if Gore ran for President

from the comments,

Miguel:

"I'd give anything if Gore ran for President. Not only would we have the best Democratic candidate (sorry Mr. Kucinich), but we could close our eyes and imagine the year is 2000 and George W. Bush the nightmare never happened.

It would be like Superman turning the world backwards in Superman II: the Richard Donner Cut."

lol. in fact, this from the RollingStone article:

"This, agrees Luntz, is Gore's greatest draw. "Democratic voters in 2008 are not only looking to turn back the last eight years, but to erase the last eight years," he says. "If I were working for Gore, I'd message around a single word: Imagine. 'Imagine if I'd been president instead of George W. Bush. Imagine where we'd be today.' ""

* oldschool:

"goddammit, I wish there were cameras inside this trial. FDL, with CHS & EW, are doing a great job, but I wanna see this one for myself. To watch attorney body language, witness body language, tones, inflections, scowls, hesitations, etc. (I would most especially *love* to be able to watch the jury, but even televised trials don't show juries). The written word just doesn't convey that kinda stuff, and on those kind of things, strategies, and even trials, turn.

One thing which has surprised me so far is that the prosecution witnesses seem to rather overtly *not* want to be there, and seem to be jumping at any and all chances to back-pedal as furiously as possible. Now we know that Ari Fleischer is the immunized witness, who took the 5th until offered a deal. What I'm *not* sensing from the other witnesses is that there are, at least, informal agreements in place with them. In other words, I would think that they would be more helpful if they were, in fact, in any way in fear of a later prosecution involving the outing of a CIA undercover agent.

Obviously, I'm not saying this very well, but I don't sense (goddamm lack of cameras) the eagerness to help from witnesses so far which would indicate to me that these people are in any way afraid of a future which might include a little jail time.

P.S. I still say that there's no way Cheney testifies. There was a little hint, I think during the Grossman testimony, that Walton is inclined to let cross-exam wander away. In other words, though the general rule is that cross is limited solely to those questions asked on direct, Walton may be a little loose here. *Very* bad for a Cheney testimony - and hell, I don't think he'd be coming in anyway.

But what do I know - I'm just guessing."

my quick read is that Cheney thinks that he'll testify - either that or he's very-effectively using the 'i can't comment cos there's a trial and i might have to testify' - he has an odd smirk on his face when he sez it. everyone else simply sez 'i can't comment cos there's a trial' - and cheney doesn't add anything by saying 'and i might have to testify' except remind everyone that he is deeply involved.

interesting observation about witnesses not wanting to help out too much. IANAL, so i defer to oldschool on this - other than to add that these people are professional (political, communications etc) and i'd expect them to have the discipline to be (largely) restrained (even while i acknowledge that the threat of jail time can concentrate the mind). Further, so far as we know, the people that we've seen on the witness stand so far were never under threat of prosecution (apart from maybe Grossman.)