Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MWC
I disagree about Gore. He has the same "intangibles" problem that Hillary has with the greater population. Hillary, I, too, have said before, would be a mistake for the Dems as a presidential candidate. So far, I would take the gamble on Osama over anyone else in the Dem race right now. For the Reps, they should go with Giuliani.
I think we are getting to the point where it would make more sense for "slates" to run, as opposed to having people elect individuals. If I know who Candidate X would be putting forth as his/her SecState, SecDef, Energy Czar, etc., and those people committed to serving; I think that would help me overlook some of what I saw to be Candidate X's shortcomings (or the opposite). Yes, Gore would probably be the best choice for developing a cohesive environmental/energy policy; but I have huge questions about how effective he would be on the diplomatic front, especially where a strong defensive action is required. John Edwards would be good in the dmoestic policy arena; but I don't know about the worldwide arena.
|
Lets not be too askeered of the Republican influence here....if Gore were to run, he has objectively a great record to run on as a VP, AND he has the positive improvements he has made in approachability since then and the whole environmental thing...while he would certainly have negatives with Republican voters, I doubt his negatives would be near as high as Mrs. Clinton's with the Republicans....for various distasteful reasons.
Gore/Edwards or Gore/Obama works for me....if Gore would decide to run...
