If you think someone is cut snip dodging, do what I do:

Repaste what the coward cut snip dodged.

For example, you dodged everything I posted above and now I'm going to
repost it below to rub your face into your own cowardice just like
Clinton is going to spend the next 8 years rubbing Gore's face into
the fact that, if Gore had listened to Clinton instead of putting on
airs, he could have prissed around in the White House for 8 years.

Hardly surprising considering Gore's all consuming hatred of the
ever
popular Clintons. A _Washington Post_ or some other columnist got it
half way right in 2000 comparing Gore to the Italian composer who was
jealous of Mozart. I say "halfway" because while Bill Clinton could
be a credible political Mozart, the Italian composer wasn't exactly
tone deaf.

The Democratic Party is big tent but the big tent shouldn't include
haters. Gore's irrational hatred of Clinton alone should have
precluded him from being in the party in any official capacity, let
alone being nominated as a presidential candidate.

Nominating a misanthrope in 2000 as a presidential candidate was the
dumbest mistake the Democratic Party has made in its two century
history. Even Tipper could have gotten into the White House and have
speeded up the time line for the first woman president by 8 years.

Campaigns and elections have consequences. With their concession
speeches Gore and Kerry are both joined at the hip with the worst
president in the history of the republic and no amount of
greenwashing
can mask this glaring fact in the minds of either future historians
or
'08 voters.

If the dunce in the White House has an approval rating of 25%% --
mostly fundies and the politically incurious shunned by all Hollywood
types except maybe Mel Gibson -- what does this say about candidates
who couldn't beat him by at least double digits?

Gore and Kerry were too dumb to get their lofty message out with 100
million dollars and unlimited access to the media for a year?

To dumb to call the bottom fishing scams of the GOP?

To dumb to wrangle the public debate from media hyping social issues
and back to economic issues?

Is it particularly rational to claim you should be president by
claiming that you were too dumb to get your lofty message out?

Is it particularly rational to campaign against the unparalleled
successes of your own administration, i. e., the longest economic
expansion in the history of the republic, trillions in budget
surpluses, highest increase in black family income since the
Emancipation Proclamation, all with economic numbers numbers that
discredited GOP "market" economists?

Is it particularly rational for the Democratic Party to spend $100
million for a candidate to get his ideas out when he never _once_ in
the course of his entire campaign let the word "idea" slip out of his
mouth?

It it particularly rational to make 2 concession speechs in one
campaign, both times without an accurate vote count? The Supreme
Court never ordered anyone to concede even once.

Is it particularly rational to blame Clinton's sex scandal on your
failure to become president when Clinton's own approval rating soared
during the scandal?

Was it particularly rational to select jihad Joe "private matters
like
religion and sex are political matters" Lieberman as a running mate
just because Lieberman denounced Clinton's sex scandal?

Is it particularly rational to try to greenwash yourself by deploring
global warming while having no solutions to your own 20 megawatt
hour/
month electric consumption?

Democrats need to face reality: All the irrationality of the Bushie
years is traceable to the irrationality of Democrats nominating a
pompous unaccomplished ingrate senator's son in 2000.

Shortly after he was elected W. Bush told some Swedes that it was
pretty amazing when you think about it. He campaigned against peace
and prosperity and he won.

Like just about everything else the Bushies said, this was misleading
too.

Actually it was Al Gore who was campaigning against 8 years of peace
and prosperity.



See how it works?

Bret Cahill