blevkog

never happen.

awful idea

Hey Kevvyd. You have been Tapped. The challenge is to post 5 things about yourself that your readers don't know. Then tap 5 others to do the same

http://socialistgulag.blogspot.com/2006/12/i-have-been-tapped.html

The Democats shouldn't lose the 2008 election - unless they self-destruct. Hillary could do that to them, as could Barack Obama. But the Dems will be looking for a non-Bush, i.e. a consensus-building centrist, and both Clinton and Obama fit that category quite well.

Gore is actually a very safe choice. Edwards is a relatively safe choice, and Kerry is also. The Democats have enough options at the moment that they probably won't turn to Gore, who doesn't want the nomination anyway. If the Dems are scared that they're about to self-destruct, they may turn to Gore, but I don't see it at the moment. He'd likely make a fine president, better than Clinton (Hillary or Bill) anyway.

About this Tapped Pyramid scheme. Don't do it, Kevvyd. If I don't know those 5 things that you haven't (yet?) revealed, I probably don't want to know, and you probably don't want me to know. I am morally opposed to the vast majority of pyramid schemes, and that's all this is.

On the other hand, your blogs aren't usually particularly personal. Make a resolution to bring your life into the blogosphere more frequently, e.g. how has having kids affected what you blog about? Do you focus more on issues that will affect their future than you might have otherwise?

I'm honestly not sure about the likelihood of Gore running. I agree with anon in that I think he would stand a very good chance of winning and would make a good president. The big question for me would be whether he would get DLC backing during a leadership bid, or if indeed that would matter. With the public support he is gathering from "An Inconvenient Truth", and the personal wealth he has amassed, he might well be able to run for leader without their blessing.

I honestly don't see Hillary Clinton as a winning option for the Dems, though it may well be the case that they could in fact run a donkey in '08 and still win, depending on who the Republicans go with. She has been demonized to such an extent among the Right that she alone would be enough motivation to "get out the vote", consolidating the base, as it were. Of course, with the Bush Folly rapidly spinning out of control in Iraq and no real end in sight, the base may be all that's left.

Obama is an interesting option. I don't know very much about him aside from the buzz, but I'm sure I'll learn a lot more about him in the coming months.

McGuire - I too, don't like pyramid schemes and chain letters, and I'm particularly uncertain about this one. I have made some effort to maintain some distance between my blog life and my real one and would like to maintain that. I might actually respond to this one if I can find five things coy enough to stay within these bounds. Give me a day or so.

I'm behind Gore. I didn't think he was so hot when he initially ran against Bush but I can see that the man has true passion, good values, and the ability to enact change. Do his competitors have this?

The Democratic Machine (rusty heap that it is) just convinced Barack Obama to do a slightly embarassing guest stint on Monday Night Football (he actually said "ba-ba-ba-bom!"). I think we can safely speculate that he will run for 2008, and barring a serious screw-up, he is a favourite. Despite the fact that Kansans are probably scared of his name.

Dennis Kucinich (sp?) is running again, but he's actually been successful at the municipal level, so he'll never win. To win, you really have to have a bad record at the State level. At least, that was Bush's formula. Plus (with apologies to my brother Brent and to Kevvyd), he's short. Americans will vote for a vegetable or a moron, but never for a short person.

Thanks, Bri. There goes one of the things readers didn't know about me! :)