Now Fred Thompson needs to seperate the character he plays from the politician he is. Personally, I think he's trying to be a Ronald Regan. I honestly don't think we need another Ronald Regan. Do we really need another President who needs cue cards durring cabinet meetings. (for that tale, see the late Molly Ivans' book 'Molly Ivans Can't Say That Can She'.)

This just in- and not on Countdown yet. Both Dodd and Richardson will not be participating in the fall debate cosponsored by Fox citing bias against Democrats. Now, the top five will not be there. That seems to leave Kusinich and that other guy.

Hi Alison, “A nation able to take a punch and respond” was a good line I heard from your interview today! As the disaster author Stephen Flynn said “Sometimes a good defense is a pretty good defense!” On the note that we cannot ‘prevent’ EVERYTHING but must be able to take a punch, I’d like to add the following: When the head of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (the keepers of the Doomsday Clock) says their could be hundreds of thousands if not millions of people capable of committing catastrophic biological terror acts in a decade or so, it certainly is a wakeup call to see just how many people this one man with TB could affect. Looking at all that we have to face in the form wars, potential economic collapses, climate change, and other forms of terrorism, the head of this body only gave the world a 50/50 chance of surviving this very century. The basis of this prediction revolves around just how exceedingly vulnerable society is to any number of potential disasters. Just look at how a biological attack on Silicon Valley, Microsoft headquarters, the massive Korean shipyards, or Everett Washington (the sole location in the world that makes ALL Boeing aircraft) would set us back decades. Mega cities themselves just put too many people at risk should something bad happen. Look at New York City. You guys are living on a wish and a prayer when you think about your 100-year-old water system that cannot even be maintained. If one line goes down for whatever reason, six million people will be without water. We build cities over fault lines, below sea level, on the tip of Florida like a Hurricane Bull’s Eye… what’s wrong with this picture? Heck, we’ll likely die off from our own stupidity long before some terrorists has had a chance to blow us up. If we are to ever make it to 2100, we need solutions that will help us confront ALL potential catastrophes! Preparing for one disaster like climate change or terrorism is NOT enough. We must look at all of these issues as a whole and find the most common "cut-to-the-chase" solution that can address more of them at one time. Fortunately, preparations for any one type of disaster are often good for any other disaster. Living efficiently and SELF-SUFFICIENTLY just happen to be the two biggest keys TO ALL such preparatory measures! Having smaller, higher performance communities that can provide most of their own power, food, water, and even light manufacturing is a key to nearly any biological attack or bird flu pandemic because we are not so dependent on such few places of specialty like Tokyo that can themselves be quarantined and entirely cut off at the drop of a hat. Global interdependence may be great for the economy but it’s absolutely vulnerable to biological terrorism.

I'm going to take Al Gores advise tonight, and use the "blog." Why can't Countdown use the "keeping Tabs" segment on Washigton D.C. instead of Hollywood? I'm so sick of hearing about these star's screw-ups. If I want to watch this #$%* - I'll watch the Today Show. Matt Lauer is an expert on this material. My opinion, what a waste of airtime. Take this airtime and let's use it "usefully." We have these soldiers dying, for what cause? Time to take a step back and reevaluate what this administration is doing to this country? Right, Left or in the Middle let's all start being proactive instead of reactive. Everybody knows what happened yesterday.

Earth to Mr. Gore...the American people don't matter...we elect 435 Congresspeople, 100 Senators, and the President and Vice President...the President picks his appointments and a very small group of people basically decides what is best for the American people...Over 70% of the American population wants to bring our troops home...How have our elected officials responded to our request? Over 70% of the American population favors stem cell research. King George vetoed the stem cell bill...The King's first veto in his six year reign...the illusion of democracy makes us think our votes count, our voice counts, we matter...when in reality, 537 elected officials make decisions in the best interests of 300 million Americans...democracy has become an illusion...the voice of the American people no longer matters...I may be too cynical...but our elected officials don't listen to the American people...only big business and lobbyists...our government decides the American people cannot have access to cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Europe because the drugs are not safe...like droves of Canadians and Europeans are dropping dead from prescription drugs...while Vioxx continues to kill people in America...Avandia increases heart problems...Paxil causes birth defects...Purdue Pharma just settled a lawsuit over its Oxycontin...the FDA and Big Pharma only have the best interests of the American people in mind...Big Pharm would never alter its research records to get a drug on the markets, hide a drug's side effects...not the FDA or Big Pharma...Big Pharma doesn't want us buying unsafe drugs from Canada and Europe when we can get plenty of overpriced and unsafe prescription drugs right here in America...not to mention marking up AIDS drugs to the point where patients cannot afford them when the drugs cost less than $2 a pill to manufacture...AIDS patients aren't real people anyway, who cares about them...the American people just don't matter...even Keith and Countdown won't cover or explain the Presidential Directive it posted on its own blog...most of us wouldn't have even known about the Directive and Countdown and Keith turn silent...even bloggers don't matter...another story the American people the will never totally hear about or understand...we just don't matter...we are voiceless in Bushworld...If we don't revolt soon, our voices really won't matter...let the revolution begin...we need an American Revolution that mirrors the French Revolution...and I for one will lead the way...Can you hear the people sing, singing the songs of angry men...it's the music of the people who will not be slaves again...when the beating of your hearts, echoes the beating of the drums, there is a revolution about to start when tomorrow comes...will you join in our crusade, who will be strong and stand with me???

Frankly I don't care if the next President needs cue cards during cabinet meetings. Like I have said before, what this country needs now is a charasmatic leader who knows how to hire the very of best people to handle the daily affairs of Washington while he/she spends time with the people. And if that meant missing cabinet meetings in order to attend on-going town meetings across the country then so be it. The technology and communication channels we have today leave no excuse for an acting President not to spend more time sharing and talking with the American people on an on-going basis and to stay in touch with those who elected him/her (not just during the campaign). Let the VP have the Oval Office and let him or her run the cabinet meetings. He/She can report to the President the impotant items of the day as the President makes the United States his or her office, whether from a Motel 6 in Topeka, a Hilton in LA, a Days Inn in Miami, a Little League game in Baton Rouge, a Nursing Home in Chicago, a High School Board Meeting in New Jersey, or a College Homecoming in Idaho. And don't tell me a President cannot do this. Anything is possible, and it is time our Leader spend more time with those he/she is leading and representing. It is time that the President understands and becomes one of us. Screw the scheduled Foreign Dignitary Dinners. Invite the visiting leaders to come along for some breakfast at Mom & Pop Sampsons home in Kentucky. Cue cards, that's fine. Just give me a President that can connect and get with the American program and live a little among those who may want to sponsor a Harley poker ride between Detroit and Grand Rapids, Michigan. That guy from Iran called, ok. Tell him I'll get back to him after dinner with these folks in Akron. Tell him if he likes we can chat after the rodeo next week in Dallas. Book him and his entourage some rooms at the Double Tree and tell him to bring his finest cowboy hat. If he dosn't have one get his hat size and have one delivered to his hotel room. I was chatting with Lance down at the Dallas Fancy Cowboy Hat Store just a few weeks ago and he said he would be happy to donate me one. Oh, and don't forget that meeting I promised with those folks from the Countdown Blogs. B.A. said we could use his place for a get together. Be sure to have some fireflies delivered in a mason jar for the kids and a 36" "Wood" Louisville Slugger for his son. "That, is what I want in a President".

C A. I was making light of both of them being actors, and not going after Regan's memory problems. Everyone remembers the glories of Regan and forget the warts behind some of the makeup. I really will reserve judgement on Thompson for once he's made more of an image of himself. I think that there are a lot of people who think that what Thompson stands for is what his characters have stood for. I actually do respect Regan. He was the first President I remember, and, over all, he did a pretty good job. However, I know that it was the entire package that did a great job. A good cabinet will see you through tough times, and a bad one will see you into the midden. All together, Regan did more good than harm, even if I don't agree with all of what he did.

C A, so your ideal president is Zaphod Beeblebrox with only one head and a penchant for cowboy attire? And if you haven't read (NOT seen) Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, someone who has will gladly explain the joke.

C A. Ok, I took some time to put this together. I agree with you on this. We need a good, strong President to clean up this debacle. I think we also need a President who is going to move us beyond this, but also have a light touch with the world powers. What I really do not want is another Bill Clinton, Ronald Regan, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, or Franklin Roosevelt. I don't want a clone. I've heard a lot of whispering from people saying how they want Thompson to run because he's so like Regan. I honestly think that this is their perception of him, and not his real face. If we get a President, I want him to be President (Fill in the Blank) not the Head of Richard M. Nixon or any other former President. in a lot of ways, we ended up in this debacle because too many people voted for George W. Bush because they were nostalgic for George H. W. Bush's tenure. I heard a lot of people say that. I hold reservations Hilary Clinton running for President because of the same thing. I'm not sure how many of people will vote for her because of Bill Clinton and not because of Hilary Clinton. I think she would make a competent President, but I really do hope that people vote for her and not Bill. I hope this all makes sense. At some point, I will run down what I think of the candidates, but not now.

It's interesting to note the closing scene of the recent season-ending episode of "Law and Order." D.A. Branch (Fred Thompson)says to A.D.A. McCoy (Sam Waterston), "You may be sitting in this chair someday." McCoy: "I'm not a politician." Branch: (Smiling) "Everyone says that." It seems to open the door for Thompson's possible departure from the show for a White House run.

Bridgette: What you says does make sense, but don't look for the ideal President from the ranks of those who have come up through the political system and have gained noterity by way of party politics or a stint in Washington as a Congressperson or Senator or even Governor. They are all tainted and none know how to connect with the Amerian people. The ideal President is someone who unfortunately could not win because money, corruption, special interests deals, parties and the media elect our President. Unless the people are ready for a real revolution and ready to reject all these bums and elect a people person who is ready and willing to break away from the rules and begin truly connecting with the American people your choices are always going to be the lesser of two evils. There are no candidates running today that do not or will not owe something to special interests placing them above the American people. There are no candidiates running today who have not made it to where they are today whether a Governor, Senator, Representative, etc. without involving themselves in some form of corruption and playing the dirty tricks necessary to be successful as a politician. None. Is there a special person out there who is a people person yet ready to protect the US as well as smart enough to surround himself/herself with smart people to set things straight while remaining honest to the people and shunning special interest groups unless they too show they are working for the American people. Yes, there is. But the system, the system you have spoken of so often in here, keeps them out. And only the American people can change this. But I don't see it happening. The American people are as caught up in handing the Presidency to the same old dirty trick party hacks who are owned by special interest as the professional politicians themselves. And the sad thing is these politicians know it. They have the number of the American people and use it to put forth their God awful candidacies and campaigns for President. Watch the games they play Bridgette as the campaigns heat up. Over-generalizations, double-talk, no details provided, if necessary attack ads against their opponents, the debates will suck, all will pander to whatever group they happen to be speaking to at the time, some will flip flop, none will give solid answers on the important issues facing us today, most will try and take two positions on difficult positions to please those on either side of the issue. It is so typical and sickening. So when going over your list Bridgette most likely you will be evaluating not who is the best candididate, but rather who of the group will be the least of the worst. Todd: No, I have not read Hitchhikers. Fill me in on Beeblebrox. And no, cowboy attire is not necessary, just some jeans and a decent shirt that looks fairly pressed and clean.

CA - I agree with almost all you've said except that I believe that Ron Paul is "cleaner" than most. However, even if we could find such a person (You have refused to run so I don't know where that person would be.), s/he would still have to deal with the other 2 branches all of whom got there the old fashioned way - they bought it.

Zaphod Beebblebrox is a vapid, charming, foppish fool who is more interested in his ego than in anything substansive, just to let you know, C A. As for what you said, the reality is that anyone who gets into politics or wants to hold office is going to be tainted to some degree. Even our best Presidents have been. However, the question arises of just how beholden will they be to those who gave them money? To paraphrase Molly Ivans, what we need is someone who'll take 'your' money, pet 'your' dog, sleep with 'your' wife, and then go bloody well do what he wants. In the last 231 years, we have never had a President who wasn't beholden to someone, somewhere for getting them elected, except maybe George Washington. Lincoln was beholden to the anti-slavery/emancipation movement at the time. FDR got elected using money donated by businesses. Everyone's beholden somewhere. Yes, you are right that, in the end, we have to vote for the 'least worst', or the best of what we've got. The thing is, C A, it's been like this since the third campaign. Only one President after Washington ran unopposed. Some of the past campaigns were down right nasty compared to what we see today. The elections of Grover Clevland were nasty and vitriolic compared to what I've seen in the last two elections. At one rally for him, his opponents showed up with a few thousand people to chant 'Where's my daddy?' and drown out anything he said. It was a reference to the supposed illigitmate baby he had fathered. There is one candidate that I like in this whole run who has kept his feet firmly planted outiside the political machine even as he walked it, and I'll post that rundown later. In the end, I don't want nor expect perfection. I just want a President who's going to do what we elect him/her to do.

Bridgette - IMHO "a President who's going to do what we elect him/her to do" is "perfection" (smile)

Independent: Touche'. That is why you will get the least of the two evils each time until the American people have had enough. And Bridgette. Even though this may be the way it has been since the beginning of the two party system, you have to learn to stop always inferring that we have to follow the way things have always been. You have to come out of that box of yours Bridgette, open up that mind of yours and let it run with possibilities. You are very bright but you imprison that intelligence with a lack of creative and and out of the box thinking. It is the same as your suggestion to us that this is the way our government works. Bridgette, I challenge you to get out of that box, set your intelligence free and combine it with creative thinking that screams "we will not do as we have in the past"! "It does not have to be the same way it has always been"! C,mon Bridgette, give it a try.

CA - interested in what your out of the box suggestions might be. I suspect, as always, that you have a few specific ideas up your sleeve. So - how do we change the way this works? I'm game.

Bridgette, you left out that Zaphod was the Galactic President and that the Galactic Presidency was basically a figurehead job for photo ops, chasing women, drinking too much, stealing starships and "officially causing trouble". In short, his job was to be a distraction for the public. And C A is right. "Its always been done that way" may be the most retarded phrase in the any language. Our shared reality is what we make of it. Unless there is a physical law - like gravitation - that prevents us from doing something, there is nothing to define how we set up our social and legal processes but our own will and senses of decency and fairness. The problem is a narrow group of ideological sociopathic zealots have illegally taken control of the Federal government and also control large segments of the MSM. It is now up to the collective We to stop them and bring the Neocons to hard justice or be willing to let them poison the world for the next 2000 years if not kill all of us.

C A, a long time ago, I would have agreed with you that we could get some noble philosopher king/president in the mould of Plato, but I think I'm too much of a realist at this point to say we need some charismatic leader to make things right. Too often in history those charismatic leaders turn out to be deadly for the populous. People are corruptable at all levels, some just more so than others. President Santa Anna of Mexico was very charismatic. He was very popular among the Mexicans and rode that straight to the top, where he robbed the treasury blind. Adolph Hitler was incredibly popular and charismatic, and he all but ruined Germany. Vladimir Lenin was also popular and charismatic. Mao Tse Tung as well. The list of men who rose to power on their charisma, charm and even good, solid, and even almost saintlike attributes end up twisted beyond belief soon after. Alexander the Great was educated to be the model King and Emperor by Aristotle. From his education and upbringing, he should have almost been a Saint-King, and yet, he was just as corrupted as any other leader. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that somehow we found your perfect candidate. Would he (I'm using the universal 'he' here) remain so? Would he remain capable of staying outside the corruption that permiates this, or any, system. In the past, there have been men who rose to the Papacy who were, as priests and bishops and even cardinals, great, pure, solid men. The were elivated to the Papacy and ended up abusing power. Someone once said that you don't know what a person is capable of as President until they are elected President. I've studied history in greater depth than I sometimes like to. I use to read through the old newspapers here in town, and what I learned was shocking. Life today, even politics today, isn't that much different than it was a hundred years ago. The big difference between a hundred years ago and today is that we know more about what is going on than we did back then. And, C A, it isn't that I am incapable of thinking outside my mental box, but that I long ago looked at all the kinds of things that you see for your ideal President and found that, no matter how good, pure and clean a person is before they get into politics, they become corrupted when they take that oath. Our system is far from perfect, and there are things we can do to change it, but compared to all those out there that I've seen, it's the best we've got right now. I once believed as you do, that, in essence, some shining paladin would come along and right all the wrongs. I then learned what power does to people, even those 'paladins'. They become corrupt. We change slowly. We will not see better times happen here and now, but our children should have a better life, and then our children's children. However, humanity needs to grow up more to catch up with the technology that it has. C A, it isn't that I do not believe that the world will be better one day or that it can be better. I long ago lost faith in revolutions. I lost faith in some champion coming down to fix all the wrongs. Rapid change never has worked. Rapid change always leads to rapid decline. What we need is not a change from the top, but change from the bottom. We need people to reject corruption. We need people who will sacrifice money for a better education for their children. We need people who understand that the individual does not stand a chance against the world, but that as a society, we can work together for the better health, wealth, and happiness of our citizens. When Robsepiere assumed the mantle of French rule after the French Revolution, he talked of a better life for the people based upon logic. Well, logic proved to be a Procrustian bed where heads were chopped off rather than arms and legs. People then put their faith in Nepoleon. That was a disaster. France had a revolution about once every twenty years after that. They are on their Fifth Republic now, which has lasted longer than any other in history. We can change, but society as a whole has to be willing to sacrifice. One leader will not change the nation or the world. It is us as a whole who can change things. C A, I know it seems like I kowtow to the system, but the reality is, I just accept that this is what we have to work with in the here and now. Someday, long after I am dust, things will be better. That is what I have put my hopes in. But, to do so, society must change. No leader can do that. Only we the citizens of the world, can.

C A, I thought I would add to what I posted before, but keep it shorter. I am reminded of a conversation that I read in a book ages ago. The characters of Carrot Ironfounderson and Samuel Vimes were discussing monarchy. Carrot said something about how 'well, what if the king is a good man?' To which, Vimes replied 'ok, let us assume that he is a good man, but is his [viceroy] a good man too?' 'Well, yes.' 'Well, what about his deputy? If so much as one person in that chain is a bad person, you have corruption and graft throughout everytyhing.'

Ok Bridgette - I truly admire your depth of knowledge and am in awe of your amazing recall. I truly do and am. However, is it possible to reduce the lessons somewhat? I really really don't want to start another blog war and I really really don't want to discourage you and your enthusiasm but maybe it is possible to state a position and maybe mention a precedent without giving an entire lesson? I have to admit that this is one of Gore's failings and I love him but there is just so much I can hear without feeling as if I am being shown condescension (sp?) Please don't tell me I've hurt your feelings as that is not my intent. I surmise that you wish to have people appreciate your points and, in offering this advice to you, I hope to help you in that goal. Also, sometimes in your position papers there is nestled a small slam (in a different posting on another thread you said something to the effect: "if people who posted to this blog actually know anything about history" (might not be a word-for-word quote but it is close.)) That doesn't help sell your points either. Don't assume that because we don't cite specific references in each post, that we are ignorant of the precedents. Please take this as a constructive comment, ok? Thanks.

Sure wish Gonzales had the recall capabilities that Bridgette has!! (really really big grin.)

Bridgette: You asked the question could anyone take this office and not become corrupted. My answer is yes. Yes, I could do the job without becoming corrupted. And I would take it a bit further than Todd suggests with just the photo ops, chasing women, drinking too much and stealing starships. My State of the Union Address would not be an address to the American people, but an address to Congress based on what I had learned from the American people as I rub shoulders with them. I would know more and learn more about a congressional district in your State then your current representative knows what is going on. In addition to many personal visits my campaign workers from that State would become my communication links. And such workers would be from both sides of the isle and of varying opinions so I get the whole picture. No thought, idea, suggestion or issue would be off limits regarding what I would listen too, whether coming from Pam, larry, lee, Todd, Indpendent, yourself and people just like you. I would use the strength of the people to turn Congress around if required. I think I would have the numbers. There are not many in this country who are not and have not expressed the desire "we want our country back". On this basis the change begins. The vast majority want peace, security, the corruption to stop, honesty even if it hurts, a good education for their kids, less influence by special interests, a voice in their government, elimination of waste, decent response to natural catastrophes, a strong military, government to stay out of their personal lives whereever possible, to meet with the person who made a military decision that resulted in their son's or daughter's death, someone who will not cow-down to our enemies but will keep these enemies by way of talks in their back pocket to keep on eye on the same. I could go on and on. And if I could do the job without becooming corrupted there are others who also could do the same. I am in need of nothing or desire nothing I do not have now. I have my health, my kids are healthy and a damn good dog, food on the table, a Harley and a fishing rod and some good books. Oh, I have always wanted to restore an old beat up sail boat so I may want to get a used sailboat to work on. But that's it. I can't be bought. And if I were to get just a hairs breadth close to slipping and wanting as new sail boat instead of a used one I would keep B.A., Independent, Pam, Todd, Larry, Scott, Don, you and all others here around to slap me down and keep me in line. And I bet Todd could do the job and perhaps you could do the job. Don't accept nothing Bridgette you are not satisfied with. And Independent. You bet I have some ideas and details how one could get started with this political revolution. I'll share them in another posts.

C A - Your post above is more than on target. I believe this country does need Al Gore as its next president. Gore has developed into both a distinguished and proven leader. His widespread success at bringing attention AND acceptance from many, especially on the “right”, to the “Global Warming Crisis” is not just one example of his leadership abilities. In addition, he is both admired and respected, both nationally and worldwide. Vice President Gore’s notable global popularity is also extraordinary. I didn’t think it would be possible for someone of the likes of Bill O’Reilly to change his opinion and/or acceptance of global warming conditions, but he has. That, in itself, proves Gore “gifted”!! In addition, after this arrogant, bullying, horrid and incompetent Administration, Al Gore (or possibly Bill Richardson with is excellent diplomacy track record and skills) is exactly what this country needs to restore our credibility and respect amongst the community of nations. The former vice president has demonstrated his solid leadership capability by literally leading the country and the world in efforts to stop global warming. Gore has toned down his vocabulary and has really learned how to “talk” with Americans. In my opinion, this was a significant problem for him in 2000. His new book, “The Assault on Reason” is brilliant. It is certainly a must read, especially for Al Gore skeptics. Gore has also developed a sense of humor, which he lacked in past years. When appearing on “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart, he was not only brilliant in his assessment of what direction America must go, he was funny and really connected with the audience on a variety of critical issues; most importantly, the urgency of restoring democracy to the United States of America. I believe Al Gore is EXACTLY what this country needs after the atrocious, horrifying and staggering losses we have suffered under the current Administration.

C A, I agree with you that this is the ideal, but I don't trust ideals to work anymore. However, some questions did occur to me reading over this post? How effective do you think a President like this would be given the current system? Should we trackdown 750+ men just like you? Would you totally replace the system we have to make it ideal? I accept this system because all other forms are worse. This isn't perfect either, and can be fixed. However, the fix isn't in a revolution. It really is in slow, measured change. The change has to happen though, and not be bound up in people going 'this is nice, I think I'll stay here'. We are, today, less corrupt than we were one-hundred and fifty years ago. We need to continue to weed out the corruption, C A. The problem is that typically the totally uncorruptables are ineffective at doing anything. I do have ideas on how to improve the system we have though. Ways that would remove the corruption. The first is to hold political campaigns to truth in advertising laws. The second, is a spending cap on all campaigns, and all contribution are put into a single fund which is apportioned as per the cap. We need to educate the nation as to why Politics and History are important. Standards for Frederal judges such as how long they've been in law, and previous judicial experience. C A, despite all this, you also answered why someone who is incorruptable would never be President. You've declined to run. Still, I do agree in the ideal, but the ideal is something we cannot have faith will come along and save us, we must work towards that ideal. I think, in the end, that is the key philisophical difference between me and you. I see slow progress and you see rapid. The best way to do this is support people who will help the people even if they have a slight patina of corruption, and one day we can have an effecitive leader without corruption. It can be done, and it is what I would love to see. However, it is something we work towards. That is my view, however.

Pam, my choice is Bill Richardson. In part because his range of experience is a lot greater than Gore's. He's managed to be in politics without falling deeply into corruption, and even battled a lot of it when it was found, such as just after he took over the Energy Department. As Governor, he goes out and talks to the people regularly and tries to make things better for the average person. He isn't perfect, but he's a strong choice. Richardson has been a Congressman from New Mexico, Ambassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy, and New Mexico's governor. He's sponsored a lot of bills to help those in the lower echelons of society (my phrasing not his). He worked to bring and end to the Palestinian Conflict, and to halt North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Of this group of candidates, I like him the best. Does this make him ideal. No, but then, who is perfect? He does a lot of work for the people, and that in and of itself is important.

C A - If we can get the R and D machines out of the way, I would be honored to hang around and slap you as needed, Mr. President. I'll use my pocket copy of the Constitution. Just don't make me go on TV. I am not certain the jury is back on the whole "cameras steal your soul" issue. No offense, Keith.

Sorry Pam, but I have to disagree. Al Gore is a typical liberal that cannot be taken seriously. After his election as vp he didn't even know whose house he visited, it happened to be Thomas Jefferson. He didn't really invent the internet, did he ? His one track mind on global warming will distract him from serious issues facing the nation. ANd I thought he had a terrible interview the other day, looked very nervous and avoided many easy to answer questions. I'm sure his anger and rage from getting beat by the shrub still tears at him. He needs to follow his dreams of universal windmills for everyone and stay away from presidential politics. But if he decides to run, I think he will be easier to beat than say , Hillary.

Larry, while I do sort of agree with you about Gore, as he is not really my first choice for President, I have to point something out that you said that was a total mistake. First of all, Gore never said he invented the internet. That was a creation of the Rovian Smear Machine. What he did say was that he helped shepard the initial legislation to help create the internet through Congress. There is a vast difference, Larry. Do not believe without questioning anything any politician ever says. At the time, I looked it up.

Larry - Which interview? The one Keith did on Countdown? I have seen him on Larry King, Countdown and The Daily Show. If you are speaking of the Countdown interview, I agree that he was not at his best, especially in comparison to the two other interviews where he truly was brilliant. He was really great on Larry King; however both the formats on Larry King and The Daily Show, with the “sit down” interview, I believe are better suitable for that type of interview. I never like split screen interviews as they take away from what should be a “conversation” between host and guest and the guest usually never gets their points across in the best manner possible. I do agree that he is very passionate about global warming; however, I disagree it would affect his ability to lead the country. Also, Al Gore, especially prior to his vice presidential tenure, has always been a liberal. However, he really came to the middle when he ran for VP the first time. The second Clinton/Gore election was a landslide and Gore had already established himself as middle of the road, which did bother me a great deal. I was upset with him during his first term, as yes I am a liberal as you know Larry, and felt he sold out in many areas, especially the environmental causes he always fought vigorously for. Now, he’s back to the “liberal” Al Gore I knew and loved, so you could be correct in that he might not be electable in the general election; however, I think his popularity both nationally and globally is a great asset. He certainly has the experience on his resume. Also, I strongly disagree that Hillary Clinton would beat him. If Gore entered the race, Hillary would be toast. Thanks for the response Larry!!

Bridgette - Bill Richardson as of now is my first choice; however, if Al Gore enters the race, he would get my vote. Also, Gore was not involved in scandals; he was caught in the middle of President Clinton's personal mess. Al Gore did make a horrible mistake when he distanced himself from Clinton when running in 2000. Clinton's approval rating was sky high and the Gore camp seriously miscalculated with their decision to distance Gore from Clinton. I also believe many Americans have a guilty conscience about 2000, which could work in his favor. I also believe Gore’s popularity is far better than Richardson’s; however, I do agree that Richardson has superb diplomatic skills, which is desperately needed. Oh, Larry, I forgot to respond to your internet comment. Gore never stated he “invented the internet”; however, never handled the attacks on him as he should have. He should have responded with, “As a senator, I was instrumental in passing legislation, which brought the internet to where it is today” – PERIOD. He blew that, and I agree with you.

Larry, I would remind you that Gore was not "beat" by the shrub. Gore won the popular vote and by all accounts would have taken Florida and the presidency had the Bush machine and James Baker not maneuvered the outcome into the Supreme Court. I think a Gore-Richardson ticket would beat anybody.

Linda - Thank you, how could I have forgotten to state that!! WOW!! I'm embarrassed, but thanks for the much needed "save"!!

Pam, thanks for the comments but as you know I have not endorsed nor do I chose to mention anyone I would prefer at this point for President. I am looking at some folks but I am not happy as you know with the choices. And Bridgette, the ideal President I speak of would also understand that his/her job is to work in the current system while doing what they can to improve the system. We cannot have chaos and/or anarchy in the White House. This person would also need to understand that some changes will take time and should require extensive study and debate before changes are made. But that does not preclude such a person from changing how, when and where the President connects with the American people. It does not preclude such a person deciding who to have breakfast, lunch and dinner with or who to hold town meetings with, or who to take a Harley ride with. It does not preclude the President from inviting the President of Iran on a horse ride on a dude ranch in Texas or a friendly sail off the coast of Florida. It does not preclude this person from allowing the VP to pick up a few more duties so that the President is more available to the people. It does not preclude the President from insisting that his cabinet members also get out more and meet with the people. It does not preclude the President from surrounding himself with "qualified" experts i nt heir field rather than political appointees by way of cronyism. There are many changes Bridgette that could take place immediately without damaging the current system and that would open the floodgates of communications between the elected officals and those who elected them. You misunderstand what I speak of when talking about changes. Sure, there needs to be some political process changes, and yes many would take some time. But that is not what I am refrring too. I am simply referring to a President who places his/her constiuents above all else, who can and will connect with the American people so he he/she can ask his/her bosses how he/she is doing. And to do as you have stated in a previous post, what the American people wish for the Presdient and governement to do to the best of that person's ability and with complete honesty. As far as not running Bridgette it is not because I am afraid of facing the challenges of corruption. I know I would win. It is because as stated in another blog my past training and experience in the service of my country where I was alone and on my own much of the time in conditions you do not want to hear about has cost me a great deal emotionally, in confidence around people, and developed within me the need to be basically a loner with limited social contact. Otherwise I would give it a shot. Besides, before asking anyone else to do it, I would end up being the one sneaking over to Iraq and putting a bullet in Sadr's head. You don't need that in a President.

Todd - Your statement, "The problem is a narrow group of ideological sociopath zealots have illegally taken control of the Federal government and also control large segments of the MSM. It is now up to the collective We to stop them and bring the Neocons to hard justice or be willing to let them poison the world for the next 2000 years if not kill all of us" is BRILLIANT!! I am copying and saving it. C A is right; I want him in the White House and most definitely YOU on his team. Thank you again for the brilliance you bring to these blogs. I have literally stood still, in awe of your writings, many times!!

Bridgette: "I know I would win" was referring to " I know I would win against the battle and challenges of becoming corrupted.

CA - I don't know that that is not what we need in a President. Sometime I wonder if the person holding that office ought to be the one that does his/her own "dirty work" on occasion. Love everything you said. BTW - all: at the risk of being a "one-note singer" have you noticed that the "dictator directive" is now officially off the front page of this blog? Please go up to the pig story at the top of the page and register a post there per my request found under that entry even if you don't agree with me. Thanks. (Yes - I know that yesterday I said I wouldn't be spending much time here today and in the future but my schedule cleared up more than I expected. Sorry if I'm hogging things. It won't be for much longer.)

Independent: Stay with us and post as much as you like. You are a delight.

Yeah, Larry, got to give Pam that call. If Gore entered the race, Hillary's head would explode.

Independent - Please do NOT ever think you are "hogging" anything. I don't know what I would do without you, C A and Todd!! I've really missed Jamie the laat day!!

Todd - Coming from you, "giving me that call", is a GREAT compliment!! Thank you for making my day!!

Thanks folks. I feel all warm and fuzzy. I miss Jamie as well. I hope her reunion is going ok. Maybe she can break away and check in on us during that time. I also was really hoping that Larry would pick up the presidential comparison discussion from yesterday. I was really liking that. (That was Larry, right? I didn't go back to that item and check.)

C A - As usual, a brilliant response. I also believe you WOULD win, and I DO mean the presidential election. WOW, would that be great to have brilliance, compassion and integrity in the White House!! I also know you would bring much more!!

Todd - it would be worth having Gore enter the race if only to see that result. I can just imagine.....

Independent, Texas - You are always welcome. Blog hog? Hardly. Pam and CA probably have the most column inches (with Bridgette coming on strong recently; that gal has a few things on her mind). I don't think the News Hole would trade them for anything except possibly putting Bush Co. on trial before COB today and I don't think they would trade you either. I will welcome even though you are from Texas. ;) You would really take that as a compliment if you knew how much I hate Texas (except Austin, Austin is the best).

Independent - I was also hoping Larry would. Larry, what happened? Independent and I responded and you didn't. You don't want to hurt our feelings, do you? I enjoyed yesterday's thread and hopefully, we can ALL have many more like that!! We all chastise Congress for their arguing and mud slinging; however, when I looked in the mirror the other night after reading what Independent wrote, I didn't like what I saw. I was just as guilty and was acting in a most hypocritical manner. Even though “we” are not members of Congress, we are humans with emotions. If we expect Congress to control its’ emotions, I believe “I” need to control mine. I admit to being way out of line several times. Hopefully, I can look in a mirror without disgust from this point on!!

Todd - I just type fast!! - LOL!! However, I would love to see your "column inches" increase and I sincerely mean that. As far as I'm concerned, there are not enough inches for C A!! In my opinion, he is an amazing human being!!

Todd - Whew, I'm relieved that you exclude Austin from your opinion of Texas. I live just outside Austin. I love the whole state but Austin is definitely different from the rest. You probably know that saying? "I wasn't born in Texas but I got here as fast as I could". That's me. I've lived in the most diverse states in the union from Mississippi to California and now I can't imagine living anywhere else. Pam - totally agree re CA. A voice of reason in an unreasonable world.

Why is it that states I love, like say Kansas and California, have crappy capitol cities like Topeka and Sacramento when the Horrid State has Austin? Somewhere, the Geography Gods are laughing.

Todd - now, now. We have to have some balance in things which is WHY Texas has Austin! (smile)

Pam--you're quite welcome for the "save" regarding the outcome of the 2000 election. It makes me crazy when reporters and talking heads talk about Gore "losing" or being a "loser." I can't understand that kind of careless thought from people paid to talk politics. Then people like us either fall into that way of thinking (Larry) or let it go (you and me!). Well, while I am not one to publicly correct others about their facts or their grammar or anything else, I have decided to start correcting the facts in regard to such things as Bush's "victory" and the big lie that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Enough is enough. And for what it's worth, Independent should keep on bloggin.' I am more a "lurker" here, but it is nice to read a blog with smart people who behave with respect for each other and care about the same things I do.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):