Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

i sometimes wonder if those who we think should be elected officials should _be_ elected officials. in some ways, _not_ being an elected official can sometimes allow someone to be a more efective leader.

cases in point: carter and gore.

i think our federal governement is so poisoned that real change will only happen from the outside, _despite_ the efforts of elected officials.

a visionary leader elected to office sometimes ends up having to capitulate to the rules of the town and sell off his (or her) principles - see lula in brasil.

i'd prefer gore outside of elected officialdom, causing trouble and stirring things up in a sam adams sort of way.

go al! give 'em what-for!

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's "Burning Questions" reader opinion feature is soliciting people's views on "How would we be better or worse off if Al Gore had been elected president in 2000?" Deadline by Wednesday, 4/26: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/saturdayspin/267612_horsey.html

Gore would be the best choice for President in 08. Who else does the dems have? Hillary will win no southern states, Edwards is cute but not ready, same for Obama (better as a VP).

Either we draft Gore for 08 or we campaign for him to be the head of EPA before the election. Could you imagine a PRES/VP/EPA ticket? That would shore up the conservative enviormentalist

Re-Elect Gore.