about that Dem ticket in '08

There have been some fun posts in the last, oh, 12 hours or so regarding the prospects of Al Gore's potential run for the Presidency in '08. I point you to Michael at Bestdestiny and Dean Barnett posting at Hugh Hewitt's site for starters.

Will Gore run? Who cares! As far as I'm concerned, they're all running for second place. . . but not to Hillary.

I predict that when it's all said and done, the standard bearer for the Dems in '08 will be Barack Obama.

I could list the reasons why I think it will be so. But that list is long, and I don't have a lot of time to post. I just think that when all the dust settles, the Dems in the heartland, the south and the west will look to Obama over She Clinton. Sure, she'll take the Northeast. . .but that won't be enough.

NOW, the knock on Obama (with regards to a national election) is his lack of experience, his "gravitas". Well, I now know how he's going to get over that. It all became clear last night, and in reading the posts from the two people I pointed to in the first paragraph: his VP candidate will be Al Gore.

You want gravitas? Try to top a guy who ran the office of VP for 8 years under the (Democrat's) dreamland of the Clinton era! Experience? How does 16 years combined in the House and Senate sound--and that's BEFORE he went on to be VP. In fact, from an "experience" standpoint (also from an excitement standpoint), he's the closest thing the Dems have to Dick Cheney.

Is he a perfect VP? Well, no. . .he doesn't "add" much to the ticket electorally (Tennessee, for example, will probably still go for the GOP. And California is so in the Dem's pocket that his love affair with Hollywood won't "turn" that state blue). And it's not like he can play the "voice of moderation" to a very liberal front-man. In fact, the only thing he really adds to the ticket is experience.

But I believe that the Dems in '08 will eschew moderation in favor of a "new way of politics". They will try to do as much to undo the 8 years of Bush as Bush SHOULD have done to wash away 8 years of Clinton.

And that leads me to Obama as the face of the party.

And that leads me to Gore as the VP.

Will he do it? Will he put aside his Presidential aspirations for another (potentially) 8 years as the bench player?

Yes, he would. If for no other reason than it brings him back into the mainstream (he's spent the last 6 years essentially in the wilderness), he would accept it. Not to mention, the party will NEED him in that spot. I think he will be wooed in every way imaginable to allow himself to be put on the ticket.

And I sooooo hope I'm right! Because as much as I fear that demographics are tilting the electoral college to the Dems (I fear for the GOP's future in CO, MO and VA), I don't think a well-run national campaign by the GOP will leave those states available to go for an Obama-led ticket--especially if his second is as liberal as Gore.

I don't say this nearly enough

Say it with me now: God bless Dick Cheney.

In this era where "I support the troops" is mentioned out of the same mouth that also speaks favorably of "slow bleeds" and "expired authorizations to use force", you have got to love a guy who actually shoots straight with his words.

Especially when that guy is on our side. And by our, I mean "America". Not just conservatives. . .not just the the GOP. . .but all of us who actually love being part of the greatest country on this planet.

RAGE ALERT: I am just a little fed up with "the other guys" right now. I understand their games and the fact that they have to pay homage to the way-left organizations who helped sweep them into power this past election.

But here's what I don't get: you have a vote (hello, Senator whoever) on this guy who is testifying before you, WANTING to get the job as the senior U.S. military man in Iraq. The guy tells you in no uncertain terms that to do the job right, he needs 21,000 more troops and he needs 'em now. And he's asking YOU for permission to go and do this job.

You vote IN FAVOR of this guy, which is the case for at least 30 Democratic Senators.

And yet, barely a month later, you're talking about ever more creative (and possibly unconstitutional) ways to keep the administration from granting that guy his additional troops.

I call that a lot of things. But one thing it is NOT is supporting the troops.

General Petraeus is a troop, too. He went before you, hat in hand, when you and your cronies had enough votes that you could've kept him from getting this job. And he didn't mix words about his mission checklist; it was along the lines of "IF you want this job to get done, then I need more troops."

You (and your fellow Senators) hired him. Overwhelmingly, by the way. And the country (both of 'em, actually) is better off because of your vote.

But giving him the job and then finding a way to withhold the tools that he asked for in what was essentially his job interview is NOT support.

IF you were so opposed to the troop surge, why not take a pass on Petraeus? Maybe take a pass on every guy who sat in front of the big table, talking favorably about the planned troop surge. At least then your opposition would have been constitutional. . .

You know, I still haven't heard a good reason why the left so desperately wants our efforts to fail in Iraq, or to put it even more accurately, to fail so quickly. I know that they hate Bush. . .but what's the bigger picture? Why would the establishment of a self-supporting democracy in the Middle East be such a bad thing? And if it's not a bad thing, then why is the current "cost" too much to achieve that end? I just don't get it. . .