[AGL] Policies required for a successful HRC candidacy and/or presidency

[Harry Edwards]

And I can name several women who would not vote for her, including 
Molly Ivins.              twisty d

On Apr 24, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Wayne Johnson wrote:

> Well, I really like Nancy Pelosi.  She is smart, tough, a good 
> organizer, a great speaker and she doesn't look like she is going to 
> apologize to anyone about anything.  She is Dem Whip in House.  Boxer 
> has good credentials and is probably a better Senator for CA than HRC 
> is for NY.  Of course, she has nowhere near the "name recognition". 
>  
> Bottom line: we desperately need someone who can actually "fix" 
> something which is almost broken beyond repair and I just don't have 
> confidence in HRC's actual "ability" to get things done.  For one 
> thing, the GOP will block everything it can, just as the Dems would 
> fight Jeb down into the mud and beyond.  HRC might be a great choice 
> as a candidate but I think she carries wayyyy to much ideological and 
> personal baggage to be an effective president. 
>  
> Despite all my fears of the military, I still prefer Wesley Clark over 
> most of the other Dems, excepting perhaps Kuharich.  The New Mexico 
> governor has a "rough charm" that is tempting.  He certainly looks 
> like a "populist"!  At one time I like Bayh, but lately I find myself 
> scratching my head over some of his comments.  (No, I don't remember 
> which one.  Drat.)
>  
> There is such an enormous wealth of problems, the number One of which, 
> imho, is the growing separation of wealthy and poor and the 
> establishment of a Permanent Uppler/Rulling Class in the US.  Right 
> behind at number Two is the heavy-handed effort by the Chrisitian 
> Fascists to abolish the separation of Church and State which must be 
> stopped dead in its feral tracks.  Both of these are, I am convinced, 
> absolute "culture/society killers"....and I mean killers.  Either 
> policy will mean the absolute death of all this country has ever stood 
> for...when it wasn't being racist and elitist, of course.   Combined 
> they could start a new Christian Crusade against Islam.  Guess where 
> that woud lead?
>  
> Then there is the absolute hatred of the US by almost everyone else in 
> the world.  (Foreign Policy and US business practices.) No. 3
> Then there is the almost absolute rule of the US by giant (and dare I 
> say, evil) corporations. No. 4
> Then there is the need to get the hell out of the ME. (This means 
> making sure the Likkud Party sucks hind tit in Israel) .No 5
> Then there is the need to have an "energy policy" which is not 
> dedicated to consuming every park in sight. No. 6
> Then there is the utterly ruinous and middle-class destroying tax 
> policy which MUST be re-written ASAP  No. 7
> Then there is the corollary of no. 6....environmental protection. No. 8
> Then there is the need to completely overhaul, top to bottom, American 
> Education from K1 thru K21. No. 9
> Finally, there is NAFTA and the dumb-ass immigration issue. No. 10  
> (Paul Samuelson, MIT Nobel Laureate, has mde the best suggestion yet, 
> to wit - permit ALL who are here to become citizens one way or 
> another, crack down very hard on New ILLEGALS.  P.S. says there is no 
> real need for "undocumented workers" any longer in the US because we 
> have all the labor/person power we need to do this work...NOW)
>  
>  
> Frankly, at this moment, I just don't think HRC has the depth of 
> either character or organizational acumen to pull this off.  The 
> biggest problem is that she is a life-time "politician" not a "real 
> world" manager.  She hasn't run any business that I know of.  She was 
> never in the military.  She isn't an economic whiz kid.  She has zero 
> experience in "fixing" anything.  Simply "hanging on" and "looking 
> resolute" and "being loyal"....well, shit, Colin Powell sort of owns 
> that wretched territory and he has demonstrated once and for all how 
> being a Good Soldier can lead to a completely immoral decision.
>  
> Gore's pronouncements are much better thought out than HRC's which are 
> primarily "talking points" which try to keep from offending anyone.  
> At least that is how I hear them.  I am tired of the "don't make 
> anybody mad" or "offend" some dim-bulb demographic.  That way lies 
> sure defeat and eventual decline of everything the men and women of 
> WW2, as an example, died for.  
>  
> If HRC ....or anyone else....wants my vote, she/he/it better have a 
> clear platform that addresses the ten (10) issues I raised above with 
> clear statements of their goals, objectives and ....here is the 
> kicker...just how one measures their success and/or failures.  The 
> business world understands the power of metrics but most politicians 
> avoid them like the plague.  They lead to direct accountability which 
> is unheard of in today's poliitical world.  HRC is too imbedded in 
> that Beltway Logic and she would have to make a quantum level jump to 
> separater herself from the samo-samo.
>  
> enough.
>  
> wgJ
>  
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Frances Morey
>> To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s
>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 6:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AGL] not negative about Gore
>>
>> Writer Reverend,
>> That's too negatives--Gore's personality or lack thereof, and lesser 
>> known women Senators who are to the left of the Dempcratic party. I 
>> doubt that ticket will coagulate.
>> I guarantee you that every woman (free woman) in America will vote 
>> for HRC, even if they have to do it with write-in votes. Her 
>> speechifying is getting more femininist, as opposed to feminist, and 
>> it is tapping a nerve in woman's world.
>> Frances
>>
>> Wayne Johnson <cadaobh at shentel.net> wrote:
>>> How about a ticket of Al Gore and, say, Barbera Boxer or Nancy 
>>> Pelosi?
>>>  
>>> wgJ
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Connie Clark
>>>> To: BJ's List Ghetto 2 ; Ghetto List
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:25 PM
>>>> Subject: [AGL] not negative about Gore
>>>>
>>>> I think we have had posts about the new film coming up "An 
>>>> Inconvenient Truth", but here is a review.
>>>>  
>>>> Richard Cohen, WP:
>>>> "Gore insists his presidential aspirations are behind him. "I think 
>>>> there are other ways to serve," he told me. No doubt. But on paper, 
>>>> he is the near-perfect Democratic candidate for 2008. Among other 
>>>> things, he won the popular vote in 2000. He opposed going to war in 
>>>> Iraq, but he supported the Persian Gulf War - right both times. He 
>>>> is smart, experienced and, despite the false caricatures, a man 
>>>> versed in the new technologies - especially the Internet. He is 
>>>> much more a person of the 21st century than most of the other 
>>>> potential candidates. Trouble is, a campaign is not a film. Gore 
>>>> could be a great president. First, though, he has to be a good 
>>>> candidate. "
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> A Campaign Gore Can't Lose
>>>>     By Richard Cohen
>>>>     The Washington Post
>>>>     Tuesday 18 April 2006
>>>>     Boring Al Gore has made a movie. It is on the most boring of 
>>>> all subjects - global warming. It is more than 80 minutes long, and 
>>>> the first two or three go by slowly enough that you can notice that 
>>>> Gore has gained weight and that his speech still seems oddly out of 
>>>> sync. But a moment later, I promise, you will be captivated, and 
>>>> then riveted and then scared out of your wits. Our Earth is going 
>>>> to hell in a handbasket.
>>>>     You will see the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps melting. You 
>>>> will see Greenland oozing into the sea. You will see the atmosphere 
>>>> polluted with greenhouse gases that block heat from escaping. You 
>>>> will see photos from space of what the ice caps looked like once 
>>>> and what they look like now and, in animation, you will see how 
>>>> high the oceans might rise. Shanghai and Calcutta swamped. Much of 
>>>> Florida, too. The water takes a hunk of New York. The fuss about 
>>>> what to do with Ground Zero will turn to naught. It will be 
>>>> underwater.
>>>>     "An Inconvenient Truth" is a cinematic version of the lecture 
>>>> that Gore has given for years warning of the dangers of global 
>>>> warming. Davis Guggenheim, the director, opened it up a bit. For 
>>>> instance, he added some shots of Gore mulling the fate of the Earth 
>>>> as he is driven here or there in some city, sometimes talking about 
>>>> personal matters such as the death of his beloved older sister from 
>>>> lung cancer and the close call his son had after being hit by a 
>>>> car. These are all traumas that Gore had mentioned in his 
>>>> presidential campaign and that seemed cloying at the time. Here 
>>>> they seem appropriate.
>>>>     The case Gore makes is worthy of sleepless nights: Our Earth is 
>>>> in extremis. It's not just that polar bears are drowning because 
>>>> they cannot reach receding ice flows or that "The Snows of 
>>>> Kilimanjaro" will exist someday only as a Hemingway short story - 
>>>> we can all live with that. It's rather that Hurricane Katrina is 
>>>> not past but prologue. In the future, people will not yearn for the 
>>>> winters of yesteryear but for the summers. Katrina produced several 
>>>> hundred thousand evacuees. The flooding of Calcutta would produce 
>>>> many millions. We are in for an awful time.
>>>>     You cannot see this film and not think of George W. Bush, the 
>>>> man who beat Gore in 2000. The contrast is stark. Gore - more at 
>>>> ease in the lecture hall than he ever was on the stump - summons 
>>>> science to tell a harrowing story and offers science as the 
>>>> antidote. No feat of imagination could have Bush do something 
>>>> similar - even the sentences are beyond him.
>>>>     But it is the thought that matters - the application of 
>>>> intellect to an intellectual problem. Bush has been studiously 
>>>> anti-science, a man of applied ignorance who has undernourished his 
>>>> mind with the empty calories of comfy dogma. For instance, his 
>>>> insistence on abstinence as the preferred method of birth control 
>>>> would be laughable were it not so reckless. It is similar to Bush's 
>>>> initial approach to global warming and his rejection of the Kyoto 
>>>> Protocol - ideology trumping science. It may be that Gore will do 
>>>> more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush 
>>>> ever did by beating him in 2000.
>>>>     Gore insists his presidential aspirations are behind him. "I 
>>>> think there are other ways to serve," he told me. No doubt. But on 
>>>> paper, he is the near-perfect Democratic candidate for 2008. Among 
>>>> other things, he won the popular vote in 2000. He opposed going to 
>>>> war in Iraq, but he supported the Persian Gulf War - right both 
>>>> times. He is smart, experienced and, despite the false caricatures, 
>>>> a man versed in the new technologies - especially the Internet. He 
>>>> is much more a person of the 21st century than most of the other 
>>>> potential candidates. Trouble is, a campaign is not a film. Gore 
>>>> could be a great president. First, though, he has to be a good 
>>>> candidate.
>>>>     In the meantime, he is a man on a mission. Wherever he goes - 
>>>> and he travels incessantly - he finds time and an audience to 
>>>> deliver his (free) lecture on global warming. It and the film leave 
>>>> no doubt of the peril we face, nor do they leave any doubt that 
>>>> Gore, at last, is a man at home in his role. He is master teacher, 
>>>> pedagogue, know-it-all, smarter than most of us, better informed 
>>>> and, having tried and failed to gain the presidency, he has raised 
>>>> his sights to save the world. We simply cannot afford for Al Gore 
>>>> to lose again.
>>>> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low 
>>>> rates.