Al Gore - Democratic Party candidate in 2008.
- Thread starter SouthAmerica
- Start date
I did some research into this Council On Foreign Relations (CFR). Hard to believe the conspiracy theories about it.
I was wondering how come most media organizations seem to favor Obama - was there some kind of agreement that he should be the next president? I mean between him and Hillary, it's easy - he's a lot sexier, the real new kid on the block that the public tends to fall in love with. But between Obama and McCain? Why the preference?
It's easier, in my mind, to believe the alternative (to something like orders from a group like CFR) view: Most people in this country call themselves Democrats (or Democrat-leaning Independents), although many of them either don't vote or, when push comes to shove, they vore Republican, hence the balance in the final polls. However, what matters to the media (who are out to sell soap, telephone service and cars for a lot of money) is how people think of themselves every day, and not only on that particular Tuesday every four years. Therefore, it pays for the media to be leaning Democrat day after day. Make sense?
I was wondering how come most media organizations seem to favor Obama - was there some kind of agreement that he should be the next president? I mean between him and Hillary, it's easy - he's a lot sexier, the real new kid on the block that the public tends to fall in love with. But between Obama and McCain? Why the preference?
It's easier, in my mind, to believe the alternative (to something like orders from a group like CFR) view: Most people in this country call themselves Democrats (or Democrat-leaning Independents), although many of them either don't vote or, when push comes to shove, they vore Republican, hence the balance in the final polls. However, what matters to the media (who are out to sell soap, telephone service and cars for a lot of money) is how people think of themselves every day, and not only on that particular Tuesday every four years. Therefore, it pays for the media to be leaning Democrat day after day. Make sense?
I agree. Now, Hollywood has historically been very Jewish/liberal for the most part. But, they also see that most of their customers lean Democrat (or so they say) and the film-makers/actors continue their liberal tradition for commercial reasons. Btw, most Americans also think that Hollywood is morally the pits, so no problem for the more conservative part of our political spectrum
the media uses both sides depending on the needs of their current agenda. check out the dialectic.
http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/hegelian_dialectic.htm
.
Gord: This Algore mania is just media speculation. Although I do believe the Democrat leadership (Dean, Pelosi, Reid) are all about the dumbest people in politics, I doubt they would be stupid enough to destroy the party by letting Algore jump in the middle of this fight. A lot of Democrats have invested a lot of money, time and emotions in their respective candidates, and they would not easily toss all of that aside for Algore.
*****
April 2, 2008
SouthAmerica: I understand your reasoning it is better for the Democratic Party to lose the election in November 2008 with Hillary or Obama than win the election with Al Gore.
At the end of the day neither Hillary nor Obama have enough delegates to cross the finish line before the Democratic Party convention, and in the next 4 months the fight is going to get even tougher between them, and by convention time Hillary and Obama supporters are going to hate each other more than ever.
After the Democratic Party convention the Republican Party will take the nominee of the Democratic Party apart â Hillary or Obama â then the Republicans will commemorate their victory in November 2008.
John McCain probably will as Joe Lieberman to be on his ticket as the VP â to see if they can turn Connecticut into a red state in November.
Let me see if I understand the logic of a lot of political pundits on television. It is better for the Democratic Party to lose the election with Hillary or Obama than draft Al Gore and win the election in 2008 and most likely have 8 years of Al Gore after he is reelected in 2012.
It will better to united the Democratic Party: 4 years of John McCain (2009 to 2012) than 8 years (2009 to 2016) under president Al Gore.
*****
Jayford: My feelings exactly. Not only would it do lasting long term damage to the Party, I'm not so sure gore would win. Then they'd really be screwed.
*****
SouthAmerica: If Al Gore is the nominee of the Democratic Party I have no doubt that he would win in November 2008 with a strong mandate.
Between the independent voters and the people who would vote for Ralph Nader â there are enough votes for Al Gore to win on a closer race.
My first choice in November 2008 is Al Gore, but my second choice is Ralph Nader. One of them is going to get my vote and also the vote of many of my friends and relatives.
But a John McCain victory in November 2008 makes it easier to figure out what is going to happen to the US economy in the next 4 years and at least the unemployment problem it will be solved for a few years under John McCain.
.
Gord: This Algore mania is just media speculation. Although I do believe the Democrat leadership (Dean, Pelosi, Reid) are all about the dumbest people in politics, I doubt they would be stupid enough to destroy the party by letting Algore jump in the middle of this fight. A lot of Democrats have invested a lot of money, time and emotions in their respective candidates, and they would not easily toss all of that aside for Algore.
*****
April 2, 2008
SouthAmerica: I understand your reasoning it is better for the Democratic Party to lose the election in November 2008 with Hillary or Obama than win the election with Al Gore.
At the end of the day neither Hillary nor Obama have enough delegates to cross the finish line before the Democratic Party convention, and in the next 4 months the fight is going to get even tougher between them, and by convention time Hillary and Obama supporters are going to hate each other more than ever.
After the Democratic Party convention the Republican Party will take the nominee of the Democratic Party apart â Hillary or Obama â then the Republicans will commemorate their victory in November 2008.
John McCain probably will as Joe Lieberman to be on his ticket as the VP â to see if they can turn Connecticut into a red state in November.
Let me see if I understand the logic of a lot of political pundits on television. It is better for the Democratic Party to lose the election with Hillary or Obama than draft Al Gore and win the election in 2008 and most likely have 8 years of Al Gore after he is reelected in 2012.
It will better to united the Democratic Party: 4 years of John McCain (2009 to 2012) than 8 years (2009 to 2016) under president Al Gore.
*****
Jayford: My feelings exactly. Not only would it do lasting long term damage to the Party, I'm not so sure gore would win. Then they'd really be screwed.
*****
SouthAmerica: If Al Gore is the nominee of the Democratic Party I have no doubt that he would win in November 2008 with a strong mandate.
Between the independent voters and the people who would vote for Ralph Nader â there are enough votes for Al Gore to win on a closer race.
My first choice in November 2008 is Al Gore, but my second choice is Ralph Nader. One of them is going to get my vote and also the vote of many of my friends and relatives.
But a John McCain victory in November 2008 makes it easier to figure out what is going to happen to the US economy in the next 4 years and at least the unemployment problem it will be solved for a few years under John McCain.
.
.
Gord: Pardon me, but I think you live in a dream world.
*****
SouthAmerica: I am not, but a lot of political pundits on television are saying that if the Democratic Party nominates anybody other than Obama or Hillary - that would do devastating damage to the Democratic Party.
But they never say if losing the election in November 2008 with either Obama or Hillary - what kind damage that would do not only to the party but also to the country.
If Al Gore is nominated at the convention and wins in November 2008
most democrats would forget what happened on the 2008 election in no time.
.
Gord: Pardon me, but I think you live in a dream world.
*****
SouthAmerica: I am not, but a lot of political pundits on television are saying that if the Democratic Party nominates anybody other than Obama or Hillary - that would do devastating damage to the Democratic Party.
But they never say if losing the election in November 2008 with either Obama or Hillary - what kind damage that would do not only to the party but also to the country.
If Al Gore is nominated at the convention and wins in November 2008
most democrats would forget what happened on the 2008 election in no time.
.