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: 03-25-2003
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 9:37pm
Most of this stuff is misleading at best. Yes, minimum wage is way up`in the last 30 years but so are costs.

I remember making $300/month but milk was 50 cents a gallon and on sale one could get 3 pounds of hamburger for a dollar. Gasoline was 45 cents a gallon too. We rented a nice two bedroom home for $75/month. Of course not everything is more expensive. You can get a TV now for $10 or so at a thrift store or garage sale. Maybe that's why more poor people have them.

I spent part of this afternoon with a 45YO woman that lives in a two bedroom house with her adult daughter, another young couple and two small children. Yes, they had one window air conditioner last summer. That was good because the other windows were nailed shut. That isn't unusual despite what Sowell and those others try to tell you. Not too many years ago this state and some others had people die of heat, because they had no AC's or even fans.

Another young poor couple I know are homeowners. It's a $3,000 trailor that I helped them finance. They have an air conditioner too.

Many poor people across the country are facing this winter without heat because their utilities have been disconnected and can't be reconnected until a huge arrearage payment is made.

Yes, some people go from the ranks of the poor to the near poor. Some women find a husband or sugar daddy to lift them up even higher than that. Few others can go from the lower 20% to the highest 20%. It just doesn't happen.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 11:18pm
Wrong. The data is adjusted for inflation. It is accurate and consistent. The truely poor who are needy and live in poverty for more than 8 years are less than 1% of the population. All of the economists I quoted have national reputations and are highly respected.

Thomas Sowell

http://www.tsowell.com/

Walter Williams

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/facultybios/will.htm

The young couple you mentioned are just starting out. If they are responsible and hard working, 10 years from now, they will be in the 2nd or 3rd percentile.

I can't speak specifically to housing costs w/o knowing what region you are referring to, but I would ask how many people in the overcroweded household you mentioned held jobs and how many hours did they work?

Every year a very tiny number of unfortunate people die of heat in the summer and cold in the winter despite the efforts of charities, public services, and utility companies to prevent this. If you want to see what a serious crisis on that front looks like, check out France this past summer where 15,000 elderly people died in 3 to 4 weeks in a heatwave with temperatures that are nothing out of the ordinary for many parts of America and even cool compared to some.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the data is accurate, MOST of the people who, at some point in their lives, are in the bottom 20% will at some point in their lives also be in the upper 20% (usually when they near retirement) because in the US poverty is nearly always situational, and in the case of EVERY able bodied, mentally capable adult, avoidable.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 12-15-2003 - 10:28am

You're not making sense.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-15-2003 - 10:46am
That is the difference between a good man, with integrity such as Joe Lieberman, and a total putz, Al Gore.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-15-2003 - 10:47am
The Bible also says an eye for an eye.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 12-15-2003 - 11:15am
.......also "turn the other cheek".

cl-Libraone

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 12-15-2003 - 11:21am
I do understand that...but if you read the post that I originally responded to, you would see that is not the situation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 12-15-2003 - 11:33am
Thanks for the info. I know how I would fill in that blank. Mostly I was trying to get ahlmommy to define her argument a little better. Once you look at all that was happening with Iraq during the Clinton administration, it's obvious that he wasn't just dropping bombs to distract the American public from the Lewinsky scandal.

The links you chose, however, gave the impression that Clinton did nothing concerning Iraq. Here's General Zinni's assesment of the effectiveness of Operation Desert Fox:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan1999/n01121999_9901121.html

1/12/99

Zinni Says Saddam's "Shaken, Desperate"

By Linda D. Kozaryn

American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON -- Desert Fox has left Saddam Hussein shaken and

desperate, according to Marine Corps Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who

headed the December operation.



The four-day air campaign did more damage and was far more

effective than initially estimated, the U.S. Central Command

chief said. "We've upped our estimate on the time it would take

Saddam to repair the damages from Desert Fox from one to two

years," Zinni said at the Pentagon Jan. 8.



Further analysis has shown that structural damage was severe;

facilities are beyond repair in some cases. The strikes hit one-

of-a-kind items available only outside Iraq -- critical

equipment necessary for Saddam's missile development program.



The bombs and missiles did not hit empty buildings as first

reported, Zinni said. "In some cases, especially in the first

night's strikes, didn't have the opportunity to

disperse critical equipment within," he reported.



Unconfirmed reports estimate Republican Guard casualties at 600

to 2,000, including senior leaders. "We're trying to confirm

those reports as to who they were and what positions they held,"

Zinni said. The strikes damaged the guard's infrastructure,

command and control, yet they're still being given internal

security missions that they'll have to execute under some tough

conditions, he said.



"There are some brigades and divisions right now that are

operating out of tents," Zinni said. "They don't have barracks

to go back to. They don't have a headquarters or

equipment. They have communications problems

because we hit communications nodes. To replace all that and re-

establish that kind of capability within the Republican Guards -

- critical to the security of the regime -- will take quite

awhile."



Along with the physical destruction, Desert Fox reportedly has

caused some instability within Iraq and unrest in the Iraqi

army, Zinni said. "We've seen a number of unusual things

internally that clearly demonstrate that was shaken and

the regime was shaken," the commander said. "We have seen

executions in the south. One division, in particular, lost its

commander and several staff members."



Allegedly, the executions resulted from a failure to obey

orders, Zinni said. Prior to Desert Fox, he said, Saddam divided

Iraq into fourths and put ruthless people in charge, including

those responsible for attacks on Iraq's Kurds in the north and

Shiite Muslims in the south.



There appear to be two chains of command -- the regular military

leaders and those put in place by Saddam -- and that's creating

resentment and problems of loyalty as troops wonder who they

answer to, Zinni said.



Saddam displayed his state of mind Jan. 5 in a televised Army

Day speech that clearly reflected his isolation, Zinni said. The

Iraqi dictator called on all Arabs to rise up against their

leaders for "pandering to Western interests."



"His attack on all the other leaders in the region showed a

degree of desperation that we hadn't seen before," the general

said. "To us that speech was shocking." Other leaders in the

region "bristled at this attack on them," he added.



Signs of unrest and some loss of internal control are clear, but

not their extent, Zinni said. And what might a desperate Saddam

do under the circumstances? According to the general, the Iraqi

leader is capable of anything.



"He's capable of not only doing things irrationally, but of

miscalculating," Zinni said. "He's made a profession out of

miscalculation. He hopes for a propaganda victory. He obviously

doesn't value the lives of his own troops. He doesn't care about

his own people." That track record and those attitudes make him

dangerous, he said.



The United States has contingency plans should the Iraqi

dictator move toward Kuwait, fire missiles at his neighbors, and

other possible scenarios. "We have plans for everything," Zinni

said.





iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Mon, 12-15-2003 - 12:33pm
That's not a correct translation. The original Hebrew uses the word murder, not kill. It was mistranslated in the King James version which is the one you have. Most new translations have corrected the error.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Mon, 12-15-2003 - 12:45pm
<>

I wouldn't go that far. They're were legitimate reasons for acting against Iraq, but no reason why he timed it as he did. I think if he considered it a serious response, he would have acted much sooner probably before we'd ever heard the name Lewinsky.

In retrospect, we all know how effective those bombings were. That's a lot of death and destruction for an action which had no substantive effect on Iraq's policies.

If my memory is correct. It was suddenly during the Lewisnsky affair that Iraq became a high priority for Clinton and when he changed the policy and killed a few thousand people.

Afterwards, Iraq seemed to drop off his radar which is what promted the letter from Congress.


Edited 12/15/2003 1:01:29 PM ET by wrhen

Renee

Pages