Gore in '08?

Arianna suggests that Hollywood Dems are sick of Hillary's right-wingnut posturing, especially on Iraq, and are pushing Al Gore as the hope for 2008. Definitely a step in the right direction.

Here's an interesting part of the article:

One major party donor, who is supporting Hillary even though he is against the war, told me that Clinton had assured him that she, too, was "against the war" but believed that there was no way a woman could ever be elected president while being against the war. "She is convinced," the donor told me, "that she'd be attacked as soft on defense and unable to deal with national security and the war on terror. And I think she's right. I'd rather she be anti-war, but I can't argue with her reasoning."

Well, then, that donor's an idiot. If Hillary's willing to have tens of thousands of people die violent deaths in a criminal war just to get herself elected, she really doesn't deserve the title "woman," or "human," for that matter. Besides, we've already got a pResident like that. There are lots of women who would make great presidents--especially those who would be "soft on defense." THAT's what the country and the world need. Women like Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Cynthia McKinney, Cindy Sheehan, and I'm sure many others. But no woman who supports mass murder because she thinks it is the only way she can get elected deserves our consideration. Hillary is not the solution--she's a huge part of the problem. I sincerely hope that New Yorkers will find a strong anti-war candidate, preferably a woman, to defeat Hillary soundly in next year's primary and run her out of her carpetbagging Senate seat, killing her presidential hopes. Get Floridians to run Jeb out, too, and maybe we'd have some hope for '08. (Although maybe by then Americans will finally have learned the most basic and obvious lesson in American politics: "Bushes suck!") Cynthia McKinney vs. "Freedom Fries" Jones? It would certainly be interesting!