Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Michigan prefers Al Gore


Draftgore.com is all abuzz with a Detroit news poll of 400 likely Democrat and 400 likely Republican voters and their preference for our next POTUS. It revealed that Michiganders aren't completely happy with their choices for their respective party nominations for POTUS. 36% of the 400 voters likely to vote Democrat said they wanted Al Gore. Meanwhile, only 32% said they wanted frontrunner Hillary Clinton. And get this, he even led amongst women 36-33.

"Pollster Ed Sarpolus of EPIC-MRA said Gore and Thompson do well"because they have better name recognition and they are more well-liked."

"Michigan Democrats are more satisfied with their choices,but they still don't have a lot of love for Hillary or Obama. They do love Al Gore," Sarpolus said."

On the Republican side, Fred Thompson, who has yet to officially announce his candidacy, led the pack with 22% to Rudy Guiliani's 19%. Newt Gingrich picked up 15%, which was more than Mitt Romney's paltry 12%. Not that this is very important. I wouldn't recommend voting for any of those people.

Gore has said on several occasions that he would not be running for president in 2008. But he hasn't ruled out a return to politics. If he's listening to the over 200 "Draft Gore" groups that have sprung up around the country (Atlanta, Canton, Fayetteville, and Rome all have Gore groups) and the hundreds of thousands of signatures on "Draft Gore" petitions that have been sent to his office in Nashville, perhaps he can be persuaded to reconsider.

Amongst our current choices for the Democratic nomination, I like almost all of them in some way or another. I respect the knowledge and the resumes of Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, but both have faltered recently during forums. Dennis Kucinich probably best represents me and my views, but he has no chance. Barack Obama definitely has the makings of a political leader that I could follow. But he's someone that I would probably look to more in 2012 or 2016. And I supported John Edwards in 2004, and would not hesitate to do so again in 2008.

Obama and Edwards can't be written off yet. But Hillary seems to have things well under control. That spells trouble for the Democratic Party and for America in general. After all, I don't think we could take another 4 to 8 years of Republican "leadership." Likewise, I don't think America should be asked for another 4 to 8 years of the Bush-Clinton stranglehold on the Oval Office that has now lasted for 18 years. This country doesn't belong to them, and frankly deserves better.

If things stay as they are, about the only thing that could save us is if Al Gore entered the race in the fall. Forget about the poetic justice of righting the wrongs of 2000. That's in the past. I want this to be about our future.

For my .02 worth, I want someone that Democrats and Independents in both red states and blue states can rally around. Someone that Democrats running in red states wouldn't have to disassociate themselves from. And I want someone who isn't consumed with power and the drive to obtain more for personal gain. Hillary does not fit that bill. In fact, she's the exact opposite. However, Al Gore makes a much better fit. I guess it will come down to whether or not he wants to go through the nonsensical gauntlet that a presidential bid has become.

1 comment:

Steve said...

Maybe i want to write that i find your post very insightful because I agree with many of your points. Like you, I am deeply concerned we are going to get another republican in the WH through manipulation if Hillary gets the nomination. This is one of the weakest GOP fields I have seen in a long while---1996 maybe??? Maybe '64....

Right now i think I am going to vote for Kucinich. We shall see.