rimrocker: Don't give up on Gore so fast. This isn't the first time a headline writer has taken Gore's non-denial denials to mean he had ruled out a bid. In fact, I don't even think it's the first time Yahoo's done it. He's done no such thing and there's no new news here. This is the same stuff he's been saying for nearly a year. Don't let some anonymous headline writer fake you out. But it is nice to have you in the Obama camp. I've got his name in pencil too. If Gore jumps in, I'll definitely have to think twice about my vote.
Here's an article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17297085/ Iowa’s Vilsack drops 2008 presidential bid Vows to continue fight to defund Iraq war, achieve energy security Updated: 43 minutes ago DES MOINES, Iowa - Democrat Tom Vilsack is abandoning his bid for the presidency after struggling against better-known, better-financed rivals, citing money -- the so-called "invisible primary" -- as the only reason for getting out of the race. Vilsack left office in January and traveled through states holding early tests of strength. He had faced a tough challenge from rivals such as New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards, who have had more success raising money and attracting attention -- even in Vilsack's home state of Iowa. Vilsack was the first Democrat to formally enter the 2008 race when he announced his candidacy in November. He conceded at the time that he faced a difficult race. Trying to counter perceptions that as one of the least known of the prospective candidates he was too much of an underdog to succeed, Vilsack said in a campaign video: "I've never started a race that I've been expected to win, and I've never lost." Centrist governor As governor of Iowa, Vilsack had carved out a reputation as a centrist balancing his state's budget and refusing to raise taxes, while emphasizing increased spending on such priorities as education, health care and higher wages. Until recently he chaired the Democratic Leadership Council, the party's signature centrist group. Vilsack initially made the focus of his long-shot campaign a plan to end U.S dependence on foreign oil by promoting alternative energy sources. "Energy security will revitalize rural America, re-establish our moral leadership on global warming and climate security, and eliminate our addiction to foreign oil," Vilsack, a prominent proponent of ethanol, biodiesel and wind power, said at the time. More recently, Vilsack has been among the more aggressive Democratic candidates in his call to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, calling for Congress to cut off funding.
Its really too bad about Vilsack. He would've made a potentially good candidate as a Midwestern governor from a swing state he is a centrist and has good management experience. I don't think its an accident that most recent President's have come from governorships since the executive decisions they face are much more like the presidency than being a legislator. I hope that Richardson can hang in there since I still think out of the Democratic crop he might make the best President. While I'm rambling here I also think this is a sad consequence of the incredibly expanded campaign season.
the weekly standard looks at, to me, the most appealing of the democrats: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/333khsla.asp?pg=1 [rquoter]A Tax-Cutting Democrat Bill Richardson's New Mexico record. by Jennifer Rubin 03/05/2007, Volume 012, Issue 24 In July 2006 the Wall Street Journal touted New Mexico's governor Bill Richardson as a man who "embraced tax cutting and benefited politically." The Journal quoted Richardson approvingly for advising his party that "we have to be the party of growth and the American dream, not the party of redistribution." Which party is Richardson talking about? The Democrats. Indeed, the former U.N. ambassador and secretary of energy stands out as the only Democratic presidential candidate who has successfully enacted tax cuts and other pro-growth economic policies. When asked about the importance of tax cuts, Richardson says: "Cutting taxes and creating tax credits can be essential to creating jobs and a strong economy." One of his first measures after he was elected governor in 2002 was to cut New Mexico's top income tax rate from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent over five years. "This was our way of declaring to the world that New Mexico is open for business," Richardson told the Journal in 2005. Echoing what conservatives have been saying for decades, he explained: "After all, businesses move to states where taxes are falling, not rising." At the midpoint of his first term, Richardson earned a "B" rating on the CATO Institute's 2004 Fiscal Report Card on America's Governors. Two years later, CATO explained the rating this way: "His income tax cuts were indeed substantial. The top marginal income tax rate has dropped a remarkable 35 percent as a result of Richardson's actions and is still the largest income tax rate cut in the nation over the past few years." Richardson seems to relish his tax-cutting image. Reacting to a four-star rating for his pro-growth policies from Inc. magazine in October 2006, Richardson boasted in a press release: "New Mexico is a national leader in job growth, we have invested in better schools and improved access to health care and--most importantly for the business community--we have cut taxes year after year." In his 2007 state of the state address, Richardson continued to advertise his tax cutting credentials, declaring that New Mexico was a state "where tax rates go down, while salaries go up." Most recently, at the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, Richardson reminded his audience that he "first passed a specific tax credit for creating good paying jobs" and was responsible for a host of other tax cuts and credits that helped "local companies that showed great promise for success and job creation." As advertised, Richardson's list of pro-growth measures did include a 10-percent tax credit on wages and benefits attached to each new job paying more than $40,000. As a result, high-skilled manufacturing work rose steadily in New Mexico, as did real wages--on average 2.4 percent a year between 2003 and 2006. Albuquerque, with an unemployment rate of just 4.9 percent, won first place on the 2006 Forbes Best Places for Business and Careers list. Despite these accomplishments and his consistent pro-growth rhetoric, some observers paint a slightly less rosy picture of Richardson's economic record. Anti-tax advocates have complained that although Richardson did yeoman's work in cutting rates, he more than made up for these cuts with tax increases on everything from cigarettes to fuel and a complicated, Dickensian, and later repealed surcharge on nursing home beds--all totaling a net tax increase of roughly $174 million through fiscal year 2006, according to the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. In fact, by the end of his first term in 2006, CATO had dropped Richardson's grade to a "C." CATO's experts commented that Richardson's "budget proposals have grown faster each year, and the general fund budgets he signed into law between fiscal 2004 and 2006 have grown in total by a whopping 23 percent--almost five percentage points faster than population and inflation." Richardson's spending increases averaged 7 percent per year until he appeared to abandon fiscal discipline altogether with a proposed 11 percent spending increase for 2007. Such spending increases include, according to Americans for Tax Reform, a 7.4 percent increase in teachers' salaries, a 9.1 percent increase in other education spending, and a whopping 18.4 percent increase in health care assistance. Projects such as a $400 million commuter rail project, which Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation calls a "boondoggle" serving relatively few people at great cost, have also raised the ire of fiscal conservatives. Perhaps not surprisingly, Richardson argues that this additional spending went to needed infrastructure and education improvements, and that he maintained a prudent surplus to prevent future liabilities. Defending his spending levels, Richardson says, "My budget plan reflects my vision for the state: Investing in priorities like quality teachers in the classroom, access to health care, and putting money in the pockets of working families. At the same time, I am proposing a fiscally responsible budget, leaving more than $560 million, or 10 percent of recurring appropriations, in reserve." Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist jokes that Richardson at least deserves "credit" for recognizing what few Democrats do: "Reduce the rates and then spend the money that comes in!" Has Richardson abandoned his pro-growth and low-tax philosophy in lieu of traditional liberal tax-and-spend policies? His supporters say no and point to a 2007 agenda that includes a new working family tax credit, an acceleration of the income tax rate reductions, and a laundry list of new "targeted" tax cuts such as elimination of state income tax for active duty military personnel, tax cuts for investment management firms, tax credits for high tech investment and energy efficient offices and buildings, a one-month tax holiday for purchase of energy efficient appliances, and an "advanced coal incentive." Norquist complains that many of these tax cuts "are so directed as to become indistinguishable from subsidies and direct expenditures." To which Richardson responds that these tax cuts, like those in the past, have widespread economic benefit: "In New Mexico, we've used targeted tax cuts to create incentives for businesses to put people to work, to help middle class families, and cut the tax on food, among others." Richardson seems to have something for everyone: tax cuts for conservatives and substantial spending for liberals. "The policies and initiatives that have worked here in my state can work across the nation," he says. "I have made economic development one of the cornerstones of my administration, and we have created close to 84,000 new jobs, balanced our budget, and we have the largest surplus in our state's history--$500 million." Not everyone is impressed, however. Pete du Pont, former Republican governor of Delaware, acknowledges that Richardson is "on the right economic growth track." But du Pont adds that "the other essential ingredient to economic prosperity is to restrain the growth of government spending." Of course, for Democrats (and many Republicans), that may be asking too much.[/rquoter]
My thoughts are with the Edwards Family this morning -- Edwards to Suspend Campaign John Edwards is suspending his campaign for President, and may drop out completely, because his wife has suffered a recurrence of the cancer that sickened her in 2004, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, an Edwards friend told The Politico. "At a minimum he's going to suspend" the campaign, the source said. "Nobody knows precisely how serious her recurrence is. It’ll be another couple of days before there’s complete clarity." "For him right now he has one priority which is her health and the security of the two young children," said the friend. As for the campaign, "You don't shut this machine off completely, but everything will go on hold." http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0307/Edwards_to_Suspend_Campaign.html
You don't want to ask "why do bad things happen to good people," because it's trite and...I mean, you don't want bad things to happen to anyone, whether they are good or "troubled," but... I don't know why someone like Elizabeth Edwards has to suffer through stuff like this. When you listen to her speak you can see how genuine and kind she is, and you wish she would run for president. I don't think there is anything I hate more than cancer (just from a purely selfish, personal reason and how it's affected my own family). She seems like a very strong woman. I don't think she will let this beat her. Hopefully it's not as serious as some people are making it seem.
You never want to see somebody's quest for office end due to the illness of a close family member. Hopefully, she will come through this and be just fine.
Out of the current crop Richardson is my favorite too. As a governor and Cabinet Secretary I think he's got executive experience unlike the candidates running from the Senate and also foreign affairs experience having been the UN Ambassador. As a Hispanic American too he could also help address the country's divided views on immigration from Latin America and improve US relations in this hemisphere.
WOW!!! Breaking News: Presidential hopeful Barack Obama hauls in $25m in campaign contributions, close to rival Hillary Clinton's $26m http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2872713 I guess my measly $25 helped a little!
I think Gore is an interesting candidate now more than he was back in 2000. He's hip and cool and people have started noticing. I think he would make things interesting for the run. Obama is a few years away from being a solid candidate. I think he has the smarts and drive, just not sure about where he stands on the issues. Hillary Clinton has been spoken well of since she became Senator - dont know if I have much of an opinion on her other than what I know. I think My vote is for Gore with Obama being a very close second. Im going to read his book - maybe find out more.
