Al Gore: Obama's Secret Weapon?

Politico is reporting that a media poll of Democrats in New Hampshire shows Hillary Clinton is the front runner for the Democratic nomination for President. At least, until Al Gore shows up. When Gore's name is added to the mix, Hillary loses a quarter of her voters and Gore overtakes her.

There are any number of ways to take this. First, it shows how weak the Democrat field is if a current Senator and former First Lady gets beaten by a two-time loser for the Presidency. Second, it shows that voters on the left still hold Gore in high regard, possibly because they are high. Third, it shows that fringe leftists are looking for an alternative to the Clinton machine, which spells trouble not just for Hillary, but for Democrats as a whole.

But, there's one way to take this that I don't think anyone else has considered yet. Gore's entry into the race might just be the thing that seals the victory...for Barack Obama. A Clinton-Gore match-up at this stage in the campaign would be a brutal deathmatch that Democrats should not want. Contrary to what you might hear or think, the Gores do not like the Clintons, and no amount of DNC spin will change that.

But how does it help Obama? Let's say for the sake of argument Gore waddles for President (since he'll get winded if he actually runs). The Hillary machine will focus on Gore, and Gore and his followers will go after Hillary. After all, Gore was VP under Hill's husband, so he knows the inner workings of the Clinton White House as well as Hill does. That has the potential of ruining Hillary's chances to remake herself...again. But, Gore has a major problem if he decides to get into the race: he's Al Gore. He's going to blunder, exaggerate, and generally prove to voters why they didn't elect him in 2000.

And all the while, Obama sits back and lets the two of them slug it out, maybe throwing out platitudes for them both in the process to appear to be above the process. At this point, Obama has no real competition. Edwards is sitting at 14:59 of the fame clock, and without a good $400 haircut appointment to boot. Aside from Edwards, there really are no credible candidates on the Democratic side to challenge Obama. Of course, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich could team up and pool their supporters and overtake them all...provided the rest of them drop out, and even then it's dicey.

Put simply, Obama will be sitting pretty if Gore enters the race because Gore knows too much.

And, yes, I realize usually that's a paradox, but in this case it actually could happen.

SHADDAP!

For those of you who read my columns, you're familiar with the title of this post. If not, every so often, I find people who are abusing their First Amendment right to free speech by saying some incredibly stupid things. (And, no, I'm not included, so you can stop asking.) Here's the latest list of people who just need to SHADDAP!

Trent Lott, SHADDAP! Your recent attack on conservative talk radio as it pertains to the recent amnesty...I mean immigration reform bill showed you are way out of touch with the average American. And let's not forget that it was conservative talk radio who by and larged defended you against charges of being a racist after your comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

Jimmy Carter, SHADDAP! There's a reason you are only a one-term President, and it's becoming more evident with each new thing you say today: you don't know when to leave well enough alone! Just because you brokered a peace deal between Israel and Egypt over 30 years ago doesn't make you an expert on the Middle East today. And your anti-Jewish attitude that has come out in recent years definitely disqualifies you from any level of credibility on the subject except amongst those predisposed to hate Jews. You know, like Pat Buchanan.

John and Elizabeth Edwards, SHADDAP! First, you try to make hay out of Ann Coulter's statement accusing her of calling John a derrogatory name for a gay (when it's clear she didn't). Then, John gets caught raking in big bucks for giving a speech about fighting poverty while at the same time spending $400 on a haircut. Now, you're going back to bashing Coulter? And what's worse is John is letting Elizabeth fight that battle now! I'm all for feminism, but when you're running for the Presidency, it's a sign of weakness to let a woman defend you in a fight you should be fighting.

Sean Hannity, SHADDAP! You're starting to sound like a broken record, only less entertaining. You're becoming the talk radio equivalent of Molly Ivins: you can predict what you'll talk about because you keep repeating the same damn themes. And your recent comments about cloture and how "voting for cloture is a vote for amnesty" show that you've done a lot of research...but not on the right facts. There are procedural tactics that can be used to prevent the Senate bill from even making it out of the Senate in one piece, but you overlooked all of that to come up with a slogan that you repeat and repeat like a mantra.

Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine, SHADDAP! You people who support the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine in today's society are lying to us. You don't want fairness or an informed population. If so, you would have taken MSNBC's evening programming off the air a long time ago. What you want is to force radio stations to take crappy faux liberal talk radio shows and toss aside conservative talk radio shows that actually bring in ad revenue. That, boys and girls, is financial censorship. And how many radio stations would have to go off the air due to low ad revenues if the Democrats get their way? More financial censorship. And all because Democrats can't be honest and say, "We're only doing this because talk radio tells the truth about us, and we can't have that."

Al Gore, SHADDAP! The debate over global warming is over? You might want to check with Australia, who just had its first SNOWFALL in years.

Michael Moore, SHADDAP! "Sicko" comes out soon, but you don't exactly answer a burning question that tells you all you need to know about the quality of care in America. "Where is the Mayo Clinic?" Answer: America. Class dismissed. Mikey, you go sit in the corner with your dunce cap.

And finally...

Tony Snow, SHADDAP! I liked you better when you at least sounded and acted like you had integrity. Since when does being White House Press Secretary require you to sell out America? I hope you picked up a lot of yoga classes because you're twisting yourself into positions I wouldn't ask Reed Richards to do.

That's all for now. I'm going to take my own advice and SHADDAP!

To Tell the Truth

In a column I wrote a couple of weeks ago titled "I'm Not Apathetic. I Just Don't Give a Damn." I said that people weren't interested in the truth anymore. Some people agreed, some didn't, but the point still stands. In a world where we can craft our own reality merely by logging onto our computers and looking at what we want, truth often gets tossed aside like yesterday's newspaper or today's Air America schedule.

Of course, there are bound to be a number of you saying, "What's the problem?" The problem is that when we base our way of thinking on our perception of reality, it can lead to really bad decisions. For example, the immigration/amnesty bill making its way back through Congress right now. A Rasmussen poll showed that only 20% of Americans surveyed backed the bill. Yet, we have President Bush, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and John McCain trying to bring it back to life after Americans shouted it down the first time? That's what we call a disconnect, boys and girls, and Democrats and Republicans in DC both have it bad.

On a more personal level, our personal perception of reality not matching up with reality can really cause personal embarassment. If you're a woman who makes Rosie O'Donnell look like Kate Moss, for the love of God DO NOT WEAR STRETCH PANTS! And for the guys who wear your favorite faded Bon Jovi t-shirt out "to impress the ladies," you don't. If anything, you prove that not only do you have no taste in clothes, but no taste in music.

Truth is one of those things we don't realize we miss until it's either gone. Today, we're losing it more quickly than we realize. So, instead of going for the truth that's easy to take, look to see if that really is the truth or just something dolled up to look like it.

Pay Attention, Anti-War Folks...

The situation with Hamas in Gaza is getting more and more disturbing as the days go by. They've already taken over two security command centers of their enemies, the Fatah movement, which has forced President Mahmoud Abbas to declare a state of emergency. Furthermore, he has dissolved the government, which was lead by Hamas by the way. Now, it appears that the hardliners have overcome the more moderate Abbas.

Now, why should the anti-war folks pay attention to the situation in Gaza?

This is what will happen if we pull out of Iraq before securing it.

Of course, some of you will say there isn't a connection between Iraq and Gaza. And, of course, you'd be completely wrong. Take out the names and just look at the situation in general. Moderate forces are fighting against radical elements and losing due to the lack of a strong backing from an ally like the United States. As a result, the moderate forces are stuck in a bad situation that will only end in death, destruction, and defeat unless they get the support from that stronger ally.

Get it yet? I hope so because unless you guys get it, Iraq will be Gaza II: Electric Boogaloo, and it will be your fault.

Sexism...from the Democrats

I was reading the Washington Post's story about Hillary Clinton getting a large percentage of the female vote in the Democrats' race for the Presidency. The findings were interesting enough, but other commentators have already jumped on that subject, so I'll avoid it for now.

What caught my eye was some of the comments made in defense of Hillary in the feedback section of the article. Eventually, a Hillary supporter trotted out a common line used to defend her: men hate strong women. Of course, no one on the board when I was reading it bothered to take on that statement.

So, let me do it here.

Some men hate strong women because it reminds them of how weak they are. But some men do not equate to all men. Most men, in my opinion, want strong women to be in their lives because it adds stability to their lives. Speaking as a man, I can tell you we men are not exactly the most consistent thinkers out there. We need women in our lives to give us balance. And that, ladies and gentlemen, requires women to be strong.

Where the Hillary backers get it wrong is by thinking modern feminists and women like Hillary are role models of strong women. They really aren't when you look at them. Men and women alike get turned off by women who complain all the time or who are unnecessarily shrill. And what do we see Hillary doing a lot? Complaining and being shrill.

So, let's put this sexist notion that men hate strong women to bed once and for all. And while we're at it, let's put away the notion that Hillary is a strong woman. Any woman who lacks the strength to divorce a cheating husband after he gets caught a bunch of times shouldn't be President of the local PTA, let alone the United States.

Turning Over a New Leaf, or Playing Us for Fools?

In a telephone interview with Barbara Walters, Paris Hilton said something that shocked me. She not only invoked the name of God in a respectful manner, but...she sounded sincere! Although she spent only a couple of days in jail so far, it may have had a tremendous impact on her life.

One thing that struck me about Hilton's statement was that she said she was acting dumb and that it wasn't a good role model for young girls. Granted, she's not exactly Meryl Streep (as anyone who paid money to see the remake of "House of Wax" will attest). But she is right. She was acting like a dumb spoiled rich girl, and it does make for a horrible role model for anyone, not just girls.

But there's a part of me that isn't quite ready to promote Paris for sainthood yet. Part of being a celebrity in trouble these days is coming out with seemingly heartfelt apologies and promises to get on the straight and narrow. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a few hundred times, I'm a candidate for the short bus. As sincere as she sounded, my inner cynic isn't quite ready to buy it yet.

Even so, it takes a lot to come forward and appear weak to a nation of media consumers. Whether it's a lot of courage or a lot of nerve is yet to be determined. I'm just hoping that Paris Hilton really has learned her lesson and will start acting more mature. Then, I can just drop in the name "Lindsey Lohan" into my Paris Hilton jokes and recycle them. Who says I don't care about the Earth? :-)

Why Fred Thompson Is So Popular

The past two Presidents we've had, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have many differences, but they have at least one thing in common. They both love George H. W. Bush.

Seriously, they're both Baby Boomers. And they both have proven to be mediocre Presidents. Coincidence? I think not. But we may see that change very soon due to the potential entrance into the 2008 Presidential race of Fred Thompson.

Thompson may be older than Bush and Clinton, but that actually works in his favor because people are starting to get tired of Baby Boomers in positions of political power. With Clinton, we saw a President who could have done so much had it not been for his personal failings. With Bush, we see a President who...could have done so much had it not been for his personal failings. What people seem to be looking for is an adult, someone with the maturity and sense that comes with age.

Enter Fred Thompson. He brings to the table not just age, but the wisdom that hasn't been seen in Washington since Ronald Reagan. Plus, Fred is a great communicator. If you doubt this, listen to him when he fills in for Paul Harvey. Clinton had the communication ability, but not the wisdom. Bush has some of the wisdom, but none of the communication ability. Why settle for a Democrat or a Republican who has one or the other or has both in lesser quantities than we need?

If that isn't a ringing endorsement of Fred Thompson, I don't know what is.

Has the Dems' Winning Streak Run Out?

Yep, I admit it. This post is 100% Grade A All American Schadenfreude.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, schadenfreude is a German word that, roughly translated, means taking enjoyment at the misfortune of others. And watching the Democrats over the past couple of weeks has given rise to that feeling. Let's take a look at some of the events of the past 2 weeks.

- The Democrats' attempts to load up an appropriations bill with pork backfired when President Bush vetoed the bill as he said he would. To make matters worse...
- The Democrats kowtowed to Bush and gave him an approprations bill that had far less pork in it.
- After a heated exchange between Rosie O'Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck on "The View," Rosie found herself out of a job a couple of weeks ahead of schedule.
- Cindy Sheehan announced that she was no longer going to be the face of the anti-war movement.
- Democrats are seeing their party being criticized from within by the far left.
- William Jefferson was indicted by the Justice Department for racketeering, soliciting bribes and money laundering. As a result...
- House Minority Leader John Boehner is calling for Jefferson to be expelled from Congress. All the while...
- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been skipping town a lot, leaving much undone. Furthermore...
- Democrat candidates for President find themselves in the middle of numerous gaffes, from John Edwards's $400 hair cuts to Barack Obama's overstating of the death toll following a tornado. And if that wasn't bad enough...
- Bob Shrum is putting out a new book highly critical of some of the past Democrat candidates. Meanwhile...
- There are three books in the works criticizing Hillary Clinton. And finally...
- Dennis Kucinich is still in the hunt to be President.

Put simply, it's not a good time to be a Democrat these days. But it is a good time to be someone pointing out how bad it is to be a Democrat these days.

Bush Impeachment a No-Go, Thanks to Clinton and the Dems

Former Vice President Al Gore came out recently and stated that he was against impeaching George W. Bush because of the time, money, and distraction it would cause. I had to rub my eyes a couple of times and check the website to ensure that I wasn't reading The Onion, but it's true. And I think Gore's right, but not for the reasons he mentioned.

As we learned from the Bill Clinton impeachment, there has to be a national will for it to happen. Republicans suffered in the court of public opinion because they couldn't get the people to acknowledge that Clinton deserved to be removed from office for lying under oath about sex. Mainly, this is because a) the people didn't think lying about sex was that big a deal (thanks to the Clinton spin machine), and b) people really didn't care since they liked Clinton as a person. Due to people connecting with or looking down on Clinton, he was able to get by with a warning.

George W. Bush is in a similar situation in that people tend to look down on him or don't really care what he does. Although Gore doesn't come right out and say it, the Democrats laid the groundwork to exonerate Bush because of their attitude towards impeaching Clinton. Sure, they'll try to say that lying to get us into war is more serious than lying about sex, but the problem with that notion is that many of the Democrats crying for Bush's impeachment said Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam should be removed from power. Oops.

Let's also remember that Democrats raised a huge stink about how much money Ken Starr spent to investigate Clinton. How much do you think it will cost to investigate Bush? If the Democrats aren't just blowing smoke about all the crimes Bush committed, it will take more money to investigate them than it would be worth.

And let's not forget that Nancy Pelosi said impeachment was "off the table." Given recent polling data showing Congress's approval rating being lower than that of Bush, to put impeachment back on the table would be a flip-flop that would drive the Democrats' approval ratings even further down. Starting impeachment proceedings would bring back visions of the Clinton impeachment, where Democrats complained that it "distracted" Clinton, that it was a "partisan witchhunt," and that Congress "wasn't doing the work of the people." And they'll be hard-pressed to come up with justifications for distracting Bush (who they already say is dumb), going on a partisan witchhunt, and not doing the work of the people.

Al Gore may not be on the cutting edge of much, but he deserves some credit for coming to the conclusion that Congressional Democrats shouldn't try to impeach George W. Bush. It would be an exercise not only in futility, but in hypocrisy.