Al Gore endorses Howard Dean.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Al Gore endorses Howard Dean.
132
Tue, 12-09-2003 - 9:17am
Gore: 'Proud and honored to endorse Howard Dean'   Vote Dean     Democrat

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/index.html


Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean's bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination on Tuesday, substantially deepening Dean's fast-developing drive for dominance in the nine-candidate field of would-be challengers to President Bush.


"I'm very proud and honored to endorse Howard Dean as the next president of the United States of America," Gore said.


The announcement in Manhattan's Harlem, coming on the morning of another debate between the "'04 Dems," as they're called, could cement Dean's status as the leading Democratic candidate heading into the kickoff contests now just weeks away in Iowa and New Hampshire.


"We need to remake the Democratic Party, we need to remake America," Gore said.


"This nation cannot afford to have four more years of a Bush-Cheney administration," he said.


Prior to Tuesday's endorsement, a source told CNN that Gore -- the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in 2000 -- thinks a protracted primary campaign would serve only to help President Bush.


"In a field of great candidates, one candidate clearly now stands out and so I'm asking all of you to join in this grassroots movement to elect Howard Dean president of the United States," Gore said.


Dean thanked Gore for his leadership: "We have needed a strong steady hand in this party and I appreciate Al's willing(ness) to stand up and be one," Dean said.


Gore said part of the reason he chose to endorse Dean was his ability to appeal to the nation's "grassroots" elements, a reference to Dean's success in organizing and raising funds on the Internet and in small voter gatherings.


Gore also praised Dean's opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The former vice president called the Iraqi war a "catastrophic mistake" by the Bush administration, a move that leaves the United States less effective in the nation's battle against terrorism. He said the United States is now in a "quagmire" in Iraq.


Gore said that he and Dean would travel together to Iowa following the announcement. Gore was to give a speech later in the day in Cedar Rapids. The Iowa Caucus is set for January 19.


Dean was expected to travel on to New Hampshire for Tuesday evening's Democratic debate s-sponsored by ABC News and WMUR-TV. The New Hampshire primary is scheduled for January 27.


The announcement came nearly three years to the date from Gore's concession in the 2000 election, when he won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.


Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gore's vice-presidential running mate in 2000 and a current presidential hopeful, said he would continue to "to fight for what's right, win this nomination, and defeat George W. Bush next year."


"I have a lot of respect for Al Gore -- that is why I kept my promise not to run if he did," Lieberman said.


"Ultimately, the voters will make the determination and I will continue to make my case about taking our party and nation forward," Lieberman said in a written statement.


A source close to Lieberman said Gore, who was Clinton's vice president, did not call Lieberman to inform him of the decision.


Dean pulling ahead

With the Dean campaign gaining momentum, a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows Dean widening his front-runner status among the eight other Democratic candidates.


The poll showed that 25 percent of registered Democrats surveyed support Dean as their nominee, with retired Gen. Wesley Clark coming in second with 17 percent. (Poll: Dean's New Hampshire lead increases)


In an interview before the news broke on CNN's "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics," Dean played down his front-runner status.


"The pundits in Washington have been talking about me as the front-runner for a long time," Dean said.


"Well, guess what, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Arizona and so forth get to decide who the front-runner is. So, it's nice talk but I'm not buying it."


Caught off-guard

Erik Smith, a campaign press secretary for Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, sounded as if the Gephardt team was caught off-guard by the news, as were Dean's other rivals.


Dean and Gephardt are the top two candidates in Iowa. (Gephardt calls for increased homeland security funding)


"Dick Gephardt fought side-by-side with Al Gore to pass the Clinton economic plan, pass the assault weapons ban and defend against Republican attacks on Medicare and affirmative action. On each of these issues, Howard Dean was on the wrong side," Smith said.


Saying he respected Gore and fought for his campaign four years ago, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said, "This election is about the future, not about the past." (Kerry: Bush administration arrogant, reckless)


"This election will be decided by voters, across the country, beginning with voters in Iowa," he said.


Paul Begala, a political adviser to President Clinton and now a host of CNN's "Crossfire," called the endorsement an "enormous boost" that would clearly give Dean momentum going into Iowa and New Hampshire.


"It's very good for him," Begala said. "I wouldn't go so far as to say it locks anything up, though, because people want to make up their own minds."








cl-Libraone

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Thu, 12-11-2003 - 12:25pm
I understand the whole "Damned if you do damned if you don't" aspect of being a superpower. I wouldn't want to be a superpower - just a nation better equipped to go in and help out other nations who ask for it in a broad international framework.

Also, having more clout militarily would make it easier to get more powerful nations to listen to our attemts at helping out with diplomatic proposals.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 12-11-2003 - 12:26pm
<>

Excuse me for jumping into this argument. Have you considered the fact that wrhen is a hawk and thinks Clinton should have invaded Iraq. Let's consider that. Since Bush used the Clinton military, the invasion would have gone pretty much the same. However, I doubt Clinton would failed to considered the aftermath, because he would not have untaken the invasion on the advice of neo-cons who expected to be greeted by cheering mobs. Clinton would have considered the historical tensions among Iraqis and taken steps to ensure the aftermath of an invasion was carried out as well as the invasion. I bet if GWB had inherited troops in Iraq from Clinton, wrhen would be singing a different tune. Of course, this is all hypothetical.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 12-11-2003 - 12:41pm
<>

$6.9 trillion

http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html

This seems high to me, I was thinking $400 Billion. According to this URL, this is the debt incurred this year. Interesting site, you can see how much the US is spending while you are logged on.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Thu, 12-11-2003 - 12:54pm
I wish I had a crystal ball on knowing what the government will do. Certainly the study you posted paints a grim picture however, that was the intended slant of it. I think it was intended to frighten people into taking some action which certainly isn't a bad thing (instead it scaring the pants off a few Americans). There are others studies that say it's not as bad as all that but it certainly isn't good...that's why I (and a lot of others) think we should spend more on the military.

If it makes you feel any better, as far as the war on terror and defending the borders and all that we have stepped up to the plate. There is a large civilain element to that. These jobs are also taken care of by civilian/police type employees. Actually, come to think of it, Canada has sent police rather than military at times into countries that need peace keepers.

Our lack of enthusiasm is not directed towards cracking down on terrorism but towards the wisdom of going to war in Iraq which many view as two different things.

About the mounties, they are pretty cool however those guys in red on the horses are now only ceremonial. Now most of the time they just drive around in regular police cars, wearing a normal uniform. With the discovery of oil and gas, we don't need as many horses. The big hats were a real inconvenience as they kept getting knocked off when leaped out of their cars to be first in line for the fresh doughnuts at the local Tim Hortons. Also, the drug dealers kept laughing at their funny britches which totally undermined their authority ;o)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 12-11-2003 - 1:16pm
Of course you're quite welcome to jump in. I think it's important to remember in any sort of hypothetical "Clinton should have taken out Hussein" argument, that before 9/11 it was politically impossible to do so. Clinton could not have done it and George Bush could not have done it. It is only the fear and security issues brought about by 9/11 that have made pre-emptive war possible. President Bush and the neo-cons are well aware of this.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 12-11-2003 - 1:19pm
I get what you're saying, but disagree. Say my friend Bill borrows my car without asking. I don't much like it, but he didn't go far and I've let him drive it before in a pinch, so I don't scream and holler. Then say my friend George borrows my car, drives it clear across the continent and into the ocean. I'm mad as hell, and he says "well you weren't mad at Bill when he borrowed your car!"

Make sense?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Thu, 12-11-2003 - 1:35pm
'Your' comments were nothing that all of us haven't heard at least a hundred times, and nearly always in reference to the US. The only time I've heard them made about other countries was when people who support Iraq are making a point.

<>

Wrong. Our current status in the world is not why these charges are made. Were Russia or China in our place, there would be no issue over this at all. Conversely, if we were less powerful, say along the lines of France, if we ever acted in Africa the way France makes a habit of, we'd be condemned by every HR organization on the planet. American exceptionalism has always been about our idealism and morality.

We hold ourselves to high standards. That's not what's going here at all. This is about people and govts who don't support our policies condemning us for not adhearing to a completely different set of behaviors than the rest of the world, and if they couldn't use these charges to do it, they come up with others to make hay with our reputation because that's what this is about--attempting to knock down the US any way that's possible.





Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Thu, 12-11-2003 - 1:46pm
The deficit is the difference between revenue & expenses for one fiscal year. This year its $400 billion.

The national debt is the total amount of money that the govt. owes--$6.9 trillion, last year it would have been $6.5 trillion.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Thu, 12-11-2003 - 1:52pm
With every one of your posts to me on this thread, I feel like I have fallen deeper down the rabbit hole. You're not gaslighting me, are you?

Renee

Avatar for mrsm10
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 12-11-2003 - 3:20pm
I heard yesterday, from NBC's Today Show that when Katie Curouic (sp?) was interviewing Dean, that it was Dean that first called Gore months ago looking for an endorsement, he hemmed and hawed around that issue, however, I think that Gore is looking for his own opportunities. I do wonder why Gore didn't endorse Lieberman.

Then again, maybe Gore wants to be Vice President again? WHO Knows?

I don't *do* celebrity endorsements of any type, whether it's Jeff Gordon plugging Pepsi OR Earnhardt, Jr with his face on a box of Chicken in a biscuit.

I am still hoping for Gephardt!

Pages