get re-elected to their current office and decided to run for president instead. Edwards doesn't have enough experience either

and as for long-standing machines, let's not forget that Obama has the backing of the Daley machine in Chicago although I doubt that they have much influence past the borders of Illinois

as for Sandy Berger-the man made a mistake and he's paid for it but he's pretty damn smart in foreign affairs

do you honestly think that Hillary's campaign believed that no one would find out that Berger is helping her?

I think she was showing a bit of bravado by bringing him on board. She's basically saying screw you to her critics. That is the biggest plus for me. She's dealt with haters for the past 15 years and she's still around.

We face incredible problems, Sportinlife, probably as momentous as either of these. Our country is bogged down in a war without end right now, and our military, particularly our army, is being ruined. We have been on a borrowing-and-spending binge now for six straight years, we have rampant infrastructure crises around the country, we cannot get a handle on illegal immigration, we have the worst income inequality since the 1920s, we have witnessed high crimes being committed with impunity by this administration, from illegal warrantless wiretapping of US citizens (cf. the exploding Qwest trial scandal, in which it's come out that the Bush administration tried to force Qwest to spy on US citizens BACK IN EARLY 2001!), defiance of Congressional subpoenas, and so much more. On the international front, we face the ongoing problem of Islamicist terrorism, which Bush has only exacerbated, nuclear proliferation, a re-Sovietizing Russia (look at how Putin has again changed the rules to destroy his opposition and maintain power, now as the forthcoming Prime Minister, etc.), China's rising power and influence, and so on.

You may not think these are real problems, but a majority of Americans do.

The vast majority of American presidents have not risen to the level of Washington, Lincoln, or FDR. Hell, they haven't come close to Bill Clinton's or Ronald Raygun's records. But that's the not the issue. The issue is that we need someone who could reverse the drastically disastrous course we've been on under W. For all my criticisms of her, Hillary Clinton could do that, as could, I think it's quite clear now, Al Gore, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and perhaps Joe Biden. (Kucinich has some great ideas but is too uncompromising, and Gravel...well....)

Hillary is going to be on "The View" this morning, so will be listening to what she has to say today.

I thought she came across pretty good today myself. Nothing new, or earth shattering to report..no errors, or gaffes but .she covered as much ground as you can possibly do in the short time constraints placed on her for about a 15 minute interview...Whoopi asked her what 3 things she would do first if elected, and she said get us out of Iraq was the first thing, then she said she would call upon "distinguished Americans" both Republicans and Democrats to go abroad and restore Americas image...and for the 3rd she said she would work on the economy and the effect of the cost of living impacts on the middle class....

Prior to that the subject of Ann Coulter came up. I didn't catch the whole range of comments from everybody due to a phone call, but Whoopi did say she could never begin to understand most of the comments Ms. Coulter spews.

Whoopi is also getting ready to kick smoking and talked about what she is going to do next, that being consult with a Doctor over the options and stuff. Good luck Whoopi!