Senior Democrats Mull Al Gore's Nomination

[Hissyspit]

Source: Telegraph UK

Senior Democrats mull Al Gore's nomination
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 2:23am BST 30/03/2008

Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice-president. The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Former Gore aides now believe he could emerge as a compromise candidate acceptable to both camps at the party's convention in Denver during the last week of August. Two former Gore campaign officials have told The Sunday Telegraph that a scenario first mapped out by members of Mr Gore's inner circle last May now has a sporting chance of coming true.

Mr Gore, who was Bill Clinton's vice-president and has since won a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his work on green issues, remains an influential figure eight years after he beat George W Bush in the popular vote but lost the White House after the Florida recount fiasco.

The opening has emerged because opinion polls show Mr McCain stretching his lead over both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, whose campaigns are engaged in a daily cycle of attacks, character assassination and mutual recriminations on religion, race and the economy. Between a quarter and a third of Obama and Clinton supporters say that they would not now vote for the other in November.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/30/wuspols130.xml

[zonkers]

1. first?! alright! But this is super far fetched, ain't it? Who would be VP?

[Lorien]

8. It wouldn't be Hillary. They never got along very well when he was VP

maybe Obama or Edwards?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. Gore/Edwards is still my dream. nt

[Lorien]

12. Still mine too. A year ago DU was clamoring for Gore

but now the majority has moved to the center. Of course, two years ago most DUers fondly remembered Bill Clinton and now threads about "the Big Dog" are nearly indistinguishable from those on Free Republic. It's become a fickle party indeed!

[lapfog_1]

86. A year ago Big Dog wasn't comparing a Democrat unfavorably

to the Republican nominee for President.

Perhaps it's not the PARTY that's fickle... maybe it's Bill Clinton.

[frogcycle]

127. Spoonerism of the day!

I read "fickle party" as "pickle farty"


I think "farty pickle" is actually more descriptive, too!

:rofl:

[calimary]

ROFL!

:thumbsup:

[zonkers]

225. ahh, so that is a spoonerismding. I hope your smilee isnt driving.

[ooglymoogly]

255. Not to get too far out in the weeds

But my favorite Spoonerism; When introducing Mrs Peabody at a piano recital said; "and now Mrs Playbody will pee for you".

[immoderate]

290. My own best Spoonerism:

While teaching a graphics course, I was describing color models, and I announced the colors of the CMYK model as cyan, magello and yenta.

--IMM

[Andrea]

294. Love that one!

Yenta was always one of my favorite colors!

:rofl:

[swimmernsecretsea]

351. Oh, I love that! Can I use it?

OMG that's hilarious. Everyone in my InDesign User's Group will love that one!

Magello sounds like a great color to repaint my room with.

[Andrea]

375. Don't you just love Magello Jello?

I do. :) :)

[swimmernsecretsea]

399. And the song by Donovan is so fine!

[immoderate]

439. Feel free!

That just popped out of my mouth! (I don't claim it as creative property.) But I do retell now and again when I'm presenting.

--IMM

[swimmernsecretsea]

278. Oh, this humor is soooo juvenile!

Yay! First laugh of the morning! Thank you!

:bounce: :rofl:

[krkaufman]

366. It's debatable as to which entity has moved Left or Right ...

... DU members or Bill Clinton.

That John McCain is a great man.

[AZ Criminal JD]

427. Isn't that what Obama said?

[karynnj]

415. Gore was a centrist Democrat his entire career

Obama is not to his right and I suspect the majority of DU is now for Obama.

[Raksha]

450. We haven't "moved to the center" whatsoever.

It's been a very close race, but Barack Obama has lately emerged as the frontrunner. I support him now because it's come to the two-person "horse race" stage the media loves SOOOO much. But as late as February 5th (Super Tuesday) I still wasn't in the Obama camp--I voted for John Edwards in the California primary. I thought Barack Obama's voting record was too close to Hillary Clinton's to mean anything.

Basically, though, I'm one of those "Run, Al, run" people. He's been my top choice for well over a year. It just seemed like he wasn't interested despite all the thousands of people clamoring for him to run.

[dmr]

513. Our thoughts are similar

I would have voted for Edwards were he on the Michigan ticket. My first choice would have been Gore, but he wasn't (and isn't) on the ticket either. I don't trust Hillary, and I find no reason to distrust Obama.

Personally, I think Obama, with his Constitutional law background would make an excellent Attorney General and most especially, a Supreme Court Justice. As our president, he will most likely have to appoint two more justices. I trust that he will make good choices, unlike Hillary who triangulates.

But back to Gore. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, although I believe Obama has earned the opportunity to run in the general election.

Edit: grammar

[Lorien]

526. ....

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

[Tesha]

593. I'm *STILL* clamoring for Gore; read my car!

I'd accepted that he wasn't interested, and so I
drifted through Kucinich and Edwards and have accepted
that Obama would be the candidate, and that's okay,
because I coulkd vote for Obama even though he's a
pretty sub-optimal candidate in my eyes, but if Gore
was back in the race, I'd suddenly become *VERY*
excited, and I'd be back into the campaign with
money, time, and heart.

I'd especially like Gore/Obama.

Tesha

[xxqqqzme]

42. That was my dream ticket as well.

When I was collecting signatures to get Gore's name on the California ballot, that was my fantasy. I still believe Gore is the person to heal the divisiveness that was created in 2000 w/ the supreme anointing of *.

[Andrea]

286. Good points

Not only could Gore heal the division within the party, he could go a long way toward healing the division in the country.

[liberalmike27]

118. That's Not Going to Happen

And, I'd say it has been brought about by a media feeding frenzy. I think old Al has had enough of the media ripping him a new one each day in campaigns. He was treated so unfairly in the 2000 election, still he managed to win, and Bush snatched it away. Why in the world would he want to do that again?

[Andrea]

297. It's not so much that he would want to, but

that he would be willing to when asked by party leaders. If he agreed, it would be because he wants to do what's best for his party and his country. That sounds like Al to me.

Back in December, he said in Oslo to CNN, "I haven't ruled out the idea of getting back into the political process at some point in the future. I don't expect to. But if I did get back, it would be as a candidate for president, not in any other position." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/10/sitroom.03.html)

[lark]

582. He realizes the only way to really make a major difference

with the climate is to be in charge at the White House. I can understand his reluctance, he'd be crazy not to be gun shy after all the abuse and outright theft he sufferred. However, I'm hoping that his mission in life might make him willing to try again.

[MissDeeds]

176. My dream ticket as well

If there is a God...

[Phred42]

185. Mine Too!

But Gore / Obama would be a decent second

[Andrea]

298. Me, too

I'd love Gore/Edwards. But I'll take Gore/anybody - whatever it takes to win in November!

[ananda]

197. Works for me.

Gore for President!
Edwards for Vice President!

What a great combo that would be.

[reddconsole]

228. Me too, too

but...dream on.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

230. Welcome to DU!

Sometimes dreams are all we have to hang on to. :shrug:

:hi:

[Andrea]

301. Yes, but we can try to make our dreams come true

Come on over to the Al Gore '08 forum here on DU and get involved! Everyone is welcome that wants to work on letting the party leaders know that we see this as the best way to unify and win.

Click on Lobby at the top of any page, scroll down to DU Groups, top of the list in the left hand column.

[dogday]

454. I hear that!!!!!!

I have not been excited about either candidate but if Al Gore showed up, the excitement would come back in droves.... And a Gore/Edwards ticket would be way too much excitement for this girl to handle.. I tell you what, I am having the vapors just thinking about it..... :thumbsup:

[sandyd921]

268. Mine too.

In a just world that would be the ticket. We can dream anyway.

[wpelb]

274. The problem with Gore/Edwards

Both of them are male, and both are white. Now, that might make them more electable, given our nation's history of never electing a president or vice president (Republican or Democrat, conservative, or liberal) that was not both male and white. In fact, there has only been one major-party candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, who was not male. After all the Democratic Party--and the American people--have gone through in choosing between two candidates--one African-American (or at least bi-racial) and the other female--do we now want to give up and go back to choosing two candidates who did not go through the primary process, and who are both white males?

[Andrea]

302. Valid considerations

The two most important things we need to consider are what will unify the party and what will win in November. For many of us, it will not be our first choice. For me, I'm more than willing to put aside my first choice in order to achieve the most important goal: no McCain presidency.

[intheflow]

304. I couldn't agree more.

Supplanting the historic bi-racial/woman candidate with a white male who adamantly declined to be drafted early in the process would tear the party apart much more surely than anything happening between Clinton/Obama right now. It would be like saying a big "Fuck you and your democratic process" to every single person who has fought for either Obama or Clinton. The fact that folks are even talking about this is very, very disturbing.

[Andrea]

307. I don't agree

Given that this couldn't happen without Obama, and probably Clinton, agreeing to it and giving their blessing, it would serve to unify the party. This is completely within the nominating rules. I'm sure once all involved reach an agreement, if it happens, Obama and Clinton will explain to their followers why they agreed and their supporters will respect their decisions.

[Cronopio]

322. Then those people have to ask themselves - what are they fighting for?

Would they pass on the likelihood of a Nobel Prize winner and a humanitarian respected worldwide as our next President - and give McCain a serious shot at the Oval Office - just to defend the democratic purity of the primaries?

There is no democratic purity in the primary process - ask any Dem who has witnessed the Nevada or Washington State caucuses.

Are you fighting for your candidate or this country? If Denver ends up being a fiasco it's shaping up to be, we won't be able to choose both.

[Andrea]

328. Very true

The primary system is a mess - caucuses, open primaries, insane amounts of money, good candidates withdrawing so early on.

The most important consideration is uniting and winning. After we achieve that, we really need to clean up the primary process.

[dogday]

457. Not disturbing, just telling that a lot of us don't care for

either candidate and we would welcome the one we really want and have wanted since 2000.

[ekwhite]

321. Agreed

It is more likely to be Gore/Obama than Gore/Edwards.

[catgirl]

566. Gore/Obama is my dream ticket!

I love them both and together they would make an unbeatable team.

[shimmergal]

342. The primary process, this year,

has been terribly destructive to all involved. I fear both remaining candidates were set up for defeat in the GE from the start, but if not, the bitter warfare is turning a lot of citizens off. I too would like to see the white male monopoly on the White House ended, but an election of John McCain isn't going to accomplish that!

As for the primary process, a lot of us have utterly lost our faith in the convoluted way it operated this year. After the election -- win or lose -- it needs a complete overhaul.

[KoKo]

548. Good Points....n/t

[JDPriestly]

355. I'm a white female. I don't care whether they are white males,

black males, black females, or Hispanic. I want our candidate to win in November. Hillary has alienated 1/2 of the Democratic Party. Obama has alienated the other half. Neither of them can win in November. I'm talking to voters who have never voted Republican in their lives, and they are saying they will not vote for Hillary/Obama depending on which side they are on. Maybe when they get a better look at McCain, they will change their minds. But I don't think so. The Hillary/Obama camps have a few weeks to get together and join hands and sing We Are Family and Kumba Ya or they are both out. I'd be very happy to vote for Gore. Of course I would like a Gore/Edwards or Edwards/Gore ticket the best. Two good white males are better than a split party.

[dogday]

475. Good analogy of the situation..

I am a fence sitter and don't care for either choice... both of them eating each other alive makes them look bad in my eyes and I can't get behind either candidate. I agree with what you are saying...

[mrbluto]

447. Who's stuck on race/gender issues?

Look - if we have a democracy then these issues will get solved.

If we give the Republicans the chance at 4-8 more years this country may never have another election that merits the term. Then it'll be easily be ten plus years before we can touch those issues again.

Doesn't the current situation smack of a Rovian wet-dream?

The Democratic strength - diversity (when compared to the Republican party) - is going to be considered instrumental in a loss if we lose in November. Even in a victory it may ensure there's no mandate strong enough to roll-back what the Bush administration has done to twist the mechanisms of governance. Race and gender issues are liable to be set back for years even in the case of victory. The Republicans are handing the Democrats a poison pill; the economy, our international standing, the military, so many things are on the verge of outright disaster, only papered over by a complicit MSM and Federal Reserve.

What do you think is going to happen when a non-white, non-male gets the presidency?

The media, and spin doctors are going to grind them, undeservedly, into paste and then chalk it up to either their non-maleness, or non-whiteness. Karl Rove will be laughing his ass off all the while.

Of all elections in which to attempt to transcend problems of prejudice, this is the one?

[Andrea]

452. Rovian wet dream

You got that right!

To let them make our strength into our weakness will destroy this party. We absolutely cannot let them beat us this year.

[IronLionZion]

524. So many latte-sipping, Prius-driving, Costco-shopping elitist DUers say: YES WE CAN!!!

because elitists always know what's best for everyone.

:sarcasm:

Absolutely disgusting. Obviously we all love and respect Al Gore but how the hell could anyone other than Barack or Hillary be our nominee at this point? Whatever happened to "Yes we can"? Throwing the will of the voters out like trash is not the "change we can believe in". That nonsense is just plain Republican. John McCain would love it.

Either Obama or Hillary can thrash McCain soundly come November. Sure it sucks that these two attack each other but running for president isn't for delusional hipster yuppies. They are both getting tremendous name recognition and reaching out personally to voters all across this country in places national Dems rarely set foot. The big bad Democratic "D" has long coattails this year. The big wave is blue, and it will set the RepubliCON movement back for many years.

How about we stop trying desperately to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this time? I'm not ashamed to be a Democrat.

[shimmergal]

335. My dream also.

If only . . .

[brentspeak]

364. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3248467&mesg_id=3248769

[FourScore]

428. Please Obi Wan...I mean Al...You're our only hope. n/t

[mrbluto]

437. Edwards/Webb

Gore doesn't seem to want the presidency.

They should form a committee (yes, a committee) and select a candidate/ticket that will win.

I'd trust Gore, Carter and a few other notables of their stature to make a decision we can all live with - even like!

I'd also give a role to Bill, to advocate Hillary's interests, and Deval Patrick, to advocate Obama's.

I think Edwards would be a good choice - his candidacy is only suspended, so paperwork might be less of a problem.

I think Webb would be a good VP - he'd drawn in Republicans (for good reasons, not compromising ones). I base the Webb thing mainly on the basis of that rebuttal speech he gave that tore Bush a new one regarding the Iraq war. (Remember "Not only were these problems predictable, but they were predicted, yet the administration continued it's blunders")

A ticket like that would have incredible coattails and that administration would have a real mandate to fix the damage.

I'm all for demolishing the prejudicial barriers and glass ceiling that have kept women and minorities from the presidency, but this election is not the time to take the risk of a Republican victory. If the Republicans win then it's one or two SCOTUS appointments for them, all the political hacks left in place, and a lost chance to rollback the excesses.

Either an Obama, or a Hillary, administration will be embattled from day one. With what's coming down the pike there's a risk they'd not get a second term, never mind get anything done.

Can we risk letting the Bush administration get off scooter libby scott-free?

I'm not entirely joking when I say this could be the last free election if we don't get this one right.

[kimmerspixelated]

567. Mine, too. You think that is why Edwards hasn't endorsed?!!

Because he KNOWS!

[Window]

108. Hmmmmm. Someone knows something we dont?? What to make of the following:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5301477

"BIGGEST SURPRISE there weren't any Hillary & Obama signs, but just before Clinton arrived a group came in went down each sides of the building with Big ....Signs HILLARY & GORE, now isn't that the cats P.J"

[marshall]

580. Finally some sanity!

Gore/Edwards or Gore/Obama.

[earthlover]

128. Gore/Obama

[jwirr]

181. I already have my bumper sticker!

[dysfunctional press]

203. i had registered the domain name goreobama2008.com, but let it go in december.

:shrug:

[Andrea]

306. Have you tried to get it back?

If it is still available, it would be a good idea for you to latch on to it, I think.


Edited to add: if it's NOT still available, that tells us something, too.

[Matariki]

213. Gore/Obama - I said it a year ago and maybe can still hold out hope

And Clinton appointed to Supreme Court. Happiness all around.

[Andrea]

311. This would be a good outcome

I think that Clinton would be excellent on the SC. It is a really good fit with her talents and she could influence the future of the country in a huge way.

[blayne]

341. I like the sound of that!

It would be Obama on the ticket, as he is largely responsible for millions of new people wanting to be a part of this historical race and politics in general. Put Hillary in the Supreme Court, and hell, put Bill in the other slot. If that happened, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News' headquarters would probably spontaneously combust. A win-win indeed!

[lark]

586. Love the visual

I'd pay good money to see that happen. LOL

[Just-plain-Kathy]

518. A year ago I would have liked a Gore/Obama ticket..now I like Obama...

...and I'm a bit peeved at Gore. The man knows the Bushes are war profiteering SOBs. I wish Gore cared more about protecting us from the White House mafia. The earth could wait a year, I'm not sure America can.

We need a leader to protect us from the evils within the White House. I'm not saying Obama ever talked about the corruption, I'm hoping after Obama's elected, he'll hold BushCo accountable. I know neither Hillary or McCain will.

But as far as Gore goes...he has a voice and a following that would transcend the flames and arrows of our corporate owned media.

[Patriot Abroad]

263. Gorebama?

[Brigid]

397. Oh, yes. *sigh*

*goes off to daydream for a while*

[Daemonaquila]

155. Far fetched? More like delusional.

That would be the end of the Democratic party. Gore stepping in after a hard-fought race, claiming the spot of uniter without campaigning? It would be a travesty, one that would not only divide but explode democrats of all sides who couldn't stomach such a pathetic, cynical, gutless move by the party. If he's seriously considering it, he's gone over the ego-bend with Ralph Nader and needs to get out of politics for life.

[Christa]

180. I agree - Gore had his chance

I was all for Gore a year ago, but I really believe he does not care enough to fix what's broken.

This has been a hard campaign, Gore does not deserver to be handed anything on a plate. He did not want to fight for it (whatever his reasons may be).

[Demeter]

194. Exactly! Besides, Al Said NO

Said it repeatedly and emphatically. I think this is just somebody's idea of jerking people around for jollies. Or trying to make a bad situation even worse, so that Hillary squeaks in. Ain't gonna happen.


This was Joe Klein talking. He's a known trouble-maker.

[FredStembottom]

217. Ya know, Demeter,

I think you may be right.

This may not be a strange, new development at all - but another symptom of the Hill/Bama fight.

Someone thinking that making us grass roots Dems feel even more beleaguered and tired works to one or the other candidate's advantage.

Good call!

[ekwhite]

329. I didn't realize this was coming from Joke Klein

Until you pointed it out, and I read the article. We can probably discount this as a rumor. I don't think it would be intended to help Senator Clinton, however. As I pointed out in my response to the OP, it could be a warning to Clinton - if you try to force a brokered convention, we will make certain you don't get the nomination.

[Andrea]

333. I has come from several places

Joe Klein is just getting the most attention at this point.

[Andrea]

314. Not so much, really

I think maybe you aren't aware of the process. What this entails is the agreement and endorsement of Obama, and probably Clinton. They would be doing this for the benefit of the country (if they agree) and Gore for the same reason (if he agrees). This doesn't involve giving anyone anything to feed their egos. It involves the leaders coming up with a strategy to prevent defeat in November and then getting all the involved parties on board.

The rules are set up this way to prevent another disaster like 1972.

[annabanana]

360. thank you for your concern. . . . . .n/t

[SharonRB]

209. I presume it would be Obama

Gore-Obama! Yes!!!!!

[Andrea]

293. Actually it's becoming less and less far-fetched every day.

As far as who would be the VP, that would depend on how the deal is reached. Most likely the VP would be Obama because he will probably have more pledged delegates to bargain with (though not the required 2025 - that is impossible for either Obama or Clinton to achieve), and there is not a lot of love lost between Gore and Clinton.

The way this works is that if a sizable number of super delegates sit out the first ballot, probably about 100, neither candidate will meet the required threshold of 2025. Then on the second ballot, all the pledged delegates are free to vote as they please. Now, most pledged delegates are very loyal to their candidate, so that doesn't mean they are going to jump ship right then.

Discussions will be held among the party leaders and an agreement will be reached. The discussions would be influenced by what the leaders think is necessary to happen in order for us to beat McCain in November. Gore would have to agree to accept the nomination. Obama would probably agree to direct his delegates to vote for a Gore nom. The most likely scenario would be that he would do this in exchange for the VP slot, which in turn would mean a later shot at the presidency (at a time when he would be more likely to win, because he would have eight years of experience as VP). It might be possible that Clinton would also get into the agreement, in return for something she wants - or several things. She could insist that universal health care go in the platform and that she be made senate majority leader and/or get the first available Supreme Court opening. Other people would be brought into the agreement in order to present a very unified statement to the pledged delegates.

It's possible that neither Obama nor Clinton would end up being VP. I've heard talk in the last couple days that each of them is interested in the governorship of his/her respective state should they not become president this time around. It could be that the party will do polling ahead of time and determine that someone else would be a better choice for VP (my personal hot list includes Harold Ford, Jr. and Kathleen Sibelius, but it will depend on the agreement the leaders reach). But, in any case, it will require the agreement and blessing of Obama and hopefully Clinton, so that they will direct their delegates to vote for the Gore nom.

[bigendian]

438. More people should listen to you.

IIRC the present delegate system we have didn't come into being until the 70's when more states started to elect delegates for candidates. The super delegates are a counterbalance to this popularity contest system and do bring a level of pragmatism to the table. Politics is not a game for the "Polly Purebred" voter.

As you said, FDR came out of a brokered convention.

[Andrea]

460. Thank you

"More people should listen to you." I like the sound of that. Would you mind telling that to my boss and my family? :hi:

Yes, you recall correctly. I don't remember what year this super delegate system came in, but it was in response to the election of 1972. The super delegates are a counterbalance to the popularity contest. I am certainly glad to have this escape hatch available this year.

What a lot of people don't realize is that before the 1960s, most states didn't even hold primaries (and of course, some still don't). The state party leadership determined the state's delegates in caucuses that were largely populated by party insiders. It's only been the last 40 years that the rank and file membership had much voice in choosing the nominee at all.

[cali]

541. the odds of this happening are..... just about 0

It's simply delusional fantasy spinning from the real cultists who think Al Gore can save the world.

[LWolf]

508. Who would be any nominee's VP?

I would love to vote for Gore again this year.

[bjobotts]

528. You're quoting the "Telegraph" from the UK? About our election??

[Radical Activist]

2. Some people must really be afraid of an Obama nomination.

Obama has earned it. This should be over.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Exactly. I seriously doubt this story, anyway. Al was not exactly winning

in polls last fall--WTF would make people think he would just jump in and win now? This is crazy shit.

[depakid]

240. No, it isn't "crazy" at all

Not if you know history.

If the convention is deadlocked and both candidates look untenable, then a compromise candidate could and SHOULD be chosen.

It's happened before (even FDR didn't win on the 1st ballot in 1932) and there's no reason (other than people's whining) that it wouldn't happen again.

Indeed, that's the reason the superdelegates were put there in the first place- to ensure that we don't end up with another McGovern style fiasco.

Don't get me wrong, I like McGovern- but he was a sure loser, and pretty much everyone knew it.

[TwilightGardener]

248. We are in a different world now. The "little people" have more control

over the process. We watch TV, we have the internet, and we would be well-aware that the Democratic Party suddenly decided that it was safer to just pull a retread white guy out of their asses at the last minute than let the black guy that the people VOTED for become the nominee. It all comes down to Obama being black, and their nervousness (if this story is true, and I doubt it) that his being black will cost us the election, no matter HOW many people supported him in the primaries. There's no other way to look at it. And if it should happen this way (and it won't), the Dem Party would be over as we know it. It would be the ultimate racial slapdown, and the ultimate in voter disenfranchisement.

[Andrea]

285. One wonders how you could know that.

You said:

It all comes down to Obama being black, and their nervousness (if this story is true, and I doubt it) that his being black will cost us the election, no matter HOW many people supported him in the primaries. There's no other way to look at it. And if it should happen this way (and it won't), the Dem Party would be over as we know it. It would be the ultimate racial slapdown, and the ultimate in voter disenfranchisement."

How can you possibly know what others are thinking and what their motivation is? I would never make such a presumption about people I don't know. It sounds as if you are accusing a lot of fellow Dems of racism. This kind of statement only serves to divide us further.

[mrbluto]

459. Voted for...

...as in Republicans and republican-leaning people switched over to vote for?

Do you really think Obama (or Hillary) is going to win some of these states like Utah and Nebraska that people include when they yammer about "X straight victories in a row"?

I have to wonder how much of your stance is just a tactic - do you really think "There's no other way to look at it.", or that "the Dem Party would be over as we know it."?

And as for "the ultimate in voter disenfranchisement." - Utter, self-serving exaggeration; many of these contests were decided by caucuses, and were held in a staggered progression that does anything but give an accurate picture of the will of the public.

Could you blame me if I think you're just talking about "votes" because you believe it supports your position and that if they didn't you'd be finding some other basis to argue that your favored candidate should get the nomination? I remember, right at the outset, supporters of a certain candidate complaining how the way the primary dates were set up were unfair and favored a particular candidate - now that rigged system is rock solid?

Forgive me for some skepticism.

[Andrea]

317. Spot on

I love to see people that know their history!

[FatDave]

48. No. Shit.

Don't get me wrong, I love Al Gore and would love to see him as president. But we're going to just install the guy? No campaigning, no primaries, just "here you go, Al." Barack, Hillary you ran a tough campaign, and Barack, you've all but got the nomination wrapped up, but sorry, we can't really run a black guy!

No, this is bullshit that would destroy the party.

[humbled_opinion]

80. Exactly and how do you

Justify half a Billion spent on campaigns to nowhere? The Repukes will eat us up.

[Gonnuts]

207. Exactly - how does one justify 1/2 Billion dollars

being spent on a firkin campaign? Doesn't that right there say it all, that our system is corrupt to the core?

Look, nobody running for president gives a fat-rats-ass about "the people", it's all about money and power that they themselves benefit from. When you start talking in billions-of-dollars it's not an election - it's an industry. Lots of people making money so those that get elected can steal more money. A huge Dog & Pony Show with no dog or pony but lots of show.

They will do what they want. Personally I see McCain getting elected after Clinton keeps ripping meat off Obama. More likely though - which NO ONE is paying attention to is the fact that bush&co. are getting ready to attack Iran as we speak. When this happens all talk of having a "peace candidate" like Obama (as false a label as that is) or a women as president as we get thrown into a widening world-wide war will disappear.

We're about to go over the cliff folks. All this is simply distraction. Stop paying attention to this bullshit and what every one of us need to do is direct all our energy in stopping any attack on Iran NOW! For if we don't you can all do yourselves a favor by grabbing both cheeks of your ass now and bend over.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__080328_saudi_newspaper_3a__pr.htm

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bhwhite_080328_war_with_iran_may_ha.htm

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6736

[reprobate]

434. Gonnuts, you have spoken the one truism in this thread.

It IS all about the money. And I'm not talking about campaign money. I'm talking about the TRILLIONS spent on the Offense Department. More than all the rest of the world combined.

Do you think it possible that those behind all that money would let a peace candidate even come close to winning the presidency? No, never happen. They have controlled everything in this nation for decades and I personally don't see them relinquishing control in the near future. Not as long as there is a penny in the treasury that they can steal.

Being a conspiracy theorist myself, I look at this primary campaign with a little different slant. Remember that the Clintons are DLC democrats and the DLC is direct wired in to the war machine where it gets most of it's money. I have this little paranoid schizophrenic voice in my head that whispers in my ear that Billary and the DLC have intentionally booby trapped this primary so that John 100yearwar McCain will be the next president. I have been following the campaign and from what I've seen most of the dirt has come from the Clinton campaign. The dirt has not been popular with "the people" and a reasonable candidate would tone it down when she saw that it was effecting the possible outcome of the election. But Billary DID NOT TONE IT DOWN. She piled it on heavier. Now we have the situation where it looks as if McCain will be the next president. The Clinton Campeign and the DLC have been successful in turning an election that was inevitably to be a Democrat win into a likely Republican win. Who would have thought even six months ago that this outcome was even possible, let alone likely?

But then I admit to being a conspiracy theorist. I see a shadow government responsible for everything from the first anointment of the Idiot in chief to the Iraq invasion to the selection of both Billary and McCain. And you couldn't be more correct in pointing to Iran as their next target. Reason tells us that they MUST attack Iran. Public pressure to leave Iraq is almost overwhelming now, so they must pick another target which will provide a market for their wares. They can't keep selling arms unless there is a method of destroying the arms we now have, and Iran will give them that market.

There are enough clues in the last six decades to tell me that Eisenhower was absolutely correct. We lost our democracy to the war machine when we let it convince us that Russia was our next enemy after WWII. I am seriously skeptical of ever regaining it.

But I'm an old man and skepticism is the result of watching the world all these years.

[earth mom]

584. I've had my hat on with how it's all gone down too. Something's fishy, especially since Edwards

was forced out. :tinfoilhat:

Your post is an excellent one and I agree with it all except there is a tiny voice in my head saying that perhaps Gore is playing this his way and that this is precisely what he hoped would happen.

Gore's commitment to the planet and the environment is solid and he said he would not support anyone for president who didn't have a sound environmental plan. Well, both Obama & Hillary are on board for liquified coal which is a huge polluter. Neither of them will do much to help the planet because they are both corporatists through and through. I can't help but think for this reason alone, Gore is waiting for an opportunity to take the reins and kick both H & O and McCain to the curb. :evilgrin:

[mrbluto]

463. Doesn't it say it all....

That we might be better off nominating the guy who spent no money (Al Gore), and the guy who refuse to waste any more money (Edwards)?

[mrbluto]

462. Now you think money is the deciding factor?

And that's the basis on which the Republicans would win?

Please forgive me for not crediting you with much sincerity. Perhaps another of your comments will change my mind.

[earthlover]

130. Can't destroy what is already broken....if Hillary and Obama destroy each other we are screwed

A compromise candidate may give us a shot at uniting. Gore has enough stature, name recognition, and respect across the aisle to pull this off.

I think it would have to be Gore/Obama since Obama won the most pledged delegates and popular votes and states.

[Andrea]

323. Exactly

The Republicans are loving this - seeing us destroy ourselves. We've got to pull together or else it's going to be John "100 Years War" McCain.

[Carni]

371. IMO THEY didn't destroy each other

Their more militant supporters are destroying/have destroyed them by being so obnoxious...whatever the case it is what it is IMO and I don't see a scenario where either HRC or Obama can win in November.

[Andrea]

377. No doubt the militant supporters have contributed

to the mess we are in.

[Carni]

391. And what a mess it is!

I certainly don't know how this happened but it SUX! :(

[Raksha]

464. I agree, and I just can't see Hillary accepting

the vice-president's slot at all, whether the nominee is Gore or Obama.

[bpeale]

487. i wouldn't give a vote to any ticket that had HRC or BO on it

i would vote McCain first.

[proud2BlibKansan]

145. My thoughts exactly

I moved on from Gore. He isn't interested. And why should he get the nomination when he hasn't worked for it?

[Irishonly]

284. I Don't Understand Why People Think He Wants It

I wrote Gore and begged him to enter the race. He didn't want it and now so-called pundits are speculating he will rescue the party. It just does not compute. If they asked I believe he would say no.

[Andrea]

331. We may never know.

If they ask and he says no, it will probably never become public. If they ask and he says, yes, I believe it will be out of loyalty to the party and the country, and because he will use it to benefit the earth.

I wrote to him, too, several times.

Check out what he said in December when he was in Oslo and interviewed by CNN:

"I haven't ruled out the idea of getting back into the political process at some point in the future. I don't expect to. But if I did get back, it would be as a candidate for president, not in any other position." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/10/sitroom.03.html)

[Andrea]

330. Because we deserve it.

He should get the nomination so that we can win.

[rtassi]

491. Absolutely right!

He hasn't done much except campaign around the world enlisting support in a largely unappreciated and unheeded effort to educate and enlighten us about the critical need to act now, in an effort to save the planet from our own greed and stupidity. Why should a guy like that be President, when we can have slogans about hope and change and who's picking up the phone at 3 a.m. instead ?

[joeybee12]

253. Absolutely...how can they justify nominating someone who didn't even run a

campaign? This is all speculation, nothing more. If you think Hilary and BO going to the convention still duking it out is going to hurt the party, can you imagine what a bloodbath this would be if they did some backroom deal to nominate Gore?

[shimmergal]

358. "Running a campaign", especially a

"billion-dollar campaign" is vastly overrated. Mostly what it does is put megadollars into those MSM entities who're in the process of picking our president for us. A couple of million Floridians managed to decide which candidate they wanted (and no, this is not about Hillary--several candidates were on the ballot and garnered votes) WITHOUT any expensive ad campaigns there.

Mostly what modern campaigning does is test the candidates' physical and emotional stamina. And it's not necessarily the best way even to do that.

[Andrea]

378. Interesting point

I agree with you. I hadn't thought about that.

You know what it reminds me of? Medical school and internship. How does working someone beyond the point of exhaustion and then putting someone's health in their hands qualify them to be a better doctor? Wouldn't we all be better off with well-rested doctors that have time to study?

[mrbluto]

467. Doesn't need to be "backroom"

Not all decisions not voted on are "backroom" deals.

They could have a transparent process to select a candidate who can win.

Remember "Win"?

That thing that hasn't happened for 12 years?

[Andrea]

320. It wouldn't happen that way

This can only happen if Obama, and probably Clinton, agree to it and endorse it. It's not about race or gender, either. This is not about identity politics, it's about who can win.

[rosesaylavee]

412. "...not about identity politics, it's about who can win."

Good statement there. Let's remember that one.

[mrbluto]

461. From what I understand...

...neither candidate can reach the minimum threshold for victory as it stands.

But thanks for your oh-so-faux-news-like tactic of slipping in your presumption to the conversation, i.e. "all but got the nomination wrapped up"

[LWolf]

510. The reality is

that neither of them are likely to win in November. Neither can unite the party, as they demonstrate every day.

Bridging the divide with a candidate who CAN unite the party is the right thing to do.

Obviously, I'm not the only one to think so:

"The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain."

and

"The opening has emerged because opinion polls show Mr McCain stretching his lead over both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, whose campaigns are engaged in a daily cycle of attacks, character assassination and mutual recriminations on religion, race and the economy. Between a quarter and a third of Obama and Clinton supporters say that they would not now vote for the other in November."

[darue]

62. he hasn't earned it, he's a freshman senator, that's not much

I think he would be a fine president, but I really don't see how well he's going to play in the general election, I've not seen evidence he can decisively beat the admiral's son. he'd be more than ready to win by 2016 tho

[totodeinhere]

120. He has earned it through putting together one of the best campaigns in history.

Remember just a few months ago when Clinton was considered the inevitable nominee? And now she has virtually no chance. Obama's brilliant campaign has shown what a good politician Senator Obama really is. And speaking of Al Gore, whom I admire very much BTW, what has he done to earn it in this election cycle? Some may think that he is owed another chance at the presidency after it was stolen from him in 2000, but it doesn't work that way. If he wants it he should have run for the office in this election cycle just like everybody else has.

Yes, Obama is a one term senator. But IMO that's a good thing. The people who have been in Washington for all these years have really screwed things up royally. We thought that a Dem congress would fix things, but that didn't work out either. We need new blood and Obama is just the guy to do it.

[Andrea]

336. Except that without 2025 delegates he hasn't earned it.

Neither he nor Clinton can earn it. The super delegates are going to have to be the deciding factor.

It's not really about giving it to the most deserving, is it? Isn't it really about giving it to the best candidate for the sake of us, the party and the country? It's not a meritocracy. It's not some kind of accounting procedure where we see what is owed to which candidate.

The primary system is for the purpose of choosing the candidate that can win in November.

[Raksha]

472. What has Al Gore done in this election cycle?

Re >>And speaking of Al Gore, whom I admire very much BTW, what has he done to earn it in this election cycle?<<

Here's some of what he's done: He won an Oscar AND the Nobel Prize, and he wrote an incredible book on American politics and values, namely The Assault on Reason. ABD he's respected all over the world. He's probably the most universally respected American alive today.

Besides, he did campaign...in 2000, and he WON in 2000, despite the corporate media's all-out "War on Gore." But we all know how that worked out.

[Pacifist Patriot]

94. My parents would dearly love to see an Obama presidency but are afraid of an Obama nomination.

The area they live in is still steeped in racism so their daily experiences make them fear a McCain presidency if Obama is to get the nomination.

Likewise, they see the utter hatred directed at Clinton and fear a McCain presidency if she gets the nomination.

In other words, my parents have pretty much resigned themselves to a McCain presidency and are pissed as hell at the Democratic party they have worked so hard and so long for. It's really depressing to see them having lost so much hope.

[Andrea]

338. Many, many people have these same concerns.

Our fears of a McCain presidency should take precedence over our preference for any particular ticket.

[frogcycle]

131. earned it schmerned it

I agree, he has been incredibly successful in winning hearts and minds, getting votes, getting pledged delegates. Moreso than any other contender.

But the nomination is not a prize. You don't "earn" it. The party selects a candidate it thinks will win. Oh, in years past it has not done so, and we suffered through Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern trouncings.

I think Obama has demonstrated strong support, will probably be the nominee, and might come from behind and beat McCain. But if I were looking for the best bet to make, that would not be it.

That the party is doing some soul-searching and alternatives are being mulled over is a good thing. Because we absolutely, positively MUST win. An Obama nomination and election would be historic, sure. And I'd applaud it. But a McCain victory would probably seal the deal on the end of history for the US Constitution. We GOTTA get this right, and "earning it" has nothing to do with it.

[Andrea]

339. Really, really well said!

Excellent summary of where we find ourselves now.

[Wetzelbill]

390. kind of tough to come from behind when you're not behind

[Radical Activist]

532. A majority of primary voters disagree with your opinion.

You don't get to overturn the primary just because you THINK Obama will lose. Obama should be given the same courtesy that Bill Clinton got when he was declared the presumptive nominee even before he had enough delegates to win.

[frogcycle]

568. "You don't get to overturn the primary just because you THINK Obama will lose."

Like making shit up, huh?

You can say all you want about how you think things SHOULD be, and I don't necessarily disagree, but "you don't get to..." sounds like children saying "you're not the boss of me." The Party rules are what they are and they DO "get to." People might not like it, might raise bloody hell, but YOU don't "get to" just declare your own rules based on your preference.

You can say "you shouldn't..." or "it is not right to..." but "you don't get to?"

Give me a break. Open your eyes and learn about the real world. You are much more likely to achieve your goals if you learn to discern fact from wishful thinking. Or hope, as the case may be.

[RestoreGore]

172. they are whiny children who stomp their feet when they don't; get what they want

I may have some reservations about both Obama and Clinton, but in the end I do believe this will work itself out as Mr. Gore himself has stated. But let's not give a damn about HIS words in all of this. Once again, the BS artists think they can force us all into doing what they want.

[Andrea]

315. No one earns it unless they reach 2025 delegates.

It is now impossible for either Obama or Clinton to reach that level without the super delegates. One way or another, this is going to be decided by the super delegates.

Fortunately, they want the same thing we want: to beat McCain. We need to do what we can to keep that war-monger out of office.

[Radical Activist]

530. That standard didn't apply to Kerry, Gore, or Bill Clinton

All of them had primary opponents with enough sense and respect for the party to drop out when it was obvious they were going to lose. They were declared the nominee before having a majority of the delegates. Why have the rules suddenly changed for Obama? Why does he have to live by a different standard?

[Andrea]

550. Because it's impossible for him to obtain the required number.

It was possible for those others to, and they did. There was no significant split those years. The opponents did drop out. They were significantly behind. That's not the case this year.

[mrbluto]

453. Earned what?

There is a system, an actual system - not the one you dream of.

That system provides for a brokered convention.

If a brokered convention is possible then it is impossible for Obama to have earned the nomination.

Perhaps he gets selected.

I HOPE NOT.

I hope Hillary doesn't either.

Am I sexist? Am I racist?

I'm sure many will jump to that conclusion no matter what I say.

The reason I want neither is because I want a big, huge, overwhelming, DEMOCRATIC victory - a PROGRESSIVE victory!

One that can't be stolen, one that can't be denied, or stymied by the MSM or spin doctors.

Your "this should be over" comment betrays the petulant delusion of a teenager - wake up, smell the coffee, do the math.

A brokered convention is our best option.

[Radical Activist]

531. A brokered convention is our best option for losing in November.

Only gadfly candidates have stayed in the race long after it was clear they were going to lose. Why have the rules changed for Obama? Why isn't he being given the same chance to prepare for the general that Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Dukakis, Jimmy Carter and others were given?

[mrbluto]

560. Newsflash: The rules have not changed.

If you're talking about the "tacit" rules you might have a case.

My guess is that Hillary is in so thick with the DLC that even with the showing that Obama has made they're still not comfortable with him as the nominee.

I'm no fan of their triangulat'n ways, but the wy it stands now we're at serious risk of a loss in November.

I see a brokered convention as a way to select a winning candidate, and more than a merely winning candidate.

As an added benefit we get to see all the Republican opposition research become useless when we select someone they haven't been framing all the lib-long day.

[Megahurtz]

549. Yup. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

3. Well, that's a load of bullshit flown in from across the pond.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. Gore wouldn't unite the party.

You'd have Hillary AND Obama supporters pissed if Gore, who hasn't campaigned and worked at all in this election, steps in and gains the nomination with little effort. I don't like Clinton, but she and Obama have worked their butts off the past year and it's not fair to them or their supporters to lose all of that to Gore. I love Gore, but he hasn't earned the nomination this time around. Obama and Clinton have put in the needed effort and because of that, one of them should be our nominee (most likely Obama).

[chknltl]

7. What you said!

And stated far better than I.

[donheld]

13. I think you're exactly right

We did not vote for Al Gore! Al Gore said he didn't want it. We have 2 candidates who are almost to the clinching point. We don't need any body who claims "super delegate" status without a vote of the people telling us who we can or cannot nominate.I'd say these "Democratic Leaders" had better tread very lightly.

[Mind_your_head]

15. Gore worked his butt off and had the "election' STOLEN from him!

He gets a "pass" this time around in my (and many others book)

You don't think that was hard/difficult? Even moreso than Obama & Clinton's 'efforts' to date? sheesh......:eyes:

[Drunken Irishman]

16. So two wrongs make a right?

Gore had his election stolen, so the Democrats should steal it away from either Obama or Clinton? That's exactly what they would be doing, since both candidates have been working their butts off since last year.

As mentioned below, this would be a disaster. Not only does it piss off Obama and Clinton supporters, Gore would have minimal time to build a campaign, get the money needed to run a campaign and who's to say America would vote for him anyway? Gore could have run in 2004 and he passed it up. He could have run again this year, BUT HE PASSED IT UP. He had a chance to redo the stolen election, but he decided not to and I don't think it's fair to Obama or Clinton to penalize them for that.

[Andrea]

345. You are misunderstanding the process

No one is talking about stealing anything from Obama or Clinton. This is about the party leaders, including those two, coming up with a way to unite the party and win in November. This can't happen if Obama doesn't agree, and probably Clinton, too. It's not about what Obama or Clinton or Gore "deserves" or "earned" through campaigning.

It's about beating McCain and saving the country.

It's about "we the people" deserving a candidate that can win.

It wouldn't be a disaster. The leaders of the party will not go through with this unless they know it is our best chance to win. Polling will have been done, secretly. As far as money and a campaign organization in place, part of the point is to unite the party. The structure in place for both of the campaigns would be used for the unified campaign. As far as money, that's the least of our concerns. Obama and Clinton together have so far out raised McCain 11 to 1. If an agreement is reached, that fund raising acumen will transfer to the nominees campaign.

[Drunken Irishman]

352. You misunderstand a lot of things.

How is robbing Obama or Clinton the nomination and giving it to a candidate who hasn't even campaigned the past year and a half going to unite the party? You're going to piss off a lot of people by doing that, especially if Obama is only 100 or so delegates behind the needed number to secure the nomination.

What is the point of having a primary at all if we're just going to toss the candidates at the convention and nominate someone who we THINK might possibly maybe do a bit better than both candidates? We can't. Most Democrats, as recently as last week, said they do not want Gore to be the nominee and I think, frankly, Gore would not be the type of candidate to unite the party and I don't think he could win in the general election. Gore had his chance in '04 and then again this time around but opted out of running.

And yes, it would be a disaster. Gore is not a good campaigner and he's still not very well liked by independents and Republicans, add in the fact you could see many Democrats feel they were disenfranchised and it would be a disaster. Gore, running against a bumbling moron in 2000, barely managed to win the popular vote and McCain is far more popular today than Bush was in 2000.

[Andrea]

374. Well, as I said

No one is talking about robbing or stealing. How is it robbing them if they are important parties to the decision and agree and endorse the move?

The point of the primary is supposed to be to determine our best candidate to win in November. Unfortunately, with caucuses and open primaries and excessive spending and media pressure and disagreements about schedules - we ended up without the kind of "best bet" candidate we need. That's why the process includes the convention.

This won't happen if the party leaders, including Obama, don't agree that it is the best thing for the party. Part of their decision-making process will be based on polling. And you can bet that some of that polling will include questions like, "If Obama does not win the nomination on the first ballot and then directs his delegates to vote for Gore, would you vote for Gore in the general election?" And how about this, "If Obama does not win the nomination on the first ballot, but endorses a Gore nomination and runs as Gore's VP, would you vote for Gore?"

As far as Gore not being a good campaigner, there is no denying that mistakes were made in 2000. But a lot of things have changed since then, including having Howard Dean as chair. Also, Gore is not the man he was in 2000. He has learned and grown and come into his own. If he agrees to this, he will not let himself be "handled" the way he did in 2000.

He is actually quite popular with independents. I'm sure there are many independents who wish they could have their 2000 vote for Bush back. And lastly, don't you think that having your candidate, Obama, participating in the campaign would really help a lot with the quality of the campaign?

[Drunken Irishman]

384. It robs the supporters.

People who have spent years worth of work trying to get these candidates elected. People who have invested so much time and their candidate won't win, not because they lost, but because the party decided they didn't like him/her enough? Bullshit. How is that going to play within the African American community, you know, a vital voting block for the party? Why would they rally behind Gore if the Democratic Party decided to rip the nomination from Obama's hands? I mean, we're not talking about Obama being really all that far behind the threshold. He's almost there and while he can't win it on his own, the superdelegates will put him over the number. But that isn't good enough?

I'm sorry, but I think we're opening a can of worms if the Democrats decide to give the nomination to Gore, with Obama being really close to winning it himself. Not only does that create the belief Democrats are eating their own, I really do not believe there is enough time to mend fences and win in November. If it happens at the convention, we're looking at just a bit over two months. That's it. In my mind, it would be a disaster, much like 1968.

As for Gore's popularity, I think he's become a one-issue man and that will hurt him in the general. You're right, Gore f'd up in 2000 and things have changed, but I'm not so sure they changed enough to push him to victory. Had he entered the race prior to any voting, I think he would've had a shot at building the needed foundation and getting the needed support to not only win the nomination, but win the presidency. However, he'd be looking at a small window, likely with McCain having a big lead and I don't think he can overcome it. I don't think Gore knows how to campaign and fundraise like Obama, or even Clinton. I mean, I still have nightmares about the blackout Gore had after the convention until September/October because they didn't have the money. During that stretch, he could have put Bush away, but he didn't. Bush stayed around and by the time November came, he won. Whether you want to say he stole the election, it doesn't matter, he positioned himself and that should have never happened. There was no excuse for 2000 being a close election and like I said, McCain is perceived to be better than Bush was in 2000.

Gore has not proven to me he can run a winning campaign, Obama has. Obama has beat the odds getting where he is right now, Gore, with the odds on his side, blew it in 2000. He blew it by allowing Bush to make it a campaign and for that, I don't trust he could win the election. I do, however, believe Obama can and will win the presidency.

[Andrea]

388. It looks like we have to agree to disagree

I will say this however, if Obama wins the nomination, he has my vote without reservation.

If Gore wins the nomination (likely with Obama at his side), I certainly hope you will vote for him.

As I've said many times, we simply MUST beat McCain.

[Drunken Irishman]

393. Of course I'd vote for Gore.

I'd even vote for Clinton if she were to win the nomination. But I'm the type who would vote Democratic at the national level no matter what. The Republicans could run Jesus and the Democrats Satan and I'd still vote Democratic. :D

[rosesaylavee]

416. ...

:thumbsup:

I think Satan (D) is hot. :P

[Andrea]

465. Me, too

I think the Republicans have run Satan and tried to convince us he was Jesus several times!


:hi: :thumbsup:

[mrbluto]

477. He simply doesn't wish to understand

Don't mess with his hopes - logic be damned.

He's got lock-on on this one possibility.

AFAICT anything that doesn't lead to that outcome is cheating in his book.

[mrbluto]

474. All the more trustworthy for passing it up.

Seriously.

Amongst a bunch going "me, me. me Meeeeeeee!" who can you trust?

How about the guy that over 50% of voters selected as capable just before this disastrous 7+ years began?

I don't understand how any Democrat faced with a McCaine victory would not ultimately vote for that guy when it came time.

Many would heartily and enthusiastically vote for that guy - most for good reason, but some even if only to have it stick in the craw of the outgoing criminal Bush administration.

I bet that maybe, just maybe, there might a whole swath of even Republican voters who regret that he wasn't president and may want to give him a swing at it. And then there would be some Republican pragmatists who would see that the best way to fix American loss of international standing would be to vote for him as a repudiation of the last seven plus years.

Gee, do we have anyone like that around?

[FatDave]

49. You know how we like to say Bush was not elected, he was selected?

You don't see a problem with this scenario?

This is fucking ridiculous. Why do I get the feeling this is coming from Hilary's people? Anyone but Obama, huh guys?

[razorman]

169. If Obama becomes president, I am convinced that Hillary Clinton

will work (behind the scenes, of course) to undermine his presidency. I believe that she would be trying to set herself up for a last-chance run in 2012.

[Andrea]

350. I have heard that from others, as well

including some pundits on TV.

[mrbluto]

480. Maybe because there's flouride in the water?

That or the black helicopters are aiming their dishes at you?

Here's a bit of a shocker for ya - I'm not a "Hillary" person.

So parse that dude.

When you're done then consider the fact that even if Obama is the best thing since sliced bread in your eyes, he's not to others. Even if he becomes the best thing since sliced bread to the entire Democratic voting base then we'd still like to get Independents and Republicans on board (and not just to screw with our primaries either) so we have a president with the mandate necessary to get things done.

BTW - if you can't see the difference between the way Junior became president and what would happen in a BROKERED CONVENTION that follows the EXISTING F*CKING RULES, then I'm not sure you should be operating heavy machinery or doing any air-traffic control.

But I think you do, just don't want to admit it.

[FatDave]

534. This just in...

Obama is popular with independents and crossover republicans. Waaaaayyyy moreso that Hillary or even Gore.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

95. Agreed

As much as I support Obama, and as much as I want him in the GE. A Gore ticket would suit me just fine. Gore is really the one that deserves this. How soon we forget that he had an election stolen from him outright, I am not saying this entitles him to anything but damn I just want Al Gore as my president, really anyway I can get him at this point.

[Politicalboi]

319. I like Gore too

But don't you think Obama has had the same kinda problem with Clinton trying to steal it away from him? Let's change the rules so FL amd MI count. The pleged delegates aren't really pledged. Let the SD pick the nominee and lets go by popular vote. Clinton has been trying to steal this from Obama for over a month now. Gore should have stepped in last year if he wanted to run. Gore would be good in an Obama administration as head of EPA. Stealing this nomination from Obama would be a repeat of 2000.

[RestoreGore]

214. He is beyond that. And people using that as an excuse for their own selfish political whims

Should be ashamed of themselves.

[Freedom Train]

27. That's probably why, if it came down to a compromise candidate,

Edwards would be the slightly better choice. He was at least in this campaign to begin with, and wants the presidency, something we're not even sure Gore wants in the first place. If no agreement can be reached on the two in the top, common sense says number three should get the nod. I'm still debating with myself about whom of the two to give my vote to late April, but now I'm thinking maybe I should vote Edwards instead after all, to help solidify his #3 position. He was more or less my first pick in January, and wouldn't he still be on the Pennsylvania ballot since he only "suspended" his campaign?

[tinrobot]

29. Gore/Edwards

That's the ticket.

[Freedom Train]

43. And it would have been a great ticket!

If Gore had only entered this campaign in the first place! I was hoping for a long, long time that Gore would indeed decide to run; but for him to picked now, "out of the blue" if you will, I think would be seen by many as a greater injustice than if the super delegates would decide between Obama and Hillary. I would still be alright with it, of course, but I fear there could be a considerable backlash against someone who was picked totally over everybody's heads and whom nobody got a chance to vote for. I know it would be according to party rules, and again, I'm not against it at all. But as a "compromise" candidate, I think Edwards would probably slip by easier than Gore.

And the most poignant question is... Will Gore really agree to do it? I'm not sure.

And another thing... Could the reason why Edwards hasn't endorsed yet be that he is hoping to BE the compromise candidate if it comes to that? If he were to endorse either candidate, that door would close for him. This just struck me right now.

[Gore Edwards]

50. That's the ticket!

I like it too!

[TBF]

107. I'd vote for Gore/Edwards or Gore/Obama -

I have actually given serious money to Obama (first time that I've ever given more than $25 to a candidate!), but I would go with this compromise. I'd like it better as Gore/Obama, but obviously Edwards would also make a great VP. Is this why he is hanging back and hasn't endorsed?

I wouldn't vote for Hillary. I'd protest vote for Nader or stay home. I've never much liked her and now I hate her after the recent negativity.

Still, McCain is no solution.

Gore/Edwards would work for me.

[Demit]

124. If you protest vote for Nader, or stay home, McCain is the solution you'd be contributing to.

Your protest vote would be cold comfort for you for the next 4 or 8 years.

[TBF]

149. I know, and that is the frustration --

Some of us really are very frustrated that the democratic party has been so moderate as of late, and we see Hillary as more of the same. Some would rather see the party implode (which it will if McCain is elected - the dems have never been in a better position for victory - Bush's approval rating dips lower daily), and hope something better arises. Like more parties.

But the pragmatist in me fears you are right and it would just lead to eight additional hellish years. As a "latte liberal" (as Hillary likes to deride us), I can weather it. I can pay $10 a gallon for gas if I have to. But I'd really rather see us go in a new direction. I'd like to see inclusion. I'd like to see global warming taken seriously. I'd like to see education valued.

I'd let Obama go and vote for the Gore solution. I have always loved Gore and thought he was too intellectual to win. But he very nearly won against Bush (and did win the popular vote). Perhaps this is the solution the party needs right now.

[Andrea]

357. I think your rational approach is what we all need to take.

You said, "I'd let Obama go and vote for the Gore solution." We really need to think about what is the best outcome for the country, not for any individual candidate. We certainly all agree that the worst outcome is McCain.

[Canuckistanian]

237. Gore/Edwards - 2012

It's far too late for '08.

[frogcycle]

132. Gore has made clear time and again

that he would welcome the presidency and the opportunity to further both the climate issue and reversal of "The Assault on Reason." He also said he did not want to participate in the "toxic" political process. And who can blame him? There is every reason to believe that if he were the nominee, with only 9 weeks until the election, that he could hold his nose and get through that. And the world would be the better for it.

[Cronopio]

354. This would one way to sidestep the corrupt political process and win the Presidency

It would only be a problem for someone who hadn't won the Presidency before and been denied it.

[shimmergal]

372. And we'd benefit from the RW

having no recent "ammunition" borrowed from campaign mud slung by supporters of Obama or Clinton,
Of course they'd scurry to come up with stuff, but it wouldn't be there ready-made for them.

[Raksha]

478. I was thinking along those lines too.

It would be such a great way of de-railing the RW slime machine. The corporate media machine may be too big and powerful, not to mention too amoral, to defeat in a head-on confrontation, but I just LOVE the idea of deflecting it.

Re >>And we'd benefit from the RW having no recent "ammunition" borrowed from campaign mud slung by supporters of Obama or Clinton,
Of course they'd scurry to come up with stuff, but it wouldn't be there ready-made for them.<<

Yup...it would be such a great way of out-Foxing them, if you'll forgive the awful pun.

[iris5426]

398. He won't be on the ballot...

I was volunteering and gathering signatures to get him on the ballot when he suspended, and the campaign never contacted us to get them from us or anything. I'm writing him in though, I've struggled with the decision, but he's really the only one who spoke for me, the two who are left don't. I want to cast a vote for someone I truly believe in.

P.S. Go Stillers! :bounce:

[HopeforChange]

470. He is a weasel too !

Neither Gore or Edwards will have won this thing.

The DNC aka Dean ruined this thing by not seating FLA and MI. This f'ed up the momentum.

The other thing that screwed this up is that the number required to win is too high because of the Super delegates.

The Superdelegetes need to get their Sh... together and permanently pledge their support and get the hell out of the way.

[puebloknot]

31. Gore earned the right to this nomination in 2000. And he won the election.

I'm not sure the man would be willing to step up to the plate now, given the way he has been treated by this country. But whether he wants the presidency now or not, I think he's been wise to stay out of the fray.

A friend of mine wrote a book called "Trying Hard is Not Good Enough." That's the way I feel about our current candidates, both of them. Gore is relatively untainted by the primary battles that have been taking place, and enjoys the respect of the world.

I shudder when I think of either Hillary or Obama running against McCain, given the rancor that has developed. Whether we think Al has proven his mettle by "working hard" (Now where have we heard that before?), if he can defeat McCain, then we need him to come forward.

[Drunken Irishman]

Gore earned it but decided not to run.

Hillary and Obama have earned it through working their butts off the past year trying to get the nominate. It would be unfair to them and their supporters for Gore to swoop in and take the nomination.

As for you shuddering of either Hillary or Obama running against McCain, I do the same with Gore. I think he's an amazing man, but not a very good campaigner and I don't think he could beat McCain, especially with only a couple of months to campaign.

[Politicalboi]

39. I also think it was stolen from Gore

But if he had a gripe he should have done something in 2000 to get his victory back. Stealing it from a Democrat at this stage of the game would be a mistake.

[Gore Edwards]

56. Like

what? Take it to the U.S. Supreme Court?

[proud2BlibKansan]

148. He could have stood up and challenged the election, that's what

Saddest scene in Farenheit 9/11 was when all those congress reps were ready to challenge and not one senator would stand up with them. And Gore sat there the whole time, refusing to say a thing or validate what was happening. Nearly eight years and millions of deaths later, makes me ill just remembering it.

[rosesaylavee]

204. As VP, he was not in a position to take the floor and voice an opinion.

I think my gripe is with the sitting DEM senators of that time who decided not to join their House colleagues.

Maybe I am talking out my ass as I am not that sure of Senate rules, but I think the VP functions only as the deciding ballot cast in close votes. I don't remember any instance where the VP actually gets to get down from the high seat and walk out on the Senate floor to speak to the Senate about anything. I see that footage from F911 and cringe not because of what Mr. Gore didn't do but what he had to go thru with his hands tied in that scene.

And Gore did challenge the election... right up until the SCOTUS acted illegally and stopped the recount. Other than encourage rioting in the streets, he did what he hoped to be best and stepped down.

[Politicalboi]

334. I remember

I know it was stolen from him. And I know the Supreme Court never should have stepped in and appointed Bush. Maybe using the word "gripe" was wrong. But I don't think he has the right to steal from Obama now. Believe me I wanted him to run this year but he didn't. I think he would have had a good chance considering how dimson has run this country. It would have been a awesome campaign had he run. The man who should have been President. A chance to make things right.

[rosesaylavee]

348. I don't think he or anyone else will steal it from Obama.

I think if Obama somehow does not get the majority of the delegates in the next couple months AND the nomination remains uncertain until the convention, AND, it appears that neither Obama nor Clinton would be able to win against McCain in the fall, the second ballot may be cast for Gore.

I don't think Gore would accept it except under the dire circumstances outlined above.

[mrbluto]

483. What party do you belong to?

That you would want to keep characterizing a selection method, a brokered convention, that is WELL WITHIN THE RULES as a "steal from Obama"?

There is no "Steal", Obama gets selected at this point, or not. It's not *his* nomination.

Keep yammering like you are and I'm going to start to think that there's a whole swath of people on this board who are logic impaired, self deluding, liabilities to the party.

[Gore Edwards]

545. Challenge the election?

There is no challenge to a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It becomes the law of the land. Do you understand that? Does that have any influence as to your opinion?

[Politicalboi]

300. We know that didn't work

Why didn't he run this time. He had plenty of time to decide to run but he didn't. It's too late for him now. He will not get my support and all those young voters for Obama wouldn't be there for him either. He should have tried harder in 2000. If he were put to the nomination now it would make him look like Bush in 2000 an illegitimate president.

[puebloknot]

538. Surely, you jest! "...like Bush in 2000..."????????

[peacetalksforall]

175. You don't know your history. Go back and take a look. He fought for the people

but some of them, like the DLC, fought against him in addition to all the dirty tricks of the Rebpublican Party, plus the ultimate trick - a partisan, political Supreme Court - what more could he have done?

I find myself ridiculous after all these years of discussing it wanting and trying to explain it all over again.

Please. Please review the history. He fought. Valiantly. Don't insult him or us. He had all the tricksters going against him, including Democrats who were 'embarassed?' to be found fighting the war chief Republicans. Please.

[Andrea]

383. Actually, he did

but our weak party party leadership at that time would not back him. You can thank mainly Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt for that.

[puebloknot]

537. We had just been through a judicial coup. People were gathering...

...in threatening groups in front of Gore's house. We'll never know what fed into his decision to fade into the background, but the whole country was in a state of shock, and so might Mr. Gore have been -- even to the point of fearing for his life and his family's safety.

The name Wellstone comes to mind.

[mrbluto]

486. Too be fair - he hasn't earned it.

That's all.

There is no "Earn" for the nomination.

I'd like it to be him. It would fix many things, and satisfy many people's sense of justice.

I actually think a Gore (& Obama/Clinton) endorsed Edwards/Webb ticket is the optimal situation that still has a reasonable sliver of possibility.

[puebloknot]

539. He has a right to throw his hat in the ring at any time. That he has been...

...perhaps waiting in the wings does not say he would be stealing the nomination from anyone, any more than an Edwards/Webb ticket could be seen as "theft." And BTW, that has a nice ring to it, also.

By "earn" is simply meant to say that he has a right to participate in our politics right up to the end, and that neither Obama nor Hillary have "earned" the nomination yet, either. I'm tired of hearing about inevitability. We need to find the best ticket to defeat McCain. These two years of campaigning have been too long, and I fear with many others that the energy has been drained out of the country with the two current, fighting nominees.

Thanks for weighing in!

[mrbluto]

558. I had to say something about the word "earn"

Because I had recently torn a new one for an Obama supporter that used that word. (as in "Obama has won - he's earned the nomination")

The sense of "earn" you use, "a right to participate in our politics right up to the end", is perfectly valid.

[puebloknot]

562. Same page, no? nt

[mrbluto]

585. yep

same page

[tandem5]

33. I know what you mean... ah screw it! I want gore!

[PetraPooh]

53. Plus he has become a one issue person, and that issue is so GREEN

that he would be a galvanizing force for most republicans.

[stlsaxman]

134. Polls showed some time back that near half registered GOP voters would have gone Gore

over any party candidates running.

He may very well do the same today. Who knows.

[PetraPooh]

382. Its the 'who knows' that is just as valid for Obama as Gore,

and I don't believe such a poll from "some time back," all the repubs I know just think gore is a wuzzy.

[Andrea]

386. I guess you are not familiar with his best-selling book

"Assault on Reason"? Or his famous anti-war speech sponsored by Move On? Or his recent videos at Current.com on subjects like healthcare, gay rights and civil liberties?

He's not a one issue person.

[PetraPooh]

500. Even if I have, not many others have, to most he is the Global Warming Guy, end of discussion.

[Andrea]

502. Oh, okay

I forgot you were the one to decide when discussions are ended.

[PetraPooh]

542. I didn't mean twixt you and me, I meant to be paraphrasing "most people"

[Andrea]

553. I misunderstood you.

I thought you were being dismissive of my opinion. I understand now. Yes, a lot, maybe most, people see him that way now. My feeling is that since he has a record of not being a one issue guy, it would be fairly easy to bring the other issues to the fore. Also, since "Assault on Reason" was a best-selling book, there is already a large core of people out there that recognize otherwise.

[PetraPooh]

565. Here's a current DU link to his focus these days, he's just too focused on GW.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3249873

[Andrea]

572. thanks for the link

I'm really enthusiastic about the campaign. He's definitely focused on it, and rightfully so. I just think he's sufficiently diversified to be able to make a case in many areas of discussion.

[PetraPooh]

573. You may be, but unfortunately most are not likely to embrace your belief when he just started

a three year single issue campaign of his own.

[puebloknot]

540. But give him some air time as the nominee...

...or giving his strong endorsement, and he'd be more than merely a global warming guy!

Let us never forget that our unfree press controls public perception.

[PetraPooh]

544. Perhaps, I just think it is a really BAD idea to try to install Gore at this late date.

[puebloknot]

564. I don't think the word "install" applies. Unless there's some legality...

...to keep him out of the race, he has the right to run. We need someone with strong stature to run and win. No one knows if Mr. Gore can win this time, but we know he did win in 2000. If Obama can't take the nomination, then Gore/Obama would be good. I support Obama. I'm just a little scared that he may not be able to pull it off. You might consider this tepid "support," but I'm nervous about our chances of ending up with McCain.

May the best Prez win!

[mrbluto]

488. The only convincing factor I've heard in a while.

I have to admit that what you say could be a factor.

I think the other factors leave us with a net positive, but what you say can't be discounted - it's a reasonable thing to consider.

A rarity on DU to be sure.

[darue]

63. I could care less about "work" they've done, we need to beat mccain and that is all that matters

the delegates to the convention will pick who our nominee is. if neither obama or clinton can get to 51%, someone else could well be picked.

[HopeforChange]

520. Best way that I know of to loose to McCain . Disenfranchise millions of voters. Bright !

[OzarkDem]

111. It would unite loyal Democrats who care about our country

Democrats for a Day and political narcissists might get upset, but who cares. They can vote for McCain or Nader if they don't like it.

Dems have lost their leadership in the last few years, since the election was stolen from Gore. No one has emerged as a real leader since then. All we've seen are a bunch of mewling, back scratching, money grubbing incompetents in Congress. Frankly I don't care how such a decision would affect any of them or the internal party machinery or someone's chances of getting ahead.

I do care about getting a Dem elected who isn't owned by corporations and who will lead the country out of this mess. That and cleaning up the mess inside the beltway.

[TBF]

289. Yay - I finally agree with a Hillary supporter on something

I think he could unite democrats. Al sort of stands above the fray now with his Nobel Peace Prize and all. As much as I love Obama (he speaks to my heart), I also love Gore (who speaks to my head), and I would support him 100%.

I could be happy with Gore/Edwards. I'd rather have Obama on the ticket somehow but only a fool would turn down Al Gore. Al Gore is brilliant, kind, a war veteran, and has VP experience. We could do so much worse.

[Andrea]

471. Yea TBF and Ozark Dem!

See, he's already uniting us! this is how we beat McCain!

[HopeforChange]

521. Then I'm a fool

[Andrea]

389. Bravo!!

You are right - despite our victories in '06 even, no one has emerged as a true leader.

We need to win this election for the good of the country and their is no room for identity politics or individual preferences.

[Cosmocat]

112. I am full behind Obama now ...

but, had Gore come into the race, it would be him and Hillary battling it out, not Obama and Hillary right now ...

BUT, he decided not to run (IMO, cause he didn't want to deal with running against Hill), and as such has been bypassed by both Hill and Obama ... He decided not to compete, and they did and have battled LONG and HARD ...

I also agree, of all the hair brained ideas floated out ... As you noted, a Gore nomination would disenfranchise BOTH camps ...

[sellitman]

168. This would disenfranchise the voters

Gore would never do that.

[shadowknows69]

116. I would love to have Gore as President

I felt it was his destiny this time, but not like this.

[JerseygirlCT]

123. Yes, exactly. nt

[cnk_clark]

257. You got it dialed.

The party is really in a shambles right now.

How do we go from victory in 2006 to this self destruction????

I think it is all about ego's and has nothing to do with representing us.

A really sad state of affairs if you ask me.

[drmom]

270. I disagree...

In their most sane moments, the die-hards on both sides must realize that this divisiveness is about the worst thing that could have happened for the party. By giving the nomination to a third person, it eliminates the two-sided rivalry. I think most democrats realize that Obama is the future of the party, but the disagreement starts when you try to decide if the future is here yet. By having Gore step in, you simply allow Obama to gain more experience for a future presidential run. Yes, Clinton would likely be out all together (face it, Americans may vote for a woman, but certainly not an old woman), but I think most of us Clinton supporters would agree that it is better overall for the party.

I really like the idea of Gore ending this bickering.

[Nay]

291. Agreed. The country would explode if Gore walked in and took the

nomination. I say this as a person who just lately scraped the "Gore 2008" sticker off my car. I love Gore, thought he was SCREWED in 2000 and have never gotten over it, but --- there's no way he's going to get in the middle of this. Nor should he. The Dems would be pasted (rightfully so) as racist/sexist assholes who wouldn't let a legitimate nominee win. Talk about giving it to the Pubs.

Furthermore, NO ONE would ever again believe that we, the people, had anything to do with actually selecting our president. It would be over. You think voter participation is low now? Just wait.

As far as Iran, all the millions of us who swamped DC at various protests over the past 5 years had no effect. Letter writing had no effect. It will take something else, and I don't know what that is.

[Olney Blue]

489. I agree with you. Even down to your point of the hopelessness of marching

time after time downtown against the war with no effect.

[OnionPatch]

308. You are so right.

I love Al dearly, but the thought of this situation turns my stomach. Al Gore has not run for the nomination. Are all of our votes worth nothing? Isn't the Democratic Party supposed to be for "democracy" after all?

Al should have entered six months if he were going to run.

[amandabeech]

496. If neither Clinton nor Obama have it on the first ballot, I think that it

shows a real split. It would be well within the rules on a second ballot for pledged and supers to go for Gore. It is a risk of the current nominating process--if no candidate has a majority of the delegates and supers refuse to follow Pelosi's urgings, there is a way for the party to agree on some candidate.

I can understand how Obama and Clinton supporters would be unhappy, but I will support the candidate who comes out of the convention so long as the rules are followed. Even if I'm not too fond of those rules.

McCain cannot win!!

[krkaufman]

370. But Hillary's supporters would have little to complain about ...

... since she can now only win the nomination by superdelegates handing it to her, and Hillary has been advocating that superdelegates going against the elected pledged delegate majority is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if the superdelegates feel one or another candidate is not as electable.

[TexasBushwhacker]

402. Go ahead and be pissed

but at the end of the day, what are you going to do if Gore ends up being the candidate, seriosly? Not vote in the GE? Prove your point by being stupid? Enough already! I will vote for the Democrat, whoever it is, because McCain as Commander in Chief would be nothing short of catastrophic.

I don't really know what other reasons Gore had for not running this time, but I know one of them, and her name is Hillary Clinton. They is no way that he would run against her, NO WAY. So if she can't unite the Democratic party, and at this point it's obvious that she can't, then he can be drafted as the nominee at a brokered convention. Yes, it's been 75 years since a brokered convention produced a winning nominee, FDR. We needed someone to turn the country around then, and guess what, we need someone to turn the country around this time too.

The MSM made sure that the big story was that the two leading candidates were the woman and the black guy. To heck with their stand on the issues, their baggage, their lack of experience. It was history in the making, and don't you forget it! Except half the Democrats aren't behind Clinton, and the other half aren't behind Obama.

Gore got 51 million votes in 2000. Nader got almost 3 million.

How many who voted for Gore last time would vote for McCain this time? ZERO

How many who voted for Nader in 2000 would vote for McCain this time? ZERO

Kerry got 59 million votes in 2004. How many who voted for Kerry last time would vote for McCain this time? ZERO

Bush only got 50.7% of the vote in 2004. For an incumbent, that kind of sucks.

So please, for all you die hard Obama and Clinton supporters. If Gore gets drafted at the convention and accepts the nomination, go ahead and be pissed, but please, don't be stupid.

[silverweb]

6. The Telegraph?

Isn't that like the UK equivalent of our Moonie Times? Or am I confusing it with another publication?

[Lorien]

10. I think that you are thinking of the Times of London

which is the equivalent of the Washington Times. The Independent leans left.

[silverweb]

14. Ok, thanks.

I've got U.S. papers pretty well pigeonholed, but always get the British ones mixed up. :crazy:

[WritersBlock]

59. AKA The Torygraph n/t

[lapfog_1]

9. This is a bad idea

Even if Al wanted to do it.

It's bad because:

1. Obama has won.

2. Gore has no campaign staff or message.

3. Gore has no ground game set up in the 50 states.

4. If this was to come about, when would it happen? If not until summer, then there is not enough time to attack McCain.

5. Gore has no campaign money, and while he might quickly gin up some, it's not clear that he can easily do this.

6. We have primaries for a reason, and the reason is to look carefully at the candidates... Al Gore has missed that for this cycle (given that he won in 2000, this could be overlooked).

7. Gore is now tied to a single issue, which, no matter how important, will not win you elections.

8. Gore has his own baggage to overcome and there is plenty of time for the MSM to dredge up everything again.

9. This would be a rematch of what SHOULD have been in 2000... and McCain probably would come close to beating Al Gore had Rove not stolen the primaries for *.

10. Gore is a great guy, the only senior politician I'd had the pleasure of sitting in a meeting with, but he doesn't do the stump speech or the meet and greet as well as Obama. Gore might be more experienced and might possibly be a better leader than either Hillary or Obama, but his political skills (getting elected) is simply not as good as either of the two candidates running.

[digidigido]

21. refutation by the numbers

1 If Obama had won, we wouldn't be talking about this
2 Gore would have a staff in a heartbeat, and he most certainly has a message, it's why he won the Nobel prize
3 see #2
4 It would happen at the convention leaving 3 months to challenge McCain, which is exactly the same amount of
time whoever gets the nomination would have
5 If Gore were the choice of the party he'd have a boatload of money in a heartbeat
6 We have primaries to see if a candidate can get enough delegates to be nominated, If none can, there is a
convention to unite the party and pick a nominee
7 Gore is a statesman with experience as a Senator and a Vice President who also opposed the Iraq war, and was
a part of a prospering economy
8 What baggage?
9 Oh Please
10 I don't know which candidate you're for, but they both have positives and negatives. If it's about finding a candidate
that hasn't' been bloodied by the nonsense of this primary season, one who can unify the party and beat McCain,
Al Gore is it, and he probably has more positives then either of our present candidates

[Lorien]

23. Well put. And welcome to DU!

:hi:

[readmoreoften]

576. What you said. /nt

[lildreamer316]

67. Point by point:

1)This is not clear, or party leaders would not even be considering this option.

2)Whomever his VP would be does.

2)See #2

4)At the convention; then the same amount of time is available to defeat McCain that anyone else would have.

5)He has a TON of money!! All his!! I don't even think that he would even have to ask for public contributions if he didn't want to! Are you SERIOUS??
a)http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803090364 from that article: " has a net worth "well in excess" of $100 million, including pre-public offering Google stock options, according to an article in Fast Company magazine last year." (referenced article there is at http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2007/06/21/al_gores_100_million_makeover.html )
...and this is a low estimate, from what I can gather.

6)We have primaries to see if a candidate can get enough delegates to be nominated, If none can, there is a
convention to unite the party and pick a nominee.

7) SINGLE issue? LOL. Here:
a)http://current.com/items/84987281_health_care_is_a_right
b)http://current.com/items/84986481_get_the_troops_home
c)http://current.com/items/84986911_americans_deserve_more_protection
d)http://current.com/items/88817757_gay_men_and_women_should_have_the_same_rights
e)http://current.com/items/88283801_no_official_role_for_government
f)http://current.com/items/88817754_who_makes_the_decision

8)All of his 'baggage' issues were brought up in the previous campaign and defeated, in reality even if not in the MSM (but most of those have been corrected and brought to light; lots of facts out there). The only new ones were his travel in jets (fuel consumption) and his house - which has now gone completely green; I have an article I got about that.
( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=260x2750 )

9)Are you KIDDING?? He GOT elected before!!
a)http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3313623747767874725
b)http://video.google.com/videoplaydocid=1164334372751354391&q=if+al+gore+was+president&total=976&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 (yes,this is relevant!)
c)***BEST*** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDhv15EKJNo
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO-SxPnzspQ&feature=related

[lapfog_1]

74. you really are what your handle says...

1. Yes, Obama has won. Do the math. Get over it.

2. So... you think that Gore gets the nomination and picks one of the two current candidates... thereby opening another whole set of worms for the candidate that is left out... Would Clinton supporters be in favor of an Gore/Obama ticket, knowing that IF Gore is sElected this time, Obama runs in 2016... or do you think that Obama supporters would accept a Gore/Clinton ticket? Not to mention that Gore doesn't really LIKE the Clintons (and now I see why). If this were to happen, Gore isn't picking either of them for the VP slot.

3. Volunteers for Obama or Clinton in the hundreds of offices around the country are NOT going to be happy with the outcome and simply hang a new sign on the campaign HQs around the country. You are DREAMING if you think that will happen. Even if asked by the respective candidates.

4. This is the stupidest thing in your whole post. Yeah, let's wait until 8 weeks before the election to start addressing the issue of McCain. Let's let McCain run around all summer, looking presidential, issuing statement about this or that, and we dig around in the muck over this nomination. This nomination is going to be over in the next few weeks, it would be over RIGHT NOW if Hillary was a Democrat. But then, IF she was a Democrat, she would be Obama's VP choice.

5. Two words... Mitt Romney. Obama is raising like $50M a MONTH (and spending it too). Unless Gore is secretly Bill Gates, he ain't funding this out of HIS pocket. Not more than some seed money. This is just stupid.

6. The rest of the Democratic Party is NOT waiting until the convention to pick a nominee. I guess we have to go through the next 4 to 8 weeks of bullshit for Hillary, but after that, it's over. And I mean OVER. That is what every Democratic party leader (Dean, Reid, Pelosi, etc) has stated (or word to that effect).

7. Yes, Gore made that movie (which was great) and got the Nobel prize and so on... his image is now TIED to Global Warming unlike any other person on the planet. Does anyone (outside of YOU) know or care about his health care proposals? NO. He is Mr. Global Warming. And the media won't ever let him get off the topic.

8. They will pick right back up with the "Al invented the Internet" bullshit and the whole "Love Story" pile of crap. Because THAT'S what they do... distract, go for the easy story, the cheap shot.

9.Yeah, read what I WROTE... Al Gore would have LOST to John McCain in 2000. McCain was thought to be the maverick, the Repuke outsider, the independent. He would have REALLY beat Gore, not just gamed it enough for the Supreme Court to award it to him.

10. You didn't address this one. Put a video of Obama giving a speech (pick one, any one) and put one of Al Gore giving a speech. Gore's a great guy... and much better at giving presentations with powerpoint slides about topics he has nailed... but a speech? He puts people to sleep. Even me... and I *love* the guy. Obama gives a speech and you hang on every word. Game over.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Missy Vixen]

264. This is exactly the reason why those of us who aren't sure about the candidacy of Barack Obama

haven't joined your love train.

>1. Yes, Obama has won. Do the math. Get over it.<

I wasn't aware the election had happened already. Thanks for filling me in on the outcome. Furthermore, we heard enough "get over it" from those in 2000 that stole the White House from Al Gore, and again four years ago, when we were NOT nuts about the candidacy of John Kerry.

I'll hold my nose and vote for whatever candidate makes it through what promises to be an ugly convention. At the same time, I'm done with those who believe that they can tell the rest of us to "get over it". I have grave misgivings about either candidate in the White House. Al Gore's shown a long time ago that it's not about him.

Julie

[lapfog_1]

418. Then give me a path to the nomination for Hillary.

One plausible path. Just one.

How many Super Delegates has Hillary picked up since Feb 5?

How many pledged delegates has Hillary GAINED on Obama since Super Tuesday?

I'm sorry for your candidate. But she lost. Al Gore didn't even run and he would have been my first choice, my second choice was Sen Biden. Obama is my third choice... and the choice of the majority of the Democratic Party. There aren't enough contests or enough delegates for Hillary to make a "come back". The come back was to be the mini-Tuesday of TX, OH, RI and VT... two big states and two little ones. Hillary won Ohio and RI, Obama won Texas and VT. They almost split the delegates 50-50. So how is it that Hillary is going to catch up?

Try to use polling data. I'll accept polling data from any independent polling organization that you can find. Show me how Hillary catches up and closes the 150+ pledged delegate gap. And if not, tell me why the remaining Supers are going for Hillary by a margin of 3 to 1 or better.

[rosesaylavee]

425. Plausible path for Senator Clinton here:

She continues to bloody Senator Obama, gives a few more "indepth" interviews on Faux News, commends McCain a few more times over Obama, plants a few more misleading untrue emails about Obama's religion or middle name or whatever she can drum up, alleges more untrue crap about the Rezko trial, etc, etc, etc.

Then, she starts working on not only the super delegates but the pledged delegates as well. Both are fair game according to her campaign. The woman is wanting to win this at all costs either this year or in 2012. She has not played her full hand yet. She has more game plan yet to unveil or else she would be stepping down now.

I voted for Senator Obama in our primary. I like him both as a person and how he has run his campaign. I think he would make one of the best presidents we have ever had. However, if this bloodbath continues and Clinton damages him more, and there is any doubt about winning the GE in November, we will need to decide who can get us there.

[Missy Vixen]

451. You know what? HIllary is not my candidate. She never has been.

My point is this: There are MANY who are not happy about having another coronation crammed down our throats, four years after the last one.

In the meantime, try to take the gloating down a notch. I know it's so desperately important for those who believe it's their God-given right to rub our noses in it. After all, they "won". I might remind you that those who remain less than convinced are more than occasional financial contributors, and have been working on campaigns for 20+ years now. We've had it.

Julie

[mrbluto]

501. The title of your post says it all.

...a path to the nomination...

There are people whose thinking doesn't end with the nomination.

Some of us look to what the general election will be like.

Some of us even look past that to what it will be like to govern given a certain president.

You seem to be making the same mistake the Bush administration made - feel that you'll only have to govern in the interests of those that voted for you and that will work.

No.

The current situation is not just about the nomination - it's about the past twenty eight years starting with Reagan and Bush Sr. arranging to squelch any sort of October surprise, it's about imperial over-reach since way back, it's about how much time we have to fix the situation before it becomes permanent. Do you even know about these things? Like the fact that Cheney and Rove and that whole crowd has been working their fascist magic since the Nixon administration?

And now it's all about what you want in this moment?

Maybe not everybody, but there's a huge chunk of supporters on either side that have these blinders on and want their particular race or gender, or even religious, ticket punched in this election, to have one of their own in office. They ignore the larger issues of whether or not we'll have an actual democracy, or whether our liberties, or rough economic equity, or even basic civility will be preserved.

They are, in short, part of the ASSAULT on REASON.

Narrowing the scope down to a magical belief in a "VOTE" in the mere nomination serves that assault.

If votes are so magical then how did we end up with Bush Jr.? TWICE!

We all have a general sense of the interests of the public at large and know in our hearts that the system was gamed to deny those interests.

What makes this primary system so special that it hasn't been gamed?

Better to have a small, ACCOUNTABLE group who can't escape into anonymity make the decision than the contentious mystifying Rube Goldberg piece-of-crap system that is currently in place, the one that has given us so many nominees whose victories are so weak they can be stolen.

[lapfog_1]

507. Thanks, I'll stick to democracies...

not imperial Presidencies that hand the office from one generation to the next or from "king" to "queen".

You can keep your "small ACCOUNTABLE group" and stuff them somewhere.

If you have proof that the primary system was "gamed" then please provide it...

The only charges of "gaming" that I'm aware of have been things like the lawsuit filed in Nevada to prevent Union voters from voting (because the Union endorsed Obama). And a few irregularities in NY... all on the behalf of Hillary.

Obama is certainly NOT one of my own. But I trust him a helluva lot more than I trust Clinton.

[amandabeech]

499. Thanks for the post, Julie. n/t

[RestoreGore]

212. Have you donated to The Alliance for Climate Protection yet?

Or do you even know what he is doing outside of your fantasyland?

[lildreamer316]

271. Here's what I've done so far:

Bought and shared An Inconvienient Truth with as many people as possible.
Replaced all the lights I use the most with CFLs; given to me by a very caring DUer.
Kept my cars as up to date on emissions as possible. I have one Honda that gets 37 to the gallon (95 Del Sol, paid for). My other car is not very good on gas at all (03 Chevy Impala) but I had to get what we could afford, and I only drive it about twice a week.I'm at home with my child almost 95 percent of the time.This car is now also serving to improve our joint credit rating, something we desperately need.
Keep all unneccesary lights and electrical devices turned off. My friends give me a hard time because I keep the house so dark. and get after them to turn off the computer monitor when they are done with it, etc.
Switching from oil heat to efficiancy heat pump (I inherited the house)
Got tote bags from the grocery store to cut down on plastic
Buy from my local co-op and farmer's market whenever I can afford to
Recycle as much plastic paper and glass trash as I can
Lots of emailing Gore's climate notices to friends and family; canvassing with local groups as I have time (whatever climate change group is meeting, I try to make it)

My husband works two hours away and is the only income for our family. I don't have the disposable income at the moment to donate actual money to any of these causes. He did just get a promotion, so I hope this will change in the future.

[stlsaxman]

494. stlsaxman HI5's lildreamer316! Good for you! I LOVE The Assault On Reason...

look for an email from me.

[gaspee]

76. Obama has won?

Did I miss the coronation?

Your are fucking delusional, dude.

[Clear Blue Sky]

88. Good points...

[lapfog_1]

90. I can always tell when I hit pay dirt

it's by the number of responses, and responses to responses, that are "ignore"d on my screen.

I think this whole turd bowel is presented by the Hill Shills to distract from the fact that Hillary LOST Texas yesterday and that NOTHING good has happened to her campaign since she won Ohio and Rhode Island. Nothing. I can't wait for April to be done.

[krkaufman]

373. Which is why Obama would have to be the VP, were any such situation to arise. n/t

[mrbluto]

492. Your talking points are showing.

First off there's this "Obama won" mantra. (oh did I say mantra? Sorry I didn't mean to imply that your support was anything cult-like.)

Are you going to be proud if your tactic works? i.e - keep chanting the same thing over and over like some mental patient in a fugue?

Obama won, Obama won, Obama won.

Really a very faux-news-like tactic if you ask me - it's like that damn "head-on" commercial.

Next off is the "one issue" ridiculousness.

Why do Republican work for free? Why not read up a bit and actually contribute to the discussion?

[lapfog_1]

511. I know more about Climate Change than you will EVER know

about, asshole. And I knew about it for YEARS before the public started discussing it.

I was a back bencher at a very high level meeting with AL GORE in 1997 on this topic (20 people in the meeting) where I had to provide my principle with detailed information on the EOSDIS program. Al was absolutely wonderful as the chairperson of the meeting. I volunteered and contributed to his 2000 Presidential bid. If he had run this time, I would have volunteered and donated again to him. But he didn't. And what he is known for NOW is Global Warming. Want to bet? I bet you a beer that if you run out and stop a random person at the mall and ask them "What's Al Gore's issue?" they will answer "Global Warming"... and if you ask them "What's Al Gore's solution to trade imbalance?" they will give you a 20 yard stare ( or you can pick ANY other topic!).

You can take your attitude ( and the accusation that I'm a Republican or listing talking points ) and simply shove them.

If you can show me how Obama has NOT won, please do so... but you can't do it without some very outlandish and idiotic assumptions. It's not ME that says its over, even Bill Clinton stated that "If Hillary wins both Texas and Ohio, then she will be the nominee, but if she doesn't..." and she didn't win Texas. Using the only metric that matters, pledged delegates. The MATH says it's over, and its only you delusional people that think otherwise.

Don't bother responding because you are no longer part of my DU experience.

[Andrea]

514. Just responding to your one point:

You said, "If you can show me how Obama has NOT won, please do so... "

It's just the simple fact that he doesn't have 2025 delegates, nor can he without the super delegates. It's just the way it breaks down. Now, it could turn out that he does win, but as of now he hasn't and can't unless the super delegates get behind him.

[mrbluto]

559. Now if that isn't a non-progressive stance, then I don't know what is.

Don't bother responding because you are no longer part of my DU experience.

Just want to dish it out and then *ignore*?

"Let it sink" is the strategy?

Such a progressive stance! Once you (zealous Obama supporters) have a plurality or majority in a space then ignore your opponents. Can you think of any societies that do that? I can't think of anywhere that tactic wasn't helpful, or where it was regressive.

Maybe you'll let up a bit and set aside a place for me to say my peace - you know, a "Free Speech Zone" a few miles out of sight?

Maybe you could all save yourselves some time and appoint someone to just produce a list of approved people to listen to and ignore the rest. What would you call that person? Hmmmmm. An editor. certainly not a censor. No, You'd call him an Editor.

Oooo, I'd be so lucky if you deign to listen to me again.


BTW: You say the "MATH" says it's over, well the "RULES" say it isn't. Not only that but "COMMON SENSE" says we shouldn't stick with a losing option if we don't have to. Being able to change one's mind is a sign of intelligence, having the party able to change it's mind will be the sign we are the intelligent party.

[Andrea]

563. We tried going with the non-intelligent one in 2000

and look where it's gotten us. I'm with you, I'll stay on the intelligent side.

You said: "BTW: You say the "MATH" says it's over, well the "RULES" say it isn't. Not only that but "COMMON SENSE" says we shouldn't stick with a losing option if we don't have to. Being able to change one's mind is a sign of intelligence, having the party able to change it's mind will be the sign we are the intelligent party."

Actually, I think it's all three (unintentional Mercer reference): Math, rules and common sense, that say it's not over.

[mrbluto]

587. What a breath of fresh air!

Yes! We don't have to remain in a cattle chute that only Karl Rove could love.

It's maddening to listen to some of these people.

It's sort of like the opposite of sour grapes:

With sour grapes you couldn't get something so you decide they were not worth having anyway.

In this case some Obama supporters feel the need to denigrate a perfectly viable option because they don't want it to happen - so they unconsciously (or more probably willfully) perceive a brokered convention as a change of rules or "undemocratic", or an (insufficient) edge in delegates as fulfilling the criteria for "earning" the nomination. Then they basically stick their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la" when anyone points any of this out.

I want to grab them by the lapels and say "Democracy is not synonymous with voting! Voting may be a sign of Democracy. Saddam had voting, the USSR had voting, hell (at the risk of Goodwin's law) the Nazis had voting - were they democracies?"

If they understood the term "Manufacture of Consent" then they'd have a skepticism of the current system healthy enough to allow some flexibility.

Sadly no. It's almost like they're teenagers "dared" to jump off a f*king bridge that just gotta do it cause they said they would.

Reason, dialogue, deliberation and accountability are the true signs of a democracy.

Voting emerged from those features of a free society, not the other way around.

Wanton use of the *ignore* and "letting it sink" are un-democratic since they short circuit dialogue and deliberation.

Well, enough of me on a soapbox.

Thanks for your response.

[Andrea]

589. Reason, dialogue, deliberation and accountability are the true signs of a democracy.

Reason, dialogue, deliberation and accountability are the true signs of a democracy.

Excellent!

I think a big part of the problem here is that so few know their history.

[mrbluto]

588. Willful mischaracterization of my post.

No where do I call you a Republican - and I think you're well aware of that but decided to characterize my post as something that would violate the rules of this forum.

:sarcasm: such an above board honorable tactic - you should be proud :sarcasm:

Look carefully at any but my first few posts here at DU (when I wasn't clear on particulars) - I follow the rules scrupulously. (because I respect the forum - not some of the idiots in in.)

And lapfrog - "talking points" is not a term synonymous with Republicans - it's synonymous with strident insincerity in the unthinking robotic pursuit of advancing one's spin. (in my book)

So please don't pretend I called you a Republican.

...and as for calling me an "asshole" and taking my attitude and "shoving it"?

Well - I'm just blown away by your display of logic.

You have my sympathy in at least one respect: I'd have to feign indignation too if I were in your position when bluster and name dropping failed to shore-up poor reasoning.

Too bad you've ignored me and won't be responding to my post.

But I'm sure you'll have a more pleasant experience at DU when there's no risk of reality.

[GrimReefa]

17. If Obama wins the pop vote and the pledged delegates...

and he is not the nominee, I'm sitting the GE out. I don't care if the nominee is Clinton, or Gore, or the ghost of FDR.

We won this race. Stop trying to take it away from us.

[digidigido]

24. As much as I prefer him he hasn't won yet

If he gets the delegates he needs, he's my guy. I actually love listening to him speak,
it's such a pleasure to have a literate articulate candidate, but it's about getting a
nominee and unifying the party. As much as I prefer the man, he hasn't won yet.
I hope he does, but if he doesn't, I would embrace this option

[99th_Monkey]

47. I like the Karmic redux to 2000, but dislike "Gore to the rescue - out of the blue" scenario.

It might work, but I'd only give it about 30% odds, with a 70% chance it could become the biggest
disaster for the Democrats imaginable: i.e. having the WH virtually handed to them by Bush/Cheney,
and then forcing Gore onto the scene at the last minute to allienate BOTH Clinton and Obama supporters
who've worked their butts off and donated their wallets empty for one of these two.

I don't know. I love Gore, but at this stage in the game, it gives me great pause, to say the
least.

[tavalon]

182. No, he would win it handily

Thing is, this isn't going to happen.

[The Wizard]

157. You said Obama is articulate.

Joe Biden got labeled a racist for saying the same thing. Funny how that works. The media chooses our candidates.

[Occulus]

178. I just love how people are saying "Obama won"

when the GE is still months away.

Magic 8-ball says: result is unclear.

[grasswire]

18. ladies and gentlemen: a trial balloon!

Watch and learn.

[Caretha]

126. Well put grasswire

and I would say it was made of lead.

[mrbluto]

503. This is why zealots must fight it with such zeal...

...lest it gain legs.

[FatDave]

536. Yes, but who floated it? (nt)

[AdHocSolver]

19. Obama can still win the general election if Clinton stops her back stabbing, scorched earth campaign

The party leaders have to exercise some muscle and read the riot act to Clinton. She has to stop the attacks on Obama.

It is too late to bring in Al Gore or anyone else to be the nominee. We still have our best shot with Obama.

A year ago, I was an Anybody But Clinton Democrat, and her campaign these last three months has proven that to be the correct point of view.

[PittPoliSci]

22. i disagree.

her campaign's strategy just proves that she wants to be the nominee. obama cries like a child when attacked, what do you think's going to happen when he squares off against mccain?

i think clinton's still our best shot at a presidency in '08. she'll bring a gun to a knife fight, obama would show up unarmed.

[Divine Discontent]

46. 'obama cries like a child'

So ridiculously absurd... you enjoy typing that dribble? And no, he doesn't. Despite the disturbing method of 'campaigning' the former pres and his wife have taken, I'd say obama is handling himself pretty well in the midst of some real mccain-love by the clinton duo.



Gore would be great, and I'd sure support them compromising on him!

[PittPoliSci]

347. just a perspective thing.

I think that he does, he doesn't even address criticism. Of course, I'll still vote for whoever the nominee is, and in reality I like Obama's politics more than Clinton's, I just think he'd get wiped by McCain.

[Divine Discontent]

401. his demeanor throws off the criticism, one could argue he doesn't address it

but it's a far 'cry' from crying. It will be an interesting G.E., I just hope whoever is our nominee we demand fair reporting on, all the way through.

[PittPoliSci]

456. my problem with style over substance arguments...

I know he has a very calm demeanor but if we look at the "personality" argument, kennedy is considered one of the most personable presidents ever. He barely beat Nixon, a walking corpse, based on personality. I know there's more to it than that, but I find it at least amusing. The problem with Obama is if he doesn't amp it up the attacks, and show his teeth, he's going to find himself in a whole lot of trouble against a war hero with crossover appeal.

[Art_from_Ark]

543. In 1960, Nixon was the sitting vice president

of a very popular President. He had won acclaim a few years before for his "Checkers" speech (essentially, his first "I am not a crook" speech). He was as youthful as Kennedy. Hardly a "walking corpse".

[PittPoliSci]

561. no, he was a walking corpse.

he was a disgusting, jowly, sweaty man. completely without personality.

[Art_from_Ark]

570. So being "jowly" makes someone a "walking corpse"?

Like Winston Churchill?

[PittPoliSci]

574. yes?

he looked terrible? do we really want to have that argument? lol :hi:

[Art_from_Ark]

575. I'm not arguing-- I'm "discussing"

LOL

Nixon might well have looked like death warmed over on the Tee-Vee, especially back in the days when everything was in black-and-white, and he did place part of the blame on his make-up man. To tell you the truth, though, I think he lost a lot of support when Eisenhower was asked to list some of the good things Nixon had done, and Ike replied "Give me a week or two, and maybe I'll think of something."

[PittPoliSci]

581. lol

isn't that the sad truth.

[proud2BlibKansan]

153. "obama cries like a child"??

You misspoke. Hillary is the crier. And she lies like a rug.

[Zhade]

380. So you support a proven liar?

What happened to your ethics and principles?

[PittPoliSci]

458. ethics and principals didn't get us anywhere in the last two presidential elections

I'll take my proven liar if it means a Dem in the white house.

But of course I'll still vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, I just hope he can effectively deflect and absorb criticism, and not pull a John Kerry on us.

[PetraPooh]

55. Actually he can win even if she doesn't stop, she's really only hurting herself anymore.

[Gore Edwards]

60. Political reality

Anyone who thinks you enter a general election with a 51-49 candidate is smoking something that, quite frankly, I wish you'd share. Unless one accepts VP, It ain't happening, and this (Gore- Anyone) is a likely scenario.

[darue]

64. RIGHT, sure, she's being so mean to him, boo hoo. this ha been nothing compared to what's next

mccain is going to be shoved down America's throat by the lamestream media and everyone knows it, except all the suckers out there who are buying what their sold by fox and friends. he will NEVER catch a bad break or get shit for anything. our candidate will be attacked on anything and everything, they be caught "lying" about what they had for breakfast. switching out to Gore at the last minute could be a brilliant move.

[KoKo]

269. Agree....many here feel sure America is ready for the Change of Obama but

have not had enough experience to see what the Repug Machine (and it's still there with Rove on the loose) and Corporate America and other Powers that Be interests will do to Obama and his idealism and hopes of rebuilding the party by "Grassroots Organizing." This country is on the brink of disaster and the time for Obama's Idealism is gone. It will take a generation to build a structure than can fight back. Obama will have more on his plate than "organizing and "working with Repugs." Our own Dem Leadership is weak in the House and Senate. They've allowed the Repugs to get away with everything...and they won't ever hold anyone accountable for what has gone on because most of them have been part of it. Our Party is sick...and neither Obama nor Clinton will be able to control what's coming down on them. And neither will be able to be elected in the General Election.

[shimmergal]

387. McCain is even more of a

press favorite than Obama is; I fear your scenario is true.

[readmoreoften]

577. That's what I don't get. If you can't handle Clinton's curveballs, how can you handle the GOP.

Personally I think both candidates will be clobbered unless the MSM goes easy on them. They won't go easy on Clinton. They might go easy on Obama. But one thing is for sure, if the MSM doesn't go easy on Obama he won't know how to fight it. Swiftboat Part Deux.

[ekwhite]

349. This Gore trial balloon is a subtle way of 'reading the riot act'

They are floating this in an UK newspaper for plausible deniability. The party insiders are saying that if she continues until the convention, it could end up being Gore/Obama.

[rosesaylavee]

430. This may be part of the party exercising their muscle.

They may just be floating this balloon to get her to either step down or stop her scorched earth shit.

I will vote for whoever the DEM nominee is... I would be happy if Obama or Gore were part of that ticket. Not so happy with a Clinton ticket but I will vote for her over McCain in a heartbeat.

[L. Coyote]

20. I call BS. Is someone trying to start a three-way race now?

And, who trusts polls saying McCain is leading! LOL

[Lorien]

236. No. Gore isn't in the race. They're talking about a compromise to a deadlock

I think that it happened once before in history, but I don't recall when exactly that was.Anyhow, one only has to visit GDP to see just how ugly it's gotten between the two camps. Will Obama supporters really vote for HRC in the General election, or vice versa, at this point?

[DUlover2909]

25. I'd vote for Gore, again.

[knight_of_the_star]

26. I think this could work

How do you think it would turn out if Obama and Clinton both endorsed him at convention?

[Andrea]

404. It would turn out great!

If this does happen, the chances are that both Obama and Clinton WILL endorse him at the convention. Then we'd have some real unity which is what we need.

Then, we'll beat McCain. Obama will be VP for 8 years, then win the presidency. Clinton will be on the Supreme Court bringing her considerable skills to bear on the future of this country for the rest of her life. The Democratic party will be alive and well and dominant for the next few generations, and I can sleep at night.

[tinrobot]

28. For some reason, I kind of like the idea.

It throws away a year of nasty campaigning and wipes the slate clean.

Al Gore can also claim to be above politics, which makes him a tough target in the general.

[bow-tie]

35. Some have forgotten

the main fact, Al Gore is the President. I believe he's done plenty of ground work. He has name recognition and he wouldn't need to campaign. It is us who got stuck with two candidates that McNuts is going to beat. Gore/Edwards would throw the pugs completely off their game and Al would win in a landslide.
People who realized their mistake after 2000 would be falling all over themselves to right that wrong. If these two (Clinton/Obama) can't see what they're doing to the party and the country they deserve to get tossed. This shit between them has to stop, maybe the threat of Gore coming in would bring them to their senses. I can just imagine the glee in Roves eyes every time he sees Clinton using his tactics.
Clinton can't win, never could. This presidential campaign has ruined her for any political office in the future. I used to take her side until I saw the REAL Hillary.

[Stardust]

52. What a great post, bow-tie. Welcome to DU...

:hi: :toast:

[tinrobot]

218. I've always thought 'Re-Elect Al Gore' is the best slogan ever.

I'd also give money, donate time, and work like crazy to get him elected.

I'd probably only send Obama some money but I wouldn't lift a finger for Clinton.

Gore inspires me.

[Andrea]

405. That sounds so good!

Wipe out this last nasty, divisive year and start FRESH!

As a draftee, Gore CAN legitimately claim to be above politics. He'll be a very tough target in the general as a statesman as opposed to a war-monger.

[balantz]

30. Bring him on!

I can't wait to vote for him in the general.

It is only fitting to let an adult statesman take the reigns of the office that is rightfully his and was stolen from him by this cabal of gangsters.

Let a mature and proven Democrat be our nominee and put an end to this pitiful playground fiasco of petty egos.

I think John Edwards would make a fine V.P. as well!

[crankychatter]

32. more dlc machinations

rome is burning

[knight_of_the_star]

34. I don't think the DLC is behind this one

Considering Gore does not like them thanks to what they did to him.

[crankychatter]

51. I'm learning all the time, thanks

I was just at their site and reading some of President Gore's stuff

How bad is that riff really? Consider the monied powers that are behind them... even Gore, with a passion to do some good in this world is not above a compromise of expedience to get a job done.

He gives them what they want (to stop an end-run around around traditional dependency on corporate campaign financing, and the movement of the Party to it's own true center)... and they give him what he passionately believes in and won his Nobel Prize for

he's a brilliant statesman and I remember asking myself, when he started stumping the country RE Bush policies... "where was this guy in 2000?"

nevertheless this RACE-GENDER-RELIGION shit pot is a sideshow and if we accept Clinton and the Media's kneecapping of Obama as irreversible on those issues, THEY WIN

the party stays small and exlusive... it skips off into the future, hand in hand with Transnational Corporations...

and all of those potential Democrats remain cynical, marginalized, even radicalized

[rosesaylavee]

433. Gotta call you on that. I need a link to that page on the DLC

"I was just at their site and reading some of President Gore's stuff"

I call crap on that. He is not with the DLC now and hasn't been for, oh, at least 7 years.

[FatDave]

58. But you seem to be assuming Gore wants this.

We have no evidence he does. It does kind of smell of DLC to me. Like it's their post-Hillary option for stopping Obama or something.

[crankychatter]

166. excellent point

yup... just sayin'

[knight_of_the_star]

287. I don't think its that either

Mostly because for all his rhetoric Obama's positions are not far from what the DLC loves and until the DLC's name became mud he wasn't just a member but considered one of their rising stars. They may like Clinton more but Obama would still fit their agenda, if it was Gore that would be a HUGE loss for the DLC considering the antipathy involved there.

[FatDave]

385. I think you're incorrect on a couple points

I believe Obama was approached by the DLC, but he turned them down. Gore is a former member who rejected them around 2000 (if I recall correctly, which I may not).

And whether you think Obama is a centrist (I think he's actually a little more to the left than you seem to) or not, he does seem to have really scared the shit out of the old guard. He's talking about power to the people and changing the way shit gets done, and sadly, that goes against a fairly large faction of the democratic party.

These days, Obama seems far more DNC than DLC.

[Cronopio]

346. Exactly.

This is a countercoup against a DLC takeover of the Dem party for the GE, with Hillary in the enemy camp or playing double-agent.

She and her husband are known as master triangulators after all. She doesn't know whether the DLC, DNC, or the RNC will prevail, so she's making herself useful to all sides.

A lot of things are going on behind the scenes in this Dem primary, as anyone with even a basic grasp of stakes involved could have foreseen.

[Lorien]

229. Gore left the DLC. n/t

[garybeck]

36. OK by me. Make it so, number 1.

[Life Long Dem]

37. Not interested

[happygoluckytoyou]

38. OBAMA-MAMA WINNER GETS IT.... QUIT CHANGING THE RULES

[dysfunctional press]

205. unless obama can win on the first vote in the convention- it's not changing the rules.

and he probably can't, at this point.

[shance]

400. I think you just hit it on the head. QUIT CHANGING THE RULES.

IMO, this feels more like a kind of creepy test balloon to see if we will continue to 'baaaaaaaaa' like dumb sheep and not realize they are deliberately invalidating our votes by this move.

No matter if they said they were put up Ghandi for the nomination, the issue at hand is that an elite establishment, with strong military profiteering ties are attempting to throw a trial balloon out to see how the dumb masses respond to a deliberate hijacking of our election. And of course they are disguising the hijacking with a pretty well liked guy like Gore.

Read between the lines folks. It's a not so subtle move for a take over.

[Pacifist Patriot]

547. I have to disagree about "Changing the Rules."

This proposal (and I'm not supporting it) does not break rules. In the hearts and minds of the voters perhaps, but not technically.

Our party nomination process is so complex and convoluted many of us forget that it's not constitutionally mandated, but simply a tool of the parties themselves. American citizens, registered voters in particular, are ostensibly included in the process via the primaries and caucuses, but ultimately the polling place is little more than, well, a poll.

When we pull the lever, touch the screen or circle in the dot for a specific individual we are not even voting for that person. We're telling a slate of delegates to the convention whom we prefer. Some are committed yes, but some are not. And then there's the whole Superdelegate issue. Party nominations are not democratic and never have been.

The head nod the voters (or at least those in the early primary states) have been getting at the conventions within popular memory affirm the perception that we the people are actually the decision-makers.

I know you probably are aware of this, but I think it deserves repeating for anyone else interested in this thread who may not realize it. The party can ultimately select just about anyone at the convention and no, that person does not have to have even declared yet. History buffs will have to help me out, but hasn't this happened once before? I'm thinking late 19th century-ish, early 20th.

It doesn't sit well with our contemporary take on participation in the democratic process, but I'm pretty sure that putting up another candidate for the nomination at the convention is not changing or breaking any rules.

Heck, when it comes down to it, we don't even vote for the president in the general election. And sadly I just encountered some high school seniors who took a semester of American government this past fall and they had no clue.

[Andrea]

555. Thanks for contributing this.

Sadly, many people do not know their history and thus they think that the way things have been the last couple decades is the only "right" way.

The selection of the nominee is a party process that has changed and evolved many times over the years and could do so again. It has never been the case that votes of the people determined the nominee. Those votes influence the choice and generally in the last 20 years have been congruent with the choice. That is all. Even today, many states hold caucuses to determine who the delegates are pledged to. Caucuses are far from democratic.

It's nothing mandated by law. It's all based on party rules. That's why the Republican process is entirely different from ours.

We've had brokered conventions many times. The most recent ones are 1952 for Dems and 1948 for Reps. If RFK had not been assassinated, we likely would have had one in 1968.

The party can select just about anyone. They could choose me, but I recommend against it. ;-)

For sure the primary process is very convoluted. Most people don't understand it. The way it is structured doesn't ensure a good result or even a clear winner. It's ripe for restructuring. I hope that is one result we see from this crazy year.

[booley]

40. Aren't we forgetting someone?

As in AL GORE?!?! As in has AL GORE said he would run for 2008? I don't see it. i see people at DU talking about it and Former Gore Aides talking about and apparently Dem Delegates talking about it but no word from the first person we need to hear from..AL GORE.

Because until that happens, I would prefer certain people stop blowing smoke up my ass.

[davidpdx]

41. It would be a remote possiblity IF

things still looked the same as they do now in late July. At this point letting the primaries go on and seeing what the super delegates do is the only option. There's really no point in clammering for Gore unless things get much worse.

[nvme]

44. The Impassioned responses.

It is ironic to think that as late as October, just before he received the nobel prize, so many DUe-rs were begging for Al Gore to run for president! How fickle we are. I am an Obama supporter. I see now that Hillary and Obama are gnawing and snapping at each other as 2 rabid dogs over the nomination. It is disheartening to see this happen. Any lead that either gets is quickly diminished by the other. If one doesn't bow out soon, there will be no other choice but to turn to a person to quickly grab the helm to establish control over the runaway party. I would love to see the presidential seal behind Obama. After SO many years with chimp running things it would be refreshing. Unless the Super delegates step in and make a decision soon I see no other hope. Our leading candidates are creating fodder for MC Caine. This battle has been running for well over 16 months. I am personally sickened by the pure hate that we supporters and candidates are spewing. It is vile. I am also at the point where I am looking for another alternative for my support. If they cannot resolve this Al Gore may be the only person I may feel comfortable casting my vote for come november, If my candidate cannot secure the nomination. I am too tired of all the time spent on such demeaning bullshit from Bosnia to Rev Wright. If it doesn't stop soon we are Up shits creek. I am sure that many Hillary supporters feel similar we are all at an impasse. Obamites and Hill-bots are not budging neither group will cede ground. This one is too important to give up to the Warmongers. Think about it!

[PetraPooh]

57. Obama isn't "gnawing" at anyone, he has been only defensive and then quite mildly.

[darue]

65. well I haven't seen him do anything but play defense for months, that's not goign to beat mccain

he hasn't made much news in months, the final campaign has got to be merciless about getting beyond bullshit and making good news, he's been in reaction mode too long.

[PetraPooh]

69. True, but I am so tired of the blame for the Dem fighting being "shared"

when it is coming from one side. Also I wonder if the entire nation isn't ready for someone who is willing to stay on topic and become ruthless Rovian asshats except when succintly defending themselves.

[ekwhite]

353. He is holding back against a fellow Democrat

That is different from how he will campaign against McCain. We have already seen him take a hard line against McCain policy. He has mainly played defense against Clinton because he is in the lead, and he needs to be seen as running a positive campaign. Once he gets past the primaries in June, expect to see him running ads against McCain.

[Lorien]

243. Well put and I agree. At this point either candidate has alienated

the supporters of the other. Or, even if the candidate hasn't, their followers certainly have. I've never been a fan of either one, and the ugliness by both sides here on DU has made me even less of a fan of either.

[Andrea]

409. I'm not a supporter of either Obama or Clinton, but

I feel just like you do. It saddens and disgusts me to see my party, perched on the verge of greatness, descend into petty, dirtball politics. This party is on the edge of being a runaway party. We need some true leadership. We must be resolutely against McCain and the war-mongerers and fully support whatever our best option is to win in November, which I believe to be Gore.

[BootinUp]

45. 33.3% Hillary, 33.3% Barack, 33.3% Big Al nt

[Beam Me Up]

54. Sometimes I feel like this whole political cycle is some kind of weird set up.

In a sane world where everyone knew what we here at DU know, there would be no chance in hell of the Republican party winning the next election. I don't care if they ran George Washington himself. But the problem is the rest of the country doesn't know what we here know -- or, at least, nothing has been "made of it" either by congress or by the media. This has been the most criminal administration in US history and all of us know that is no "conspiracy theory." The evidence is so thick much of the media and most politicians are falling all over themselves trying to ignore it.

Why? What does this really mean?

Meanwhile, as this political cycle unfolds, the Democrats have two worthy candidates who, one way and another, are being set up to fail -- it seems to me -- despite the faith and best efforts of their ardent supporters. I have no idea who is going to get the nomination but what I do know is, whoever it is, this could very well be the most important election in US history. The challenges that lie directly before us as a nation and as human beings on this planet must not be taken lightly. We need to seriously consider who we want to be leading this nation in times of grave crisis.

Anyone with a thinking brain ought to be able to see that the election of John McCain would further lead this country away from its most cherished principles and further engage us in global conflict. The problem is, there are a lot of very wealthy and powerful people who are less concerned with principles of any sort than they are with the corporate bottom line. We also have two presidential election cycles just past us in history and most all of us here know that there were "shenanigans" in both instances. In each case, whatever the truth may have been, the elections were presented to the people by the media as being close races which, alack and alas, what may have been the better man fell just short of winning.

Now, how the hell are they going to pull that off this time? I'm certain that there are strong Clinton and Obama supporters who believe either one of them can beat McCain in a heart beat. I certainly believe that if we were having fair elections -- both in the way they are presented in the Media and tabulated at the polls -- this would no doubt be the case. But given the "dirty tricks" (and worse) that Republicans are known for, I begin to have my doubts. I have to honestly say this primary season hasn't exactly bolstered my confidence, either. In fact, quite the contrary. I find it hard to believe that either Clinton or Obama can UNIFY this country sufficiently to beat McCain in what will undoubtedly be an unfair election. I admit, I could be wrong, it is just my gut feeling.

I feel very strongly that we need a candidate that can unite this country in opposition to very powerful vested interests. In the crises that I fear lay ahead of us I think we're going to need someone who has a commanding stature that can appeal across all the long established social turf lines. Lets face it, there are going to be a lot of Republicans who wont vote for Clinton because she is a Clinton and because she is a woman. It sucks and is stupid but there you have it. Same thing goes for Obama because of his race and because of his name.

On the other hand, I feel strongly that Al Gore may be able to do what neither Clinton or Obama can do -- and that is provide genuine leadership and insight that will appeal across a vast spectrum of this country. In case anyone hasn't noticed, the Al Gore of today isn't the Al Gore we were shown 8 years ago. He's changed. We've changed. This whole country has changed -- and not for the better and most people know it.

If nothing else we need to keep Al Gore as an ace up our sleeve.


edit typo

[darue]

66. yes, Gore is the best candidate for the general election we've got.

both Obama and Clinton can be given senior roles, let Hillary be secretary of state and Obama be a very active vice-president

[lildreamer316]

68. Wish I could nominate this post.

Very well said; thank you!!

[tavalon]

187. Has anybody checked with Gore about whether he wants to be an ace up anyone's sleeve

I was a Gore supporter and I would have campaigned tirelessly for him and I was one of the ones begging him to take on what I thought he saw as his spiritual imperative. Even back then, there was talk of him coming in as a compromise candidate if the frontrunners beat each other up like what is, in fact, happening. But again, there was no indication that the wild speculation had any basis in reality, just incredibly deep desire.

If he did become the compromise nominee, he would have every bit of money he needs in a week and for every naysayer here, he would have at least a hundred diehard volunteers. He would walk away with the presidency easily.

What does Gore say about all of this? Nothing, just like before. This is just as speculative as it ever was.

[Beam Me Up]

241. "This is just as speculative as it ever was." That is correct. n/t

[Andrea]

413. I think he has to keep quiet publicly.

Whether he would agree or not, he has to keep quiet publicly to avoid interfering with the process. I think the party leaders will approach him if it comes to this, or may have already broached the subject with him.

He may very well agree. He has not ruled this out. He has said that the only way he would return to the political process is as a candidate for the presidency. I believe if asked, he would do it for the good of the country and the future of the planet.

[YvonneCa]

226. EXCELLENT post...

...and thank you. I agree. I also suggest you post this as an original post so we can recommend it. ;)

[Cronopio]

337. Operation Chaos

Limbaugh is urging his listeners to vote Dem in the primaries just to keep the delegate count even.

http://triplespeak.org/staid/rush_chaos.html

If the Repubs and the DLC Dems are trying to game the Dem primaries in this way, it would a good idea for Chairman Dean and Al Gore to keep the 11th-hour bait-and-switch option available.

Often the most effective defense against a coup is a countercoup.

[Andrea]

414. Right on

Until we protect our primary process from this manipulation, we need to keep alternative strategies available.

We need to win this November and then rehabilitate our primary process.

[Andrea]

410. Brilliant post

Please consider making this an OP. If you do, please PM me so I can make sure I don't miss it.

[susankh4]

61. It's a remote possibility, still

But would be great news for the party!

Nice to know he's in the ole back pocket if we need him!

[tavalon]

189. How do you know he's in our back pocket?

I guess I should read the whole article. Is a firm commitment in there?

[The Backlash Cometh]

70. This is just too crazy.

Why didn't he commit months ago? Gee. What insanity this political process, eh?

[stlsaxman]

152. Yes, this IS just too crazy. Gore agrees with you, too! You should read

The Assault On Reason and find why he didn't commit months ago- because he feels the political process needs to change.



The 90 Second Book Report http://youtube.com/watch?v=P6nTAR2MVYQ

The Assault On Reason- Full Speech http://youtube.com/watch?v=jdPcwwK5DII&feature=related

Gore has said that it would take a "groundswell from The People" to get him to enter the race. Many tried with the likes of www.draftgore.com

I long deeply for this man to answer the call.



edited to run spell check

[TomClash]

71. Was this story first broken by The Onion? nt

[flashl]

72. If it happen, can you say the whole World will be watching the 1968 Dems convention redux?

[Danger Mouse]

98. 'Cept it'll be Clinton AND Obama supporters rioting together.

At least that'd bring some unity, eh?

[flashl]

125. Shhhhh

[Cronopio]

340. Exactly.

This could have been the DNC plan all along. I've long suspected that Hillary is too much the triangulating breed of compromise politician to indulge in scorched-earth politics as anything other than a pretense.

Watch the birdies, Repubs ... WHACK!

[depakid]

435. Or maybe what the convention might have been like if RFK hadn't been shot

Now that would have been interesting.

[tpsbmam]

73. Talk about disenfranchising voters.......

I love Al Gore but really, the parental party (the Dems) coming in and deciding that we're incapable of deciding who the nominee is on our own, appointing a nominee no one has voted for and telling us he's our nominee like it or lump it.....not OK and doubt they'd do that. Like I said, I love Al but if he wanted the nomination (and I don't believe he did/does) he needed to run for it like everyone else. Hell, he'd have the needed number of delegates by now and the Dem race would be wrapped up. But wanna lose all of those kids who've become involved for the first time, and done so with great enthusiasm? Want to completely turn them off to the process and the party? Do this.å

[Caradoc]

85. Do something...fast!

As an outsider with lots of political experience (including national leadership contests) all I can say is that democrats had better do something FAST if you want it to be Obama or Clinton. At this point I don't think the 'draft Gore' speculation is even remotely serious, but if this contest continues into May, it may become the only defacto alternative to letting McCrazy have the Whitehouse. Don't let dimbulb Bush fool you...there actually are Republicans who are so insidiously intelligent in an evil and manipulative way that this internal democratic conflict is exactly what they want. Your choices seem to be a) get Hillary to quit (the numbers just aren't pointing in her direction) or b) Gore-Edwards jumping in and heading into the convention based solely on popular support and superdelegate support.

[Maureen1322]

114. I agree,

and I think Al Gore, being a man of sense would agree too.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Danger Mouse]

102. Did it ever occur to you that those 'obama babies' and 'clintonites' are all DEMOCRATS?

Go ahead and enjoy your sour grapes...meanwhile, supporters of Obama and Clinton, feeling cheated by the party, give up and stay home on election day or even worse, vote for McCain.
Gore loses by a landslide in a humiliating defeat when the support within his own party collapses completely...meanwhile, McCain reaches out to hurt Clinton and Obama supporters and tries to snag as many as he can.
What amazes me about your post is that you don't even give a shit about the MILLIONS of voters who would be pissed about this.
To hell with them, you say!
Try winning the general election without them.

[acmavm]

109. You, of all people, have a lot of nerve to bitch about the tone of what

anyone on the board says. In fact, I really appreciate the humor this early in the morning.

AND, as nasty as you and your fellow Obamites have been you are facing a serious serious problem in that due to you ugliness and snide remarks, you're gonna find youself if a great big hole that you've dug for yourself. You will need all the people you've offended if your boy gets the nomination. But you've lost a hell of a lot of people with your attitude and his.

Also, people like me are just praying Al Gore gets in the race. Because that will mean we can still go to the polls and vote this election. I've never missed one in my life. But right now, it's sure as hell looking like I will. And I know a few others that feel this way. So that makes your hole a little deeper. So many people just may sit it out because of the horrible candidates we ended up with. And you can just go look in your mirror and see a big part of that problem.

Again, that's for the hilarious hypocritical post this morning. It was nice to wake up to a little ironic comedy.

[Danger Mouse]

142. Would you care to provide specific examples, with links, of my 'nastiness'?

And yes, I have said a few mean-spirited things...just like most everyone has at this point.
See, the problem with a lot of people on this board, is that they assume that just because someone has an Obama avatar, that they're nasty and have engaged in attacks.
What I really want to know, though, is this...do you realistically think that Obama and Clinton supporters are going to flock to Gore?
It ain't gonna happen.

[acmavm]

220. Oh yeah, a lot are. Especially the Hillary supporters if it looks like Barrie

might take it. And all the people sitting on the fence, the disgruntled independents and the cross-overs who don't like Hils or Barrie, well kiss those votes good-bye.

Yeah, your candidates arrogance and feelings of entitlement as well as his lying are gonna get ya if Al gets in the race.

edit: just to add that as an Edwards supporter I had to put up with you and your nasty idiocy a time or two, and I do not consider you worth while trying to dig that damn post up. In fact, I don't know if I could. But don't try to tell me you're just Mr. Nice Guy Obamite, because I damn well know better.

[Danger Mouse]

239. if i was nasty to you, and it was unwarranted, than i apologize.

i never said i was perfect.

[Andrea]

417. You weren't asking me, but

you were asking a sincere question. Here's my answer:

Yes, I do think they will flock to Gore if he is the nominee. The reasons I think so are these:
1) if they are Democrats, they will vote for the nominee;
2) they will do what it takes to beat McCain; and especially
3) if their candidates ask them to, they will show them the respect of following their directives.

[tavalon]

192. Bullshit

Most of them would vote happily for a Gore/Obama ticket and just a few less for a Gore/Edwards ticket.

Thing is, it ain't gonna happen.

[Malikshah]

275. All? Please! Their minions on this board are acting like anything but

Democrats. Hell, even your post adds credence to the belief that there are numerous plants among the two candidates' minions. The very idea that they could be wooed away by the likes of McCain just goes to show how little like Democrats many of the more virulent minions are.

Time to wake up and step away from the feces flinging fest that is the current primary season.

[shimmergal]

407. Don't you suppose that a lot

of those Obama or Clinton "supporters" are on their second, third, or fourth preference because they couldn't vote for the candidate they really preferred in their primary or caucus? How cheated do you think they'll feel if the nominee is, instead, a Democrat whom they really respect and like? Most voters don't follow politics like the blood sport that it's turning out to be this year. They just hear the noise and see the mudslinging after a certain point.

And what about the many Democrats who couldn't get to a caucus because of job schedules or other conflicts? For sure _they_ don't feel like they've had a chance to vote!

I suspect that keeping the nomination open so long this time is producing a lot of people who already feel disenfranchised.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

77. Gore-Edwards will win in November, otherwise it will be John Wayne McSame in the WH.

Hill and BO will be DOA by the convention. Hill just restated she is staying in until the convention.

[gaspee]

79. Agreed 100%

I love the idea of a Gore/Edwards ticket, but I'm not exactly an optimist and I don't think it could actually happen.

[bklyncowgirl]

81. I love Al Gore but I really don't think this is going to happen.

The only way it could would be for both Obama and Clinton to completely fall apart.

Reverend Wright has shown that Obama's teflon can be cracked and Clinton shot herself in the foot by , shall we say, exaggerating her Bosnia exploits but neither is completely damaged goods--yet.

My guess is that this may be a way for the party leaders to put pressure on the candidates to clean up their act, stop with the personal attacks and start talking about the damn issues.

[nvme]

295. Bosnia

For that exaggeration alone clinton will be eaten alive. BE REAL a Tortured vet of Vietnam who opted for more torture rather than leave his comrades? I wouldn't want to be on that stage when Mc Insane fires that salvo at her. Imagine Hillary trying to duck that sniper fire. Obama keepS getting bled by Bill hill and Chel. its not looking good for his GE prospects. The Clinton trio is diminishing Obama daily. I really would love to see Obama make it but Some how his message of HOPE is being Drowned out by some really tough veteran Politico's. He needs a transfusion by way of PA if he wants to go in as the clear winner. Either that or he does a rope a dope and lets Clinton look like a desperately losing pit-bull. he has to gamble a bit. He is getting shafted. He has played,their game met every marker, met their goals, and beat them. HE DID IT. His campaign is superior in its approach yet in the end he will be denied. Because of avarice and political greed. He dared to usurp. He pushed for hope against one who must be queen. Each and every time he reached for the brass ring the powers pushed him back. He never went in as the "Black Candidate" and that is what everyone wanted him to be. Yet subtly we are reminded almost daily. first his madrassa then he is "a jesse Jackson"type winner" next"as far as I know He is not a muslim"comment, sprinkle it with BET founders a ghettoized coke head,He is a christian"but not the right kind" and finally"He is a black militant", He should renounce his faith because of reverend Wright. Gimme a fucking break! Where is any of this shit pertinent to POTUS? HOW FUCKING DARE AMERICA ACT SO JUVENILE IN DEFINING A SITTING US SENATOR, A COMMUNITY ACTIVIST, EDITOR OF THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW, HARVARD GRADUATE, ILLINOIS LEGISLATOR, ACCOMPLISHED AUTHOR (NOT ONCE BUT TWICE). THIS IS NOT SOME KOOK FROM STICKS-VILLE. THIS HOW MANY VOTES DOES HE HAVE TO GET? HOW MUCH MONEY MUST HE RAISE? HOW MANY DELEGATES? HOW MANY STATES? TELL ME? HOW MANY ENDORSEMENTS? IT IS MIND BOGGLING HOW THIS UPPITY NIGGER CHALLENGES THE WHITE ESTABLISHMENT BY NOT RUNNING AS AN UPPITY NIGGER YET THIS IS HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY HIM. WHAT DOES THIS FUCKING GUY HAVE TO DO TO GET INTO YOUR COUNTRY CLUB? YOU WONT CLAIM IT, BUT AMERICA YOU DO EVERYTHING TO REMIND US THAT IS JUST WHAT HE IS. I REALLY DON'T GIVE A RATS-ASS WHETHER I COME HERE AND POST OR NOT. BUT DAMN THE OBAMA HAS PLAYED BY YOUR RULES AND MET THE CRITERIA MUST YOU CONTINUE OR WILL THIS APARTHEID BE PERPETUATED? FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN OBAMA HAS MAINLY HARPED ON GIVING HOPE TO THOSE OF US WHO FELT DISENFRANCHISED FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS. HE PLATFORMED ON GIVING US BACK OUR COUNTRY. I AM SORRY IF WHAT I SAID IS OFFENSIVE BUT THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.

[grantcart]

361. oh just in time a white male to come in and run things before either a woman or

an african american takes over



I wonder what planet these people are on?



Not the planet that Al Gore inhabits

[mrbluto]

591. Um....jeeze - is it always about race?

I could give a flying f*ck what his race is.

I'm not impressed. Does that make me racist?

There should be no "turns" at being the nominee based on race or gender.

There used to be, and still is a bias based on race and gender to be sure.

So an effort to correct for that is perfectly valid. Measures to ensure there is a "pipeline" that produces candidates who are qualified and can mitigate inequities and poor representation in this society are easily justified in my opinion. But the idea that it's any person's "turn" or right to an elected office based on race is corrosive - not only to the rest of society, but also to the reputation of people who have been elected.

Am I racist for thinking that?

I've thought about it. Asked myself whether my opinion is based on race or gender. I even took a test or two to see if I am biased. (the Harvard Implicate association test - https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) It actually said I am notably unbiased.

I'm still unimpressed with Obama.

What more can you f*king want?

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think I have an idea:

You have some idea stuck in your head about "your" guy getting his turn and that I ought to just roll over on this out of some idea of redress for past inequity.

Bullsh*t.

All my great grand parents are immigrants, never owned slaves and, in fact, as Italians were subject to some prejudice themselves (certainly not on the same scale as slavery, but what sort of accounting can we actually do for these sorts of crimes?).

My male grandparents were in the Navy and Army so they've paid some dues.

I've spent a lot of effort picking the beams out of my own eye on this issue.

So when I hear a hint of this "It's my race's turn to have a president" I feel free to call it what it is:

Bullshit.

I owe you nothing based on race. Take it up with the monied class whose wealth can be traced that far back if you feel reparations are called for. Even in that case I suggest cash, rather than some political remedy, because if you twist the political process to my detriment based on some idea of racial fairness you have basically declared yourself an enemy of democracy and reason in my book.

And I will oppose you, or anyone one else, who twists the system, for such a stupid reason, with what ever energy I can budget.

Bottom line?

Don't lump me together with racist assholes and I won't lump you together with black militants.

And take me at my word when I say Obama doesn't impress me and it's not about race.

I am sick and tired of being called a racist for what is my considered opinion.

[JNelson6563]

82. If Gore wanted it, he would've run.

Nobody wants to see Gore in the WH more than I but we need to respect his wishes when he says he doesn't want to run.

Julie

[humbled_opinion]

83. Hillary's UK media connections trying to stir

up more crap. No thanks UK stay out of our business please. Obama will be the next POTUS and you will see the change like you have never seen it before in this country. It will be great once more.

[TBF]

292. Doubtful --

I doubt Hillary is behind this. She doesn't gain because it's no secret she and Al are not friends. Besides alot of people have already been talking about this here in the US. I've seen it mentioned on CNN, and alot of people have registered at draftgore.com. This is not new or inflammatory - people are looking for a workable solution.

I am an Obama supporter and worked as a precinct captain for him here in Texas. He has motivated me more than any other candidate, but part of that may be due to the fact that I am so disgusted after 8 years of the incompetence of George Bush.

I won't vote for Hillary Clinton, but 8 (or even 4) years of McCain is not the solution.

I am coming to the conclusion, with many others, that if Gore would do it we could solve this and unite democrats. I'd prefer Gore/Obama, but would accept Gore/Edwards. Edwards would be a great VP right now - flying around the world, smiling, working on international relations. We need that after 8 years of Cheney.

[droidamus2]

84. Stupid idea!

Here the party has an opportunity to excite their base with an historic choice of either a black man or a woman for their nominee and president and their solution is to coronate a white guy traditional political figure as the savior of the party. What a really stupid idea. The party 'elders' only choice, if it comes down to that, is to barter a deal between the Obama camp and Clinton camp that will have which ever candidate (probably Clinton) that does not get the nomination on board to support the Democratic candidate (probably Obama). I voted for Obama but have no problem with Clinton (other than her support for the DLC). Personally once it is obvious (almost is now) that one candidate has won the popular and delegate count but doesn't have the required number of delegates that the two candidates would act like adults and come together with their own deal. I think Obama and Clinton have become so entrenched in trying to win the nomination for the Democratic candidacy that they have lost sight of what the real prize is the US Presidency and a united Democratic party with workable majorities in both houses of congress. They should quit attacking each other and start aiming their rhetoric at McCain and the Republicans. With our two candidates pounding at McCain we could hopefully weaken his position prior to the general campaign.

[JackORoses]

87. I love Al Gore, but I hate to see him used as a wedge by Hillarites

Obama has won, but they are doing whatever they can to avoid this reality.
This notion of a Gore compromise is little more than an effort to make Obama appear inviable.

If Hillary can't have it, then they want to give it to Gore.
Anybody but the black man. It's just too early for that. Obama's not ready or the country is not ready. Name your excuse.
:sarcasm:

I would have loved it more than most if Gore had run and won, but he didn't.
Obama did.

Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
There is no going back.

[earthlover]

160. I don't think Gore/Clark is likely at all...

Gore/Obama is much more likely.

I seriously doubt if Clinton is behind a Gore compromise. She is in it to win, remember? she will do anything to do so, including throwing the kitchen sink. For her to be behind a compromise candidate goes against her nature....

The reason Obama is more likely to be the VP in the Gore scenario is because he won the most states, the most pledged delegates, and the most popular votes compared to Hillary.

If we lose in November, Obama does not get to be president. In order to prevent McCain from winning, VP might be better than going to the Senate with another Republican in the White House. It all depends on how the political landscape looks like. If McCain continues to pad his lead over both Obama and Hillary, if it looks like Obama is going to win the pledged delegates but Hillary's scortched Earth policy continues with reckless abandon, a Gore scenario might become more appealing than it now is. The easier choice would be a Obama/Clinton ticket, except Hillary's words and deeds recently have eliminated this as a viable option. It is her own fault.

[The Wizard]

89. The media

picked Hillary and Obama at the behest of Karl Rove as they were the two candidates most likely to lose to a Republican in the general election, lest anyone forget the underlying bigotry that prevails in this nation's unconscious thinking. Remember John Edwards saying it's time for the media to stop picking our candidates. If anyone doubts who the media supports, look at the questioning and scrutiny Republicans face as compared with their Democratic counterparts. McCain will get the same free ride the Bush cartel has gotten. Remember all the blatant lies without the media asking important questions? That's why our military has been compromised in Iraq.
It is indeed unfortunate but true, but the only way a Democrat can be elected president is if the candidate is a southern white male, as the Confederate States have voted as a block since the Civil War. The Republican appeal in the Confederate States stems from the code language Republicans use. With Nixon it was law and order (We'll keep minorities in their place). With Reagan/Bush it was traditional values (We'll keep minorities in their place). Sad but true, this still works.
The last non southern white male to win the presidency as a Democrat was JFK, and that was because the Confederate States were still voting against Republicans for freeing the slaves. After Johnson signed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts the Confederate States voted as a block for Republicans with the exception of southern white male Democratic candidates.
Changing demographics will change the Confederate State mentality in the future, but we're not there yet.
I like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both are immanently more qualified than "More of the Same Insane McCain," but neither of them will defeat a white male Republican this time around, even with Bush's disaster lurking in the background.
The guys with the Confederate flags and gun racks on their trucks will never vote for anyone who doesn't look and sound like them.
Jumping up and down and stamping feet only works when you control the media. The Republicans control the media. If we let the media control us, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Instead of being in a pissing match with ourselves, we should be pissing in the doorways of the major media outlets. The Fourth Estate has transformed into a Fifth Column. Attack them, not each other.

[Nay]

299. Agreed--the media, as usual, is playing the tunes. What distresses

me most, though, is that seasoned Dem politicians LET the media do it! As I have said before, ALL dem candidates, from the very beginning, should have been dragged into a concrete bunker and told bluntly to KNOCK OFF the nitpicking, personal attacks, etc., and to ONLY attack Pub candidates. But no. It's like dirty laundry getting thrown around, and it plays right into the hands of the media idiots and the pub agenda. Thanks, Dem leadership, for yet again making us look like idiots who fight over stupid stuff while this country goes down in flames. This campaign should NEVER have proceeded like this, and honestly, I think we're going to lose this election too.

[Andrea]

422. Some would say it's tin-foilery, but when

you say:

The media picked Hillary and Obama at the behest of Karl Rove as they were the two candidates most likely to lose to a Republican in the general election, lest anyone forget the underlying bigotry that prevails in this nation's unconscious thinking.

I really think it's true. We had eight candidates at the start of this. We now have two. We have the two that were shoved down our throats by the media.

[barbtries]

91. dream come true

my first choice as president? and here i thought i was still trying to decide between my 5th and 6th choices. yeah, do it democrats

[SteinbachMB]

92. No way

Clinton and Obama work their butts off only to have Gore pull the rug from under them? Nonsense.

[earthlover]

174. Yes they worked their butts off, but so did all the rest of the candidates....

The deciding factors should be policy and electability.

I would not go so far as to say Obama is unelectable in November. I think he has a good chance. However, the Hillary campaign has thrown a lot of kitchen sink at him. I have no reason to believe that she will stop and every reason to believe that there will be more damaging things she and her campaign will throw at Obama in the future.

If all this divided mud slinging leads to a scenario with McCain with a commanding lead before the convention....it really doesn't matter how hard Obama or Hillary have worked. The voters in November are not going to decide based on how hard they worked to get nominated.

The entire premise of a compromise candidate is finding one who hasn't run. So of course he/she would not have worked as hard. However, in Gore's case, he has definately put in more than his share of work, all the way to the general election in 2000, an amount of work neither Obama nor Hillary has done so far.

If it looks like we are going to lose with a divided party regardless if it is Hillary or Obama, we would be stupid not to consider a compromise candidate. Gore would certainly have the stature and respect to pull it off if he was asked to.

Obama and Hillary supporters may be disappointed. But think of how disappointed they would be if we had to call McCain "president McCain" for 4-8 years....

[wildflowergardener]

93. Gore

I was a Gore supporter, and wanted him to run for a long time - but at this point, it would be wrong, in my opinion, and unfair to both Clinton and Obama, and the voters who have volunteered, donated to, and voted for either of those candidates.

Meg

[Pacifist Patriot]

96. I'm torn.

I love Al and would like to see him sworn in after already having been duly elected once before.

But this action would set an even worse precedent of disenfranchisement than our current primary process.

On the other hand, it would be a lot more open and honest. I truly do not think the voters of this country or any particular state are much more than tools in the hands of the party elite.

No, as much as I think he is the best option we've got right now, it just doesn't feel right to do it this way.

[Danger Mouse]

97. This would be a DISASTER that would GUARANTEE McCain's victory.

If Obama wins, Hillary supporters will be pissed. Obama will need to do some work to bring them in.
If Hillary wins, Obama supporters will be pissed. Hillary will need to do some work to bring them in.
If Gore is given the nomination despite Clinton and Obama, supporters of BOTH will be pissed. Gore will be so busy trying to mend fences he won't have TIME to deal with McCain.
This scenario is critically stupid for so very many reasons, it boggles the mind.
YOU THINK THAT THIS SOMEHOW WON'T DESTROY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY??
I know we all love Gore here, but DU ain't the real world.

[Pacifist Patriot]

99. Except that it looks like most DUers on this thread agree with you that...

this is not the way to go. DU ain't the real world, but we do have a fair share of realists when it comes down to it.

[Danger Mouse]

100. Thank god. I saw a few responses favorable to this idea and my head nearly exploded.

[juno jones]

221. I argee.

Long before the elections a buddy and I were talking about Gore and how great it would be if he ran. A gore-Obama ticket even came up in conversation and we chatted happily about that particular pipe dream.

But he did not run. And both my friend and I now think Obama can handle this thing on his own. At this point I cannot imagine subverting the political process to bring in a man who has refused to run so far in the race just to satify some entrenched interests. The boogeyman republicans would make hay over this as well.

If the DLC pulls some crap like this, count me out. I've supported and voted for this trainwreck of a party for almost 30 years and I have seen nothing good come out of it, just fingers in the dyke holding back the sea of shite, but never actually repairing or building anything. I like Gore and think he would be a great pres, but to have him selected for me by my fucking 'elders' (who are merely expedient political specialists and in no way guaranteed to be wise)is galling, insulting and wrong.

That anyone thinks this is a good thing (and consider the source of this 'news', please!) is beyond my comprehension. they probably enjoy a more top-down paternalistic governmental style to begin with.

[totodeinhere]

121. Especially African Americans will be pissed.

And without most of their votes, Gore or anyone else can't win in November.

[earthlover]

177. In my view, the most likely Gore scenario would be Gore/Obama

Obama is young enough that in 8 years he would be easily electable at this point.

I think Gore brings some positives to the table that offset other things.

I think the idea of a "reluctant warrior" running for the good of the country not for his own personal ambition might be very appealing to a lot of voters. His work on global warming has also gained him a lot of respect.

Having a peace prize winner as a president is a nice thought....

At this point, I think the most likely nominee is Obama. But I would not oppose Gore/Obama. Actually, it has a nice ring to it....

[tavalon]

198. I'll play

Gore/Obama. It would work just fine. That said, I don't think Gore has any intention of doing this.

[Cronopio]

359. Not if Oprah gives her blessing to Gorebama. nt

[totodeinhere]

379. AA's would say why should Obama sit at the back of Gore's bus?

[Cronopio]

356. If Gore starts leaving McCain's poll numbers in the dust, only the Repubs and the DLC will be pissed

Are you fighting for your candidate or your country - in a primary system that may not give you the chance to fight for both?

[Tarc]

101. Better yet, let's whip through a repeal of the 22nd amendment

and nominate Bill Clinton!

:eyes:

The Democratic nominee in the fall will either be Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Any other scenario is the product of either drug-hazed illusion or desperate/wishful thinking.

[Danger Mouse]

103. I think we can agree on this.

My brain can barely comprehend the sheer stupidity of this idea.

[BklnDem75]

104. I'd still go Obama

Giving Gore free reign in the EPA. A year ago, it would've been Gore, but after all the campaigning and hard work, it would feel nothing short of robbery. The result would be similar to the SD's going against the will of the people. The black vote would be lost, for sure, as well as the youth and crossover votes. In the end, Gore would have the same effect as Hillary in uniting Republicans as they did back in 2000. We've seen it firsthand. I love Gore and wish he were the nominee, but at this point, it would be a smack in the face to Obama and his supporters.

[nankerphelge]

105. Not gonna happen.

n/t

[bajamary]

106. Excellent post - re-elect Gore

I'd much rather work to Gore than for either of O or H.

Re-elect Gore in 08 !

[RBInMaine]

110. SILLY SEASON ! He's NOT running, it will sort out, just relax, this is a PIPEDREAM !

[SaveAmerica]

113. Weeelll, doggies, wouldn't that show America how the Democratic party has it's stuff together...

We needed them to talk him into this a year ago, when it was a viable possibility. It's too little, too late.

[zanne]

115. The "bloody civil war"?

Come on now. Ratings aren't everything.

[Zorra]

117. Time to get the minesweepers out of the way and send in the battleship.

If Al announces, and this scenario was Doc Dean's plan all along, then the Doc has once again trumped Karl Rove as a political strategist. It would be the essence of strategic genius.

Hillary and Barack, two candidates with electability issues, take all the hits. Then Al steps in, without even a scratch because he hasn't been in the fight yet. He's got all kinds of cred built up, from the Vice-Presidency and a stolen Presidency to the Moveon speeches and a Nobel Peace Prize. He's the progressive rockstar darling of the new century and his status as a leader overthrown by a RW coup led by a junta of evil, corrupt, and malicious fascists that ultimately caused the decimation of our country finally gives progressives a chance at justice and retribution.

It's a hero rides in at the last minute and saves the day fairytale, and the media coverage would be unavoidable and phenomenal.

(Damn, who writes this stuff?)

If Al runs, sign me up. Can't wait for the movie to come out.
:popcorn:
:applause:

[zalinda]

173. One other thing

If anyone would impeach the Bush administration, it would be Gore. He could mop up the floor with these guys.

And, for anyone who says he doesn't want the Presidency didn't hear the one interview. He didn't say he didn't want it, he said he was a terrible campaigner, or at least that was what he was told.

So many people did not get to vote for who they wanted as the nominee, most candidates left after Iowa, or soon afterward. In Iowa alone, Obama spent over 8 million dollars in ads, Clinton spent over 6.5 million in ads, that kind of money closed the race for most candidates. Remember 2% of the dem primary voters picked our two leftovers, but almost 50% of the voting public voted for Gore in the GE..........big difference.

This is about the good of our country, not who worked hardest. Gore has already PROVEN that he can win, neither of our leftovers have. Besides we will need someone like Gore to fix this country. Bush has broken it so badly that I don't think that those who are inside the government can really see it. Gore has the advantage of being outside of government, and has seen what the Bush admin has done to this country and the world. Around the world, we would be hailed as finally coming to our senses.

Our leftovers may be fine people in their own right, but they are not anywhere near what this country needs, in experience or temperament. We NEED Al Gore, because 28% of Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama and 19% of Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton. We need to wipe the slate clean, and bring someone in who has proven he can actually win.

zalinda

[Zorra]

484. Yep. And if Al ran, McCain would be a non-factor in the election. n/t

[Andrea]

426. I love the way you put it.

And I love Howard Dean as DNC chair. Fifty state policy - the guy is brilliant.


:applause: :applause: :applause:

[many a good man]

119. Telegraph is full of shit

'nuff said!

[JerseygirlCT]

122. As much as I like Gore, this is not OK by me at all

He's had myriad opportunities to get in it and put himself before the voters. This is not the solution. And I don't want the TPTB making this decision.

It's definitely the time for party elders to have a good talking to with the candidates about the tone - particularly with the Clintons. If they'd quit the kitchen sink stuff and focus on their own positives and McCain's negatives, there should be no problem continuing this process. It gets us lots of attention: let's use that against McCain!

Frankly, I think Obama brings more potential to the table right now than Gore does. And turning away an African American candidate - or a female candidate - for another white guy would be depressing.

[Honeycombe8]

129. This is the media pushing this story. A Gore "appointment" will not happen.

It thwarts the Democratic process. After all the months of grueling campaign trails, millions of dollars spent, and all the sweat and tears running for the nomination, voters are not going to look kindly on a back room "appointment" of someone who wasn't even in the running.

This is great for the media. But won't happen.

[bitchkitty]

133. mmmmm....I call bullshit.

This is just too out there.

Maybe Dorothy and Toto can be his running mates?

edited for typo

[Hugabear]

135. One tiny little problem - Gore doesn't want the nomination

He's repeatedly said that he's not interested.

[aquarius dawning]

141. yeah, who in their right mind would want to be the POTUS? nt

[madrchsod]

136. what a load of crap

i guess the telegraph now writing fiction instead of actually reporting..oh well give the people what they want

[xchrom]

137. personally i doubt this will happen -- that said -- y-e-a-h baby!!!!

:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

[Bryan Sacks]

138. idiotic bullshit

[Political Heretic]

139. He'd have to want the nomination first.

[il_lilac]

140. have to k&r

just can't resist...

[DrZeeLit]

143. No no no. We do not have this LONG campaign/primary season and then

scuttle it at the convention.

Do you seriously think that voters who want CHANGE are going to idly sit by and watching the "cats" with cigars in the old smoke-filled room make the final decision? Really?

Do you think that would cause a win for the Democrats?

I do not think I am the only one to say, "no!"

That reeks of filth.

As much as I revere Mr. Gore, for his stand on the environment and his generally classy demeanor, I could not rally behind him should these same fat cats call the shots.

AND... what's more... I so don't think that he would go for this either.
He is in the perfect position at the moment.
He has credibility. People listen to his message. He hasn't sold out (or at least he doesn't appear to have).
The minute he's back in the ring, his message was a sham. His message becomes just a chip in the pot to serve him the winning hand.
I dunno. I think he wants to be seen as a Nobel Prize guy, not a President boxed into a corner.

I'm just sayin'

[MiniMe]

546. Exactly. Talk about disenfranchising voters.

That would mean that their vote counted for nothing, the whole country would feel like Michigan and Florida. I love Al, and I was rooting for him to run, but he chose not to.

[mother earth]

144. It's about time! What took so long? Do we want a sure victory?

The party is divided 50/50 split and the anger HERE speaks volumes about the divisiveness these candidates have stirred, despite a hope and unity platform.

Let's wake up, shall we? Gore should assume his rightful place & he can take the "winner" of this corporate media driven race by his side & maybe then they'll truly understand the importance and lessons of these past two elections that we "lost".....wake up, people.

Do you want a sure thing, or do you want to feel good about the possibility of your media chosen darling winning? It's about time the needs of this country are ensured. Take a good hard look at the REAL issues that the press NEVER speaks of, and tell me we can chance anything.

[RestoreGore]

424. And God forbid he is assassinated. Could you live with that?

I swear, some of you are not in the real world. You are all so GD obsessed with the PARTY you don't even give a damn about him. Tell your candidates to GROW THE HELL UP and once the primary season is over one will be first. Because I tell you this, should Mr. Gore be forced into this and anything happen to him, I will work against the Democratic Party with every fiber of my being for the rest of my life.

[Raksha]

482. "God forbid" is right!

Re >>Tell your candidates to GROW THE HELL UP and once the primary season is over one will be first. Because I tell you this, should Mr. Gore be forced into this and anything happen to him, I will work against the Democratic Party with every fiber of my being for the rest of my life.<<

That's also my biggest fear about an Al Gore candidacy--that the neocon Mafia would pull a JFK on him. In fact, it's hard to imagine them not at least attempting it.

But there's no need to insult his supporters by telling them to "grow the hell up" or accusing them being "egotistical" simply because we want what's best for our party and our country.

The fears for his life are entirely legitimate, but that's a separate issue.

[RestoreGore]

490. I was talking about the candidates in this growing up

And believe me, I have been insulted here more times for supporting the man than I can count which was much worse than anything I may have stated in that post. And after watching Sixty Minutes tonight it is obvious to me that this rag piece posted here that got on the frontpage when his work NEVER does is nothing more than another unsubstantiated media induced piece of crap.

[Stinky The Clown]

146. Gore/Clark08

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Husb2Sparkly/38

I missed a few predictions - most notably Obama's.

But the final choice in that 16 month old prediction still stands as our best shot.

[Lugnut]

245. I agreed with your assessment back then

I still do.

[gtar100]

147. BS - Someone's stirring FUD

It's all part of the perception being fed to us through the media. It's time we humans rose above this kind of crap. Mixing sugar with the poison.

[RestoreGore]

162. I wholeheartdly believe that as well. Unfortunately there are too many here who fall for it

You can't fight the media if you are too ignorant to see what they do.

[RestoreGore]

150. This CRAP in a rag gets 28 Recs but threads about his REAL work get ignored...

America and this toxic BS system don't deserve him and I think it is a HUGE INSULT to Mr. Gore to only see him as a "consensus" candidate because people in this BS party can't get their act together. I hope if it ever comes to that he tells them all to go fuck themselves.

And this site should be ashamed of itself for pushing this unsubstantiated shit without knowing HIS feelings on it and for ignoring his work otherwise. When he said politics was toxic that sure was the understatement of the year. All I know is, if they push him and force him into this I WILL NOT SUPPORT IT because I support him, and will do all in my power to talk him out of it. YOU all made your bed, now grow up and lie it. But hey, it would not be surprising for the Democratic party to now EMBARASS itself in front of the world by showing that they can put up a woman and a black man but still can't run a campaign for all of their talk about tolerance. So if you think dragging Mr. Gore into this just to save your faces is going to be good, you are delusional. All those who followed the other candidates will not be so willing to vote if they believe they have been BETRAYED. You all had your chance when he was HERE and you blew it. To think you can absolve your consciences now by forcing him to make you all feel better for the past is incredibly pathetic.

And now, he will be on Sixty Minutes tonight seriously talking about the climate crisis and the launching of his organization The Alliance for Climate Protection's ad campaign to reach the ignorant in this country who think THIS SHIT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SUSTAINABILITY OF OUR PLANET, and all we will now see is that appearance once again tied to THIS SHIT?

I swear, if I didn't know better, I would think RWers were putting this crap out to divert the conversation AGAIN.

[Autumn Colors]

151. I'd vote for Gore/Edwards or Gore/Obama in a heartbeat....

Back when the speculation about Gore jumping into the race was at its peak, wasn't there some rumor/leak/something about Gore insiders saying he would only do so if a candidate didn't emerge who could clearly beat Hillary for the nomination?

This was late last year I think.

If the convention did go this way, I think it would HAVE to be Gore/Obama so all the recently energized first-time voters who've worked/voted for Obama don't stay home in protest.

Gore/Obama ticket with John Edwards as Attorney General???

[Andrea]

479. I remember hearing that, too. n/t

[mike_c]

154. no hesitation at all-- I would vote for Gore in a skinny minute.....

Indeed I would.

[Indigo Walrus]

156. good idea.

Why just stop at not counting Michigan and Florida primary voters when we can ignore ALL primary voters?
:shrug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

158. This is the way to go, I think

because the Republicans can't really go after him now--he's not a candidate, and it would appear to be petty to the general public who is not really into watching politics closely. Come August, POW--we have a fresh candidate with some huge credentials behind him (and I think as time goes on, global warming and the environmental crises will become more apparent). A good VP choice would be Biden, Dodd, or Richardson, I think--again, people who the public generally know about, but who are unbloodied by the fighting going on between Clinton and Obama.

[go west young man]

159. If they go for it it will be the smartest thing the DLC has done in the last 8 years.

Actually in their entire existence.

[mother earth]

164. I couldn't agree more.

[RestoreGore]

165. And Al Gore should tell them to go to hell

[rosesaylavee]

448. You mean DNC (DEM National Committee) right?

DLC is the Democratic Leadership Council. Senator Clinton is their candidate.

[brentspeak]

161. The only thing we know for sure is that Edwards will NOT be anyone's VP

He's already said a million times that he has no interest in being anyone's VP running-mate, ever -- as he's already been a VP running-mate. He, understandably, has too much dignity to do that again, especially after running for the nomination two times in a row.

Sheesh.

[sellitman]

163. Absurd!

Totally absurd.


:argh:

[sweetladybug]

171. I hope to God this happens. Al Gore is the man!.

I know people who have never campaigned for any candidate but say they will if Al Gore is on the ticket.

Gore/Any Democrat 2008!!!!!!!!

[stlsaxman]

167. hey- where is RestoreGore?!?!?

:shrug: - "sorry i was crude, yes i can be an ass at times. forgive me".

edited to ask forgiveness.

[RestoreGore]

184. Ass

[Tuesday Afternoon]

195. Hole

:hi:

[RestoreGore]

199. Thanks for finishing it. Now those it applies to can read it in entirety

[Occulus]

578. You know, I just took you off ignore so I could give you the caustic replies you so richly deserve

but what I have to say to you is probably against DU rules, so I'll just put you back where you belong in my life.

Mute.

[stlsaxman]

200. There you are! How you been? Haven't seen you since the "Draft Gore" days...

:hi:

[RestoreGore]

215. That's because I've been busy supporting the man's work instead of using and harrassing him

Seems some however never move on or grow up.

[tavalon]

201. Yeah, ironic name, eh?

He's a little upthread, btw.

[mod mom]

170. BAD IDEA-and I love Al Gore. I see Gore's role in an Obama Administration as a Cabinet level

position to enact a Marshall Plan for Climate Crisis. It's a win win for Gore-he get to follow through on the most important crisis that faces us without the tribulations of being president.

[emmadoggy]

Gore has said he has zero interest in a cabinet position.

And frankly, that would be a demotion. He deserves better.

[Peggy Day]

179. That wouldn't be fair

I signed the draftgore thingy, but I don't think Obama or Clinton would take too kindly to someone coming in an taking over their hard work.
Maybe a Obama/Gore, or as someone above said maybe a cabinet post for him.

[peace frog]

183. I call bullshit

More disinformation to tear apart the party; all the better for Hillary, my dears.

[Phred42]

186. Interesting that this is reported in a Brit Paper. Where is OUR MSM?

Oh yea......I forgot for a minute.

[Chulanowa]

188. I love Gore, and would love to see him nominated...

But only after he won the primaries. No votes, no nomination. Giving Gore the nomination this way would kill the Democratic party. Even if he refuses - and I'm certain he would - the voters would be so utterly pissed. I know I would be.

A Gore nomination - or an attempt at a Gore nomination - equals a McCain victory.

[sellitman]

193. Bingo!

Gore is too good a man to enter a house by the back door.

[RestoreGore]

196. Amen. An honorable and decent man too good for these schemes

[tinrobot]

235. I suspect he'd do it if Clinton and Obama both agree and support him.

That's a long shot... but possible.

[Harry Monroe]

190. You've gotta be kidding me!!!

This is hypocrisy at its worst. We cried foul when the will of the people was thwarted in 2000 and Bush was annointed and installed by coup d'tat orchestrated by the US Supreme Court. Now we should thwart the will of our own Democrat Party once again and install someone?? Get real. If we stand for something it is Democracy. Yes, the primary season is messy and doesn't work perfectly. Democracy doesn't work perfectly. This mess will sort itself out somehow. If we thwart the will of those voters who have already spoken and install Gore as the nominee, we are no better than the Republicans of 2000 who staged this coup d'tat.

Gore should have gone through the primary process and earned it. I have no doubt that had he done so (and had he wanted to run in the first place) that he would have been the Democrat nominee by now. But this is hindsight and irrelevant now. I would have voted for the man in a heartbeat, but to annoint and install him at this stage in the game is against everything the democratic process stands for. We would be staging our own coup d' tat within the Democratic Party and destroy it in the process.

This being said, I believe the best solution is to have the party "elders" apply more pressure on Hillary to drop out, since mathmetically she cannot win the nomination. This intercine fighting needs to stop and we need to band together and win this thing. Obama seems to have the best chance of doing that come November. Americans are hungry for change, and not the same old tired bullshit. Hillary is not this candidate.

[Tektonik]

191. I'd love for it to happen, but it would not be fair for anyone who went to a primary

[disndat]

202. Obama/Edwards,

Al Gore prominently in the background as senior statesman. Other possibilities, Obama/Gore with Edwards for Supreme Court. Forget HC. She flamed out forever with her Bosnia Pinocchio act. Even if she wins big in Pa. what leaders in the Democratic Party could take her seriously?

[brentspeak]

363. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3248467&mesg_id=3248769

[bpeale]

498. I REPEAT, for those of you who are hard of reading, Edwards will not be anyone's VP

[YDogg]

206. yawn

[Auggie]

238. You said it

[Liberty Belle]

208. We shouldn't appoint someone who didn't run!

Much as I admire Al Gore, and probably would have voted for him if he'd entered the race (at least once Edwards was out), I don't believe our party has any right to ignore the will of the people.

It's clear the majority want Obama, and he should be the nominee. Hillary should drop out, pure and simple. If she doesn't, then the superdelegates should all vote for Obama and send a clear message that in a DEMOCRATIC process, respecting the will of the people is paramount. We are not kingmakers.

[pauldg0]

522. Seems like all of the Obama people just do not understand.....

..the delegate process of majority candidate. Remember??? (MOST OF THE PEOPLE!!!)

If you split the party as you have been doing, the Democrats will not take McCain.

Yes there are going to be a lot of sore heads, but that's how the process works.

[rosesaylavee]

210. I think the ONLY way that Gore would agree to this

is if it was overwhelming obvious to the majority of DEMS that we could NOT win in November with either of them.

IMO, Gore will only step in if the candidates or, at least one of them, agree to this outcome. If Obama ties up the delegates in a month or two, this will be a non-issue.

It may be a way for the senior democrats to get Clinton to stop her scorched earth campaign and endorse Obama.

This certainly is a very very tense primary season we are having.

[Harry Monroe]

211. If Gore is annointed and installed as the nominee, I won't be voting for him

I don't want anyone to misunderstand this, but I could not in good conscience vote for Gore in the GE if he were to be appointed and installed as the Democratic nominee. He would no more be a legitimate Democratic nominee any more than Bush is our legitimate President. Bush was appointed, annointed and installed by a coup d'etat of a collusion between the Republican Party apparachik and the Supreme Court in 2000, which made the whole process illegimate. Appointing Gore as the nominee would be the height of utter hypocrisy on our part. How many of those posting here thinking this is a good idea also thought that the Supreme Court appointing our President in 2000 was also a good idea?? Yeah, I thought so.

I have a conscience and have to live with myself and look in the mirror every morning. I can and will vote for either Clinton or Obama in the GE, since they have run the gauntlet and whoever is the nominee will have been democratically selected, as messy as the process may be. I will not be voting for Gore, as much as I admire and respect the man, if he somehow becomes the annointed Savior of our party. I will go to the poll and vote for myself as a write in, since I will have about the same legitimacy as Gore to the nomination.

This being said, Gore would be an excellent choice for our nominee. Too bad he didn't get into the fray and earn it. That is neither here nor there now and what has happened, has happened. We need to rally behind our legitimately elected nominee come November. If this nominee is not legitimate, I will not vote for him/her. I will simply go to the poll and vote for myself.

[Lorien]

231. EVERY candidate is "appointed and installed"

don't kid yourself; Obama, HRC and McCain are all beholden to corporate interests and all have their "seal of approval". A candidate like Kucinich, Gavel or Ron Paul (not a fan of him, but he has an avid following on the other side)will NEVER have a real chance in this country. We, the peo0ple, ultimately aren't the ones calling the shots when it comes to picking our candidates.

[totodeinhere]

232. What if there were a stalemate and neither HRC nor BHO can win?

It could happen. What would we do? We would have to pick someone and Gore would be a pretty good choice in that case. I don't think it will happen but it is at least theoretically possible. It might take only a few super delegates refusing to vote for either Clinton or Obama to make it happen.

[TwilightGardener]

250. I won't either. I don't much care for him, and he DIDN'T RUN.

[FredStembottom]

216. Wow.... this just gets stupider and stupider!

At one time I was all hot for a Gore candidacy. I love the guy. I think he would be one of the Great Presidents. But Not Now.

Think we're divided, now? Cancel both candidates and watch both sides get discouraged and apathetic.

It's gonna be President Mc Cain, isn't it........................

[backscatter712]

219. As much as I respect Al Gore,

if he wanted to run for President, he should have jumped in the elections.

The only candidate I will accept is the one who's got the most popular votes and the most delegates - Obama.

[Kurovski]

222. I'm recommending this OP

I can't help myself, I'm looking for hope. :-)

[DFW]

223. I think the title is somewhat misleading, and the anti-Gore statements misplaced

Here's why:

Al Gore is not actively seeking, and will not ask for, the nomination.
So all this, "he didn't enter and win any primaries, so I won't vote for him"
stuff is way off track. Al Gore is not seeking anything. All he's doing at this
point is NOT saying "if you can't agree on anyone, don't call me." Or, to put it
another way, "I'm not saying I won't accept the nomination IF the party is hope-
lessly deadlocked and can't agree on a nominee, and comes to me begging." So far,
the chances of that are minimal, if not tiny enough to ignore. Take a deep breath.

All this is saying is that there are elements in the party that want an alternative
to a meltdown if there is a deadlock where neither side wants to give.

I'm fine with either HRC or BHO, but as Al Gore was my first choice since 2004, if
the party says that neither Clinton nor Obama can win the nomination on their own,
and neither wants to concede for the good of the party, then I'm perfectly happy
with turning to Gore. Al Gore is not looking to spoil anything, and he is not looking
to grab anything that he hasn't worked for. If, and I mean IF, seeing as how I have not
heard this from his mouth, he will accept the nomination if requested, then I am all
for it.

Obviously, if he makes motions indicating he WANTS to make a play for the nomination,
he will look like an ass, wanting to eat all the food after staying out of the kitchen.
But he is not an ass, and he is doing nothing of the sort. Seeing what has become of our
primary process, I don't blame him one bit for not wanting any part of it. But if there
is a loud and widespread call for him to step in, I'd not want him to tell the party to
go look for someone else. We don't HAVE anyone else--not of his stature, anyway, and he
would have the added advantage of being right about everything on which Cheneybush (and,
by extension, McCain) was wrong. McCain would have to be very inventive in any debate
to worm around that fact, and I find McCain to be about as inventive as a tree stump,
not to mention being being older than many of them.

Again, I don't consider this a likely scenario. I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd
say that Obama is, as of today, the likely nominee, and will probably prevail. However,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana COULD change that equation, as well as the great
unknown factor X--i.e. stuff that hasn't yet come to light. And so, it's still POSSIBLE
that we could end up with a deadlocked situation. IF that should turn out to be the case,
and if we put Howard, HRC and BHO in a room in Denver, and all three of them come out with
frowns and bloody noses, if the party turns to Al Gore and says "please," I'd be delighted
if he said "yes." He'd then go out to the podium and give a speech that would cause a 3.0
on the Richter scale, and convention-bounce McCain all the way to Fiji.

[emmadoggy]

280. !!!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Andrea]

436. Excellent post

You clearly understand the situation we are in - both the mechanics and the nuance. You should consider making this an OP. If you do, please PM me so I don't miss it.

BTW, this is hilarious: "McCain would have to be very inventive in any debate
to worm around that fact, and I find McCain to be about as inventive as a tree stump,
not to mention being being older than many of them."


:applause: :applause: :applause:

[DFW]

444. Thanks for the kind words, but--

There have been many posts on the subject already, and it
would be wrong of me to beat the subject into the ground.

(appreciated, all the same!)

:-)

[rosesaylavee]

476. You said very succinctly

what I and others have been trying to say over several posts over several days (as this is not new news).

Thank you.

[lildreamer316]

533. ANOTHER post I wish I could recommend.

That's exactly it, thankyouverymuch!!

[pacalo]

224. Please, please, please run, Al! I don't want to change my name to 12-year-nightmare. :(

[YvonneCa]

227. Gore/Obama...

...is my dream ticket. Thanks for the information.

[ozone_man]

233. I second that nomination.

:)

[OmahaBlueDog]

234. The BTL reading of this story: Make a deal or the DNC will make one for you

Combine the "Gore nomination floated" idea with Howard Dean's comment that the candidates have until 7/1 to make their case, and here's what you get

1) Obama and Clinton have until 7/1 to secure 2025 delegates
2) If they can't accomplish 2025, they need to bang out a deal on a unity ticket (talk about unlikely)
3) If there's no unity ticket, the DNC is not going to tolerate a protracted, days without end convention trying to break a deadlock. If we get past ballot 1, and the next few ballots don't produce a nominee, then the nomination will go to someone else -- most likely Gore.

[Maat]

242. I'd love Al Gore ...

because if Hillary is basically shoved down my throat (despite Obama's being ahead in delegates for so long, if she is chosen by the superdelegates), then I will no longer be a Democrat.

So, the Party had better think of something.

[NNadir]

249. Yeah, the party will die without you.

Once the party finds out that your presence is essential to existence of the party, I'm sure that all national delegates will be compelled to vote the way you want them to vote.

[Maat]

251. Whatever ...

we all have to do what makes us happy (I'll do it for my own satisfaction).

Now, you have a good day!

[ooglymoogly]

244. Talk about a candidate who has the best experience to hit the ground

running.
I could go for a Gore-Obama, or Gore-Edwards in a heartbeat with Gen Clark as head of intelligence or Head of the military, Richardson as Sec. of State, Hill as Gov of NY, * as property of Arizona state prison system or anywhere chain gangs are prevalent, Ch@nee as lifer no. whatever. Some names misspelled to protect the whatever.

[YvonneCa]

247. And the judgment needed in a President...

...who will need to begin to repair the damage done by this administration. He's been right on every issue...from Iraq, to torture, to wiretaps. Who better to say, "Okay, now let's do this right."

Poetic justice ticket. :)

[depakid]

296. And one who won't praise Bush I and Reagan's foreign policy

and express wishes to return to it.

That one blew my mind....

[K-Check]

246. Wouldn't it be against the "rules" somehow?

If Gore can just drop in and run without being on the ticket in the primaries, then what the heck is the point of the five months of primaries? Why did Americans vote?

I love Al Gore, and his *Assault on Reason* should be required reading, but I don't think him entering the race now would be good for our democracy.

And let's be honest, after the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election and all the stuff that's happened in the last seven or eight years, our democracy needs all the help it can get right now.


Gore can be more use to democrats by working behind the scenes to get this primary settled, and then helping unite the supporters of the two candidates.

[YvonneCa]

252. No...

...it's not against the rules. We are a party choosing a nominee. Parties can set their own rules. Once the candidates are chosen, THEN we vote...as a representative democracy. That means we choose 'electors' in the electoral college. Many want to change the process...and maybe we should do that...but until we do, that's how it goes. We were never set up to be a direct democracy.

By the way, I agree with you about "Assault on Reason". It's one of the reasons I think Gore would be such a great President, IF he wanted to run.

Gore/Obama

[shimmergal]

432. No...

If this scenario doesn't happen, then IMO Gore needs to work on climate change AND on reversing the media monopoly over the information we get. Not saying he wouldn't or shouldn't work behind the scenes, just that I hope he continues to tackle even bigger issues.

[LibDemAlways]

254. If Gore would agree to do it,

he'd be a shoe-in. This year putting a Dem into the WH isn't a luxury. It's a necessity. Gore is as close to a sure thing as we've got. From a purely pragmatic point of view, and because it would seriously throw the repukes a huge, unexpected curveball, it would be a smart move.

[lovuian]

406. GO Gore

think about it baby

[kirby]

256. How idiotic...

Clinton and Obama have worked hard to raise money, campaign, and formulate policy. You think they are going to let an 'outsider' who is not universally liked take over? I imagine Obama has higher favorable rating than Gore. No way in hell this will happen.

[knixphan]

369. kirby is right.

[zalinda]

579. No, Kirby is wrong

There are plenty of people who don't like Obama, and some who actually hate him. I won't vote for Obama, he's a manufactured want to be.

Obama and Clinton both have only won primaries. And of that 2% of the dem primary voters picked them as "our" candidates, just about every other candidate dropped out after Iowas because they didn't have the money to compete. I didn't want either of them, and still don't. A vast number of dems didn't get to vote for their choice in the primary. They only got to choose between the "historic" candidates because that's what Iowa gave us. I resent that and a whole hell of a lot of people resent that.

On the other hand, Gore got almost 50% in the GE, he won but it got stolen from him. We have 2 leftovers versus a proven winner, give me the winner any day.

zalinda

[suffragette]

258. The author, Tim Shipman, seems to have an interesting agenda

though I'm not sure exactly what it is.

He starts by citing "Former Gore aides," who he then refers to as "Two former Gore campaign officials." He doesn't name them in the article.


Reminiscent of the article he wrote in April 2007:"Gore campaign team assembles in secret" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/22/wgore22.xml where he did much the same thing.

From that article:
"Friends of Al Gore have secretly started assembling a campaign team in preparation for the former American vice-president to make a fresh bid for the White House.
Two members of Mr Gore's staff from his unsuccessful attempt in 2000 say they have been approached to see if they would be available to work with him again. "

The headline of this new article is "Senior Democrats Mull Al Gore's Nomination"
In the next to last paragraph, Shipman writes:
"Tim Mahoney, a Democrat congressman from Florida, said last week: "If it goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket." This suggests the party would accept a Gore-Clinton or a Gore-Obama pairing."

Let's look at this more closely. Representative Mahoney is a former Republican who became a conservative "Blue Dog" Democrat and ran against Foley, who resigned shortly before the election due to the page sex email scandal.

Shipman seems to be citing him as a "Senior Democrat" whose quote would "suggest the party would accept" such a drastic change. That's quite a stretch on Shipman's part. I haven't haven't followed Foley's record (though I would think it's much better than than the Republican Foley) and I imagine people in Florida prefer him to what they had. But, a Senior Democrat whose words indicate the direction (as in a leadership role in the party) - not so much.

There's also the word usage from Shipman of "Democrat congressman" rather than Democratic. I am always suspicious when I see that particular error.

Again, I wonder what is the agenda here.

[TwilightGardener]

260. Watch and see if more RW'ers start floating this--they might be trying

to undercut Obama and Hillary by suggesting that both are damaged goods or unelectable, or just trying to foment more chaos in our primary. Good catch!

[suffragette]

266. I think that's exactly what's going on here,

both an attempt to stir up divisions and to position McCain as the inevitable frontrunner.

And quelle surprise, Shipman does just that in the article, in two places:

"both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain."
"The opening has emerged because opinion polls show Mr McCain stretching his lead over both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton"

Definitely something to remember when we see this byline in the future.

[KoKo]

272. Joe Klein was floating the "Gore Trial Baloon" last week.

So...it could be "mischief making" or the Repug insiders could be hearing some buzz. After all...some Repugs are not happy with their own choice... McCain is hardly a "stable, reliable" candidate. But, it's all they have. Not all Repugs are the ones we are used to seeing these past two decades. Some are very worried about America "going down" because they will go down with it.

[suffragette]

288. good points

Mischief making is high on my list. And I don't discount what you say about some Republicans being worried about what the neocons have done to destroy the U.S.
And these articles are creating a buzz. I'm wondering where that buzz is coming from and if it's a buzz or a buzzsaw.

[haydukelives]

259. how many delegates does Gore have?

This is crazy talk.

[TwilightGardener]

261. It is. Neither Obama or Hillary are "damaged" or unelectable. Total bullshit.

[DFW]

282. I agree with you about Hillary and Obama, but the Gore speculation is not at all BS

The fact that they are both quite electable and qualified means nothing
if they fight down to the wire under circumstances that let neither of them
win without the other conceding. This is the scenario (and only scenario)
under which the party would turn to Gore. I agree it's unlikely, but by no
means impossible.

[depakid]

392. All the polls sugget the contrary at the moment

If it looks like a landslide by the time the convention rolls around, only someone who doesn't care about winning in November would stay on either of those bandwagons.

[Seabiscuit]

262. If this could be true, I'd stand behind a Gore nomination. Now that can get all Dems excited again

under one tent! Poor McCain wouldn't have a chance against a massive democrat wave. Yes, this country could truly change under a Gore administration and balance the wrongs of the GW adminstration. :thumbsup:

[balantz]

265. I pray that this is what comes.

It is unbelievable this situation is as it is.

Al Gore is the rightful president that should have led a fine administration for America into a bright and hopeful 21st century, and the fascists stole that from us.

I hope that Mr. Gore rises to this task.

I hope with all of my heart that this comes to be.

[earth mom]

267. Yes! This is the answer and the best hope we have! Gore/Edwards baby!

:woohoo:

[Utopian Leftist]

273. On what planet

would this scenario make a lick of sense? Record turnout across much of the country, leading folks to choose between the first viable woman and the first viable African American candidates in history . . . and a white male patronizingly waltzes in at the last minute to sweep them aside? You'd have to be certifiably insane to even suppose that the public would accept this!

And I have great admiration and respect for Al Gore too. But the man is such a bad campaigner that he came close to losing the 2000 election to THE SHRUBBERY! The only way he could help the party at this time would be to get off the fence and support Obama.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

276. Is there anything even remotely resembling a precedent for that? In either party? -nt

[Andrea]

441. Yes, several

Democrats 1952 and 1932, Republicans 1948, and Democrats 1968 probably would have been if RFK had not been assassinated. There are others.

[roamer65]

277. Seriously, my whole family and many at work will vote for Gore.

He would trounce Insane McCain in the general election. Obama and Hillary are dividing the party with their antics.

[fshrink]

279. The big picture

is not to be missed. Beyond this election what is at stake is the building of a democratic pole in a world that is largely different from what it ever was. Democrats direly need to redefine their identity and "reframing" will not cut it. This should not be sacrified to a short-term agenda assorted with the usual promises that tomorrow will be different because I tell you so. Implying that I will do things I can't talk about right now because I wouldn't be elected if I did.
This whole country, its political institutions and even its constitution are in a state of historical crisis. Deep enough, let's remember it please, to have a complete idiot and, basically, a group of thieves to run this country for 8 years and create chaos in half of the world.
In this context, the division we witness is good because it raises fundamental questions and defines two clearly different routes. This choice is far more important to the country and to democrats than even winning this election. Obama's work, even if it were to stop right this minute has done more than Gore did during his campaign for the country. I will support that because this is the path to the future. I will not support anything else because it is, at best, a circular path. If that means losing this election, so be it. My children will win the next one and on the right basis.
Enough!

[KoKo]

283. what you say.....if it means losing election....so be it... n/t

[mother earth]

305. Your "so be it" just proved that those supporting the two

frontrunners don't give a flying fig about unity or change. They don't even care about this nation, ambition is their choice, and even what's at stake for children apparently matters little.

I do hope your children will have the luxury of a choice should there be another four years of W/Mc. Think about your words, you are the one on a circular path.

I hope those senior members have the wisdom to realize how the division in our very own party, is only a precursor to that of the nation.

[fshrink]

316. Democracy is not relinquishing a core debate to

a group of "senior members" who would somehow have a "wisdom" that people don't have. Or smother it because it's politically risky.

[mother earth]

365. The appointment is used as last resort, when the party is so divided

and deadlocked that there is no clear winner. It would behoove Obama & Hillary to hammer it out themselves, but seems neither is willing to do so, perhaps that will change...but our democracy/party does allow this option, should the people's wisdom be hopelessly divided (seems they just might be bowing to the wisdom of those senior members)....hmmm...you see any evidence this might be so? I do, and I'd prefer it to a McCain win, but perhaps we will see unity and hope demonstrated to be more than words & this option can remain unused.

[Andrea]

445. If it ends up with McCain winning,

likely none of us will have the luxury of choice again. That is why it is so fundamental that we have to win this time. Look at the last eight years. The damage to our constitution.

I think if this Gore nomination comes about, people who love democracy will vote for him and then work to improve our primary system.

[kma3346]

281. Oh how I wish....

[varelse]

303. Gore stepping in might be the only way to salvage this GE for the Dems...

Between a quarter and a third of Obama and Clinton supporters say that they would not now vote for the other in November.

This news is downright chilling - clearly something needs to be done to resolve this, and fairly quickly, too :scared:

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

309. Is this even legal?

Right, let's ignore the people.

wtf!

[DesertRat]

443. Of course it's legal.

Before the era of presidential primaries, conventions were routinely brokered. If neither candidate has 2025 delegates we'll have a brokered convention and the party will pick the nominee.

[kdpeters]

310. NO NO NO!! This would be just another way to override the will of the voters.

No better than a Clinton nomination by superdelegate override. This would be a disaster. Obama has won this and we all know it. Just let the process play itself out. We will have a nominee fair and square and it will be Obama.

[depakid]

362. Obama doesn't have "the will of the voters" and more than Hillary does

Which is why so many people are coming to the conclusion that in all probability, a compromise candidate like Gore will be about the only way to win in November.

[McCamy Taylor]

312. I love Al Gore. If we see him go on a diet, that means he is considering it.

He always gets down to "running weight" when he is about to campaign.

[rosesaylavee]

481. Here's a recent pic

Looks like he's dropped more than a few pounds. Though I don't think his weight matters much. We have a skinny little guy now with no brains.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

313. Right now the polls suggest that Gore wouldn't win against McCain but

The polls included Obama and Clinton who are still in the race. If Gore was the nominee then obviously things would be different. We hope that the primary will be finished after Indiana.

[mcollier]

324. MisInformation again

Al Gore is concerned about Global Warming not the presidency... The Republicans for the most part think Al Gore is a global con artist with regards to global warmiing... This is the real story... Can anybody tell me what Republicans stand for??? Cause I have a long list of what Republicans have been falling for...


The ReTardLicans party is over... I mean over...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

332. I wouldn't mind Gore standing because the presidency was rightfully his from 2000

however after all the money and time being spent by Obama and Clinton it would seem kind of weird?

[ekwhite]

318. This is being floated as a warning to Hillary Clinton

What they are saying, not too subtly, is that if she manages to cause a deadlocked convention, they will step in and make certain she cannot win. If that happens, they will nominate Gore, with an overwhelming superdelegate vote.

[greyghost]

325. I believe that is exactly what they are saying. That even if she manages

to steal it from Obama she loses, PERIOD.

Gore/Obama 2008, has a nice ring to it.

[BlooInBloo]

326. Just the media making shit up cuz they just want a horserace.

[stevietheman]

327. This is clearly fear of Obama by powerful white men

I really like Al Gore... a lot! But it's interesting that somehow, the compromise between a woman and a black man is... a white man. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

I smell fear in the old guard. Fear of the future.

[KoKo]

376. What have either Obama or Clinton said or done for the "Powerful" to fear them?

I haven't heard either of them say they would go after Bush/Cheney Crimes and Profiteering. And, neither has threatened to put the the "Bubble Masters of Wall St." behind bars for what they did to our economy. I haven't heard either of them go as far as Kucinich to totally revise Nafta/GATT or our other fake "free trade" agreements. Hillary said we "are never going to get those jobs back." Both of them feel "Green Energy" will do for America what the Tech Bubble did. But, powerful Oil interests aren't going to let that happen and we will be using Dubai and Saudi Arabia to privatize our road building and those HB-1 Visas will allow more immigrants in to do our tech for us, since we can't seem to get our education system in shape. More foreign students getting advanced degrees at our universities taken the spots that our own kids can't seem to qualify for because the Universities make too much money from Govt. to let the foreign students in. It's all the Bush/Repugs "march to freedom" to bring in students who will spread democracy back in their own "homeland" of India/China and elsewhere. No room for kids here in poverty areas...or even what used to be Middle Class.

[skyounkin]

343. The republicans would

LOVE to have Al Gore in the race as a "compromise canidate"!! Tell me this wouldn't be spun as "The democrats want to compromise on everything, the war, hell, they even compromised when it came to their presidential nominee!!"

PLUS, how the hell will this look- democrats back the WHITE GUY after the Black guy and Woman were fighting it out for HOW long??? How can we even spin that positivlly?? WE would be labeled as the racists! We choose the white guy who hasn't do anything this election cycle to win.

Plus, Obama as a VP?? Where is this world does first place get you the second seat?

Sorry- I love Al Gore- but he had his chance in 2000- he choose not to contiue on into open blood shed. Oh Well. After the past 8 years......we probably would have been better off with a revolution.

[peace13]

344. Great idea guys,,,Gore/Lie-berman!

Can't believe that I didn't see that one here. I am sorry but this is just too little too late and why did Gore pick Lie-berman anyway. Too many questions and hardships about the past and what went wrong. Al had his chance to step up for 2008 and chose not to. This entire post is like a visit to crazy-ville. Ekkk, get me off of this planet.

[lutefisk]

367. He is the perfect candidate for the time. Please make it so.

This could well be the USA's only chance to make things right.

Even if Clinton or Obama could win in November, I don't see either one taking the bull by the horns, with the whole damn planet cheering, the way Al Gore will. This is the right thing.

[dbmk]

495. I honestly think you are underestimating how much the world will be cheering for Obama.

And on another note your picture almost cost me laptop screen here as Iwas trying to squash that bug. Only to be followed by "Wtf? It has gotten under the screen?" - and then I realised how one should not stay up for as long as I have. :)

[Carni]

368. THIS would be AWESOME!

PLEASE AL TAKE THE OFFICE YOU RIGHTFULLY WON IN 2000!

[BearSquirrel2]

381. This is STUPID!!!

I like Al Gore. He had his chance to throw his hat in the ring and declined.

Somehow resolving a bitter division between two potential nominees by appointing someone with ZERO delegates isn't very favorable. Hillary is clawing Obama's eyes out over the notion of loosing HERE nomination. Do you really think she would consent to be usurped by Al Gore, a man she really does not like?

Move along, there is nothing to see here. There will be nothing to see until Hillary DROPS OUT!!!!

[doc03]

394. Al gore is the only person that could save us

from a certain defeat this fall.

[Brigid]

395. I would dance in the streets if Gore were to become the nominee.

But will he do it? That's the big question.

[wordpix]

403. me, too, I've always been a big Gore fan BUT---is he interested?

[shance]

396. Excuse me, something doesn't set right here. Maybe because its not Democratic?

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO OUR VOTES COUNTING?

Are we this stupid that we allow two fraudulent elections and just sit back and let them re-write the laws and the Voting Rights Act?

I like Gore. NOT THE POINT.

This smells of an elitist power grab and they are sending out a test balloon in this article.

[Andrea]

449. Actually, no

this would be perfectly within the rules of the party for the nominating process. Several posters have explained it in this thread. It has no bearing on the Voting Rights Act.

[YvonneCa]

505. Of course it's ...

...democratic. We are a party choosing a nominee. Parties can set their own rules to do that. Once the candidates are chosen, THEN we vote...as a representative democracy. That means we choose 'electors' in the electoral college. Many want to change the process...and maybe we should do that...but until we do, that's how it goes. We were never set up to be a direct democracy.

Brokered conventions are part of our history. Read "Assault on Reason". It's one of the reasons I think Gore would be such a great President, IF he wanted to run.

Gore/Obama

[high density]

408. The Telegraph must have misread the calendar as April 1

The Gore people need to give it up. He doesn't want the job anymore.

[RestoreGore]

423. They embarass him and cause unwarranted media slurs on him with this crap

He is doing important work for the planet and they don't even care. That is never good enough for them.

[Mark E. Smith]

411. I Pray This Happens

I am personally sickened by what is going on now.

[benld74]

419. Quit EFFIN AROUND AND WORK TOGETHER, NOW OR LOSE IT ALL

YEah thats right, quit effin around about who is better and who deserves it more blah blah blah. If Gore comes in now, the Dems will look like the biggest bunch of idiots in the world(besd=ides acting like it on votes that should pass easily in the house and Senate).
Obama and and Clinton NEED TO COME TOGETHER and quit acting like kids. I don't care who leads, but one has to get outatheway!

[jwlashta]

420. Sounds good

But it will probably never happen, nor should it. I love Gore and would love to see him as President, but his party's nomination should not be just simply handed to him by the party--it's simply undemocratic.

Besides, once the primaries are over and the presidential debates begin, McCain will be taken to task on his stance on Iraq among other issues by whoever the Democratic nominee is (**cough** Obama **cough**). There is no need for the Democrats to push the panic button.

[RestoreGore]

421. Al Gore's Current Media To Go Public ..That means he must stay there

Al Gore's Current Media To Go Public With 100 Million IPO


Mon Jan 28, 10:39 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Current Media Inc, owner of the youth-focused television network founded by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, plans to raise up to $100 million in an initial public offering on the Nasdaq stock market.

The company, of which Gore is executive chairman, owns Current TV, an interactive cable television network that features videos submitted by viewers as well as professionally produced content.

Aimed at viewers aged 18 to 34, Current TV was launched in August 2005 to 19 million U.S. households. It is now available in 51 million households in the United States, Britain and Ireland.
The network, which won a prime-time Emmy award last year, has a stated goal of "democratizing media" by engaging young adults through interactive television.

"We believe the combination of our television and Internet platforms creates an immersive and interactive viewer experience for our growing global audience, where the audience participates in both the creation and selection of the content," Current Media said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The San Francisco-based company did not detail Gore's equity stake after the IPO of Class A stock. Gore and Chief Executive Joel Hyatt, who co-founded the company, will control all shares of Class B stock, which carry supervoting power.

Current Media said Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, and Hyatt have been instrumental in securing distribution and advertising agreements for Current TV. It warned that the departure of either executive would be a risk.

"In particular, if Mr. Gore were no longer actively involved in our business or no longer to hold a substantial ownership stake in us, our relationships with key distributors and our business could be materially and adversely affected," Current Media said in the filing.

Current Media's two main sources of revenue are from advertising and from affiliate fees paid by cable, satellite and telecommunications operators to carry Current TV.

The company reported $63.8 million in revenue in 2007, which was a 68 percent increase from the year before. But its operating expenses also increased as the company "strategically invested in our business."

Current Media said it made a net loss of $9.9 million in 2007, compared with a $7.6 million loss in 2006. As of December 31, 2007, it had an accumulated deficit of $31.9 million.
The company paid Gore about $1.05 million in 2007 including salary and bonuses. Hyatt was paid about $1.04 million.

Current Media did not say how many of the 200 million Class A shares will be sold or their expected price. It said Current Media intends to list its common stock on Nasdaq under the symbol "CRTM" and plans to use the proceeds in part to repay debt.

It appointed J.P. Morgan Securities Inc, Lehman Brothers Inc and Pacific Crest Securities Inc as underwriters of the IPO of class A common stock, according to the filing.
Reuters/Nielsen
~~~~~~~~~~~
This is where Mr. Gore wants to be. Leave the man alone already. If Democrats can't get their own act together and only look to him to fill a void THEY MADE they are pathetic. He already gave all he had to give to that cesspool in Washington DC. He is now making global progress on alternate energies coming to the fore and in also making alliances that will forge the climate treaty we must have in place next year. And that will require FOCUS. This distraction and diversionary BS more than likely schemed up by Right Wing assholes and political opportunists (and that includes their usual minions who sit on websites that do nothing but spin this crap) with nothing better to do does absolutely nothing to solve our problems. I simply can't believe people are wasting their time with this after all of his words, his actions, and his pleas for US TO BE THE CHANGE. The same people who have sat for the last eight years on their asses allowing this country to go to pot. NOW they want Al Gore to come in, swoop down and save them? How absolutely selfish and embarrassing. It's no wonder this country has made little headway in change regarding the climate crisis. People are too busy BSing and fantasizing.

[Yes We Did]

429. Talk about what would be considered a back room deal...

If Al Gore were to be installed, then the democratic party is in worse shape than I thought. Al Gore didn't even run. So these two candidates have been running all over the country and senior officials go in a back room and snatch the candidacy from the two who are running by anointing Al Gore. That would be a laugher. On its face it would be enough to make all Dems jump ship. Of all the Republican things to do.

[mrbluto]

431. Prepare for shrill shreiks of "Un-Democratic"!

Doesn't the OP know he's treading on the dreams and hopes of Obama zealots supporters who will come out of the woodwork to denounce even the possibility of such a scenario?

Oh, wait - aren't they going with that courageous new tactic? The one that is sooooo in character for the Republican typical cult Democratic party?

You know - "Let it sink".

Maybe we will be able to have a rational discussion after all.

[radhika]

440. Anyone but the people, as I read it

Without going into the distraction of Gore vs Hill vs Obama - what comes through loud and clear to ME is: The people are assholes, and we can't trust them. We-the-party-elite have to come up with a strategy that subverts their indecision. We'll pull out of a hat someone new, a totally new candidate who they have largely forgotten about politically. A man who hasn't run for 8 years, who didn't fight to win in 2000 and stuff him down the throats of the great unwashed.

Since we-the-sheeple are used to sitting around until grownups tell us what we are entitle to get, it'll probably go down smoothly. Why do we even contribute to candidates if the machine will whisk them off the stage and assign an understudy.

[Jakes Progress]

442. Everyone gives a little, we all win

Just look at the huge response to the suggestion. This is one where we can see if our political heroes deserve our respect. Each one would have to give up a little to help the country.

Gore would have to get back in the muck. He would have to put up with the neocon press attacks and slander. He would have to endure the scorn of the Hillary and Barack zealots who care more about personality cults than the country.

Obama and Clinton would have to get behind the idea whole heartedly. They could come together (Jimmy should take them to the farm) and realize that they have both been pawns of the MSM and that they and their campaigns have harmed the chances for defeating McCain. They could implore their delegates and their supporters to unite for the good of the country behind the new ticket.


Then they should both go back to the Senate. We need all the Democrats in the Senate we can get. Make Hillary majority leader and give Barack a couple of key chairmanships. Then move Hillary to the SC and Barack to the leadership role.


Edwards for VP because then we wouldn't be leaving a Senate seat open. This plan would confound the neocon media and crush McCain. We could really look to a 40 state win. We could drag three dozen progressives into the legislature. Just imagine if all the Democrats were working together for once.


That's a dream I can support.

[Malikshah]

446. To all who cry that this would be "un-democratic"-- are you all the same

who have been counting, recounting, pontificating, prognosticating, and--dare I say it--salivating over the super delegates?

How "democratic" are they?

Nuff said.

Go Gore! :)

[MisterP]

569. I just love it how those screaming "antidemocratic" say that media selection

of two blow-dried Rhonda Byrnes--and the smothering of the other six--is fine by them

[Andrea]

571. Yes, they must be forgetting something

I hear all this talk about how hard Obama and Clinton have worked, as though that's the key criteria. If it were, I daresay Dodd would probably be our nominee. He actually moved his whole family to Iowa, enrolled his kids in public schools and set up life there for a year.

[Chicago1]

455. Can't understand why he HASN'T BEEN DRAFTED TO BE THE NOMINEE

I've never understood why he can't just be drafted and be put into the candidate position. Maybe my thoughts will come true.


TIME TO IMPEACH!!!!

[Vidar]

466. Be still, my beating heart.

[HopeforChange]

468. HELL NO ! WHAT A WEASEL IF HE DOES

I will campaign against him if he steps in and steals the nomination after Obama and Clinton played out the bloody battle.

[Zorra]

504. At this point, I would think both candidates would have to defer to him

in order for him to be nominated.

[Kokonoe]

469. News Flash: Mr. Gore, said hes not running.

Its just another false wedge issue to beat ourselves down with.

[krispos42]

473. So Obama gets his hard work and victories destroyed....

...and the tens of millions of voters (including millions of new, passionate citizens) that participated in the primaries to date just get totally shafted? Because Hillary can't let go of the fact that she lost her one and only chance at the Presidency?

Yeah, that's fair.




Well, if McCain wins I guess she can always run in 2012, which just might be her strategy anyway.




This whole "Obama/Clinton supporters are now so divided they won't ever vote Clinton/Obama but will turn to McCain" is just bullshit anyway. Christ, we're over 7 months away from the election! All the apparantly-important stuff that GD-P is freaking about on a daily basis will be ancient history by August. The details of the recent past eventually merge into general impressions. Hell, most DUers probably coudn't name more than a third of the various criminal activities or scandals that have been revealed about BushCo since the 2006 election!

There is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans, so compared to McCain, Obama and Clinton are virtually identical. Any Clinton/Obama supporter that won't vote for Obama/Clinton because of the primary season obviously has no clue where their best interests lie, and would be no different from the blue-collar Texans and Kansans that religiously vote Republican no matter how how hard the GOP fucks them over.

But the longer Clinton keeps massaging her ego, and the DNC and DLC establishment enable her to do so, the less time we have for irrelevent memories to fade and to focus on the big picture and the important stuff.

It's too damn late for Gore. He could have started last year for reasons given in Rolling Stone. Hell, he could have ran in 2004 in a re-match. Gore/Kerry 2004.

But he didn't. If Gore wants to save the party, he can stand up, endorse Obama, and call on Clinton to retire gracefully.

Then President Obama can appoint Gore the Sec. of Energy and get some serious shit done on fossile fuels.

[LibertyorDeath]

485. I don't fucking think so....

I like Gore a lot but Obama can beat McCain

polls change on a daily basis and there's 7 months before the General Election

that's an eternity in politics.

Once Clinton stops acting like a Republican and faces the fact that she's

shit out of luck. Obama will go after McCain with both barrels he'll tie the disaster that is Iraq

around McCain's neck and sink him like a Geriatric stone.

No one I know wants a third Bush term and that's exactly what McCain is.

The only poll that counts is election day 2008 and Obama can do it

he has what it takes.

[Megahurtz]

551. Yes HE Can!

[Capn Sunshine]

493. I CALL BULLSHIT ON THIS STORY

No citations, a circular quote from someone in Florida, this is just a disinfo campaign of the first order. I'm surprised to see so many here swallowing this as truth.

[femrap]

497. Oh say this is so!

Gore/Edwards.

[balantz]

506. I'm with that!

100%!!!

[RestoreGore]

509. And people are gleaning this thread to get names to recruit people to join in pushing him

Shame on you all to continue to want to push this calamatous mess on his shoulders when he is doing such wonderful work for this world and has indicated in no way he wants it because of the tremendous task he has ahead of him already. Support him? I doubt it.

[leftrightwingnut]

512. This is the big stick that will push Obama and Clinton into an agreement.

I don't think either one of them wants it, but this threat could force it past the gag reflex.

Obama seems to be leaving the door open. He's been rather gracious to Clinton in his recent speeches in PA.

Just my tea leaves...

[FourScore]

515. Democrat plan to tempt Gore

Source: Herald Sun

DESPERATE senior Democrats are said to be actively discussing plans for Al Gore to take the presidential nomination to stop the bitterly divided party falling apart.

The former vice-president turned environmental crusader has repeatedly said he has no plans to take on the top job.

But blistering civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama shows no signs of ending, and the Republicans look like strolling to an election victory over their ashes.

Party chief Howard Dean warned both sides to unify soon to avoid handing November's presidential election to the Republicans, and a top Obama backer, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, called openly for Senator Clinton to quit.



Read more: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23455900-5012748,00.html

[bemildred]

516. McCain isn't going to stroll anywhere.

I will be surprised if Gore allows himself to be party to this nonsense.

[Trajan]

517. I will vote for Gore ...

I will vote for Clinton ...

I will vote for Obama ...

I have no fight with ANY of them: My fight is with the RW assholes who have destroyed this country ...

It is all about BIG HONKIN EGOs now ....


The ego of Clinton ...

The ego of Obama ...

The ego of Clinton supporters ...

The ego of Obama supporters ...

You guys are all wrapped up with your compulsion to project your own absolute need over all others ...

You are all righteous to an extreme fault ....

Fuck it .... Break the beer bottles, pull out the fucking knives and continue this ridiculous process ...

[defendandprotect]

519. Saw some of the interview with Lesley Stahl tonight --- painful---!!

PLEASE leave Gore alone to do what he's doing now ---

YES, Gore won 2000 -- because there was probably a much greater Democratic vote --- anti-Bush vote than we know ---

Gore also recognizes the corrupt POWER that worked for Bush -- though he denied it re the Supreme Court's being "political" when Stahl asked him about prior comments --- and he wasn't able to stand up to it at that time --- nor would he be able to do it in future.

[rpannier]

523. I'm opposed to this idea

Obama, Clinton and others raised money, got out on the campaign trail and are running (or have run). He chose not to run.

People will eventually get over their anger at either side.
It's less likely they'll get over feeling screwed by this idea.

[IronLionZion]

525. How about we just cancel the general election and give W a third term?

The Telegraph? I'll try not to speculate on the ethnicity or gender of the elitists who are pushing this idea. :eyes:

No disrespect to Al Gore of course. I wish he had run in the primaries this time. I just think anyone who wants to throw out these primary/caucus results should go bite their own ears while spilling their lattes on their laps.

[FatDave]

535. Hey, that's my ethnicity and gender you're not speculating about!

And I think this idea is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. I'm sorry if some of you won't be happy with the eventual nominee. Suck it up and vote for them anyway. It's what I've had to do in every single election since I voted for Dukakis, and that's only because I wasn't old enough yet to vote for Mondale!

Of course, now that we've got a shot at running a candidate that people are actually excited about, why don't we just fuck that up because not everybody like him.

And know this: I love Al Gore. I was pushing for him to run months ago. I wish he would have, but he chose not too.

Know this too: I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton. I never liked her DLC centrism and hawkishness, and her primary campaign has done even more to turn me off. But I would much rather hold my nose and vote for her in the general after winning a legitimate primary victory than to vote for Gore after an installation.

[bjobotts]

527. Fear mongering bullshit. Whoever we nominate will beat McBush

Polls are misleading totally. 4 more years of this crap will destroy our nation and most everyone knows this. No republican (especially Bush's clone) will win the WH this election...that is just a MSM lie. Only being set up for repukes to steal the election. Are you kidding...More wars McCain, permanent tax breaks, no health care plan, Iraq forever from this born imperialist...bullshit.

[progressoid]

529. Cheese and Fries, not this crap again.

:banghead:

[trogdor]

552. 554 replies.

Shows that as far as DUers are concerned, Al had us at "hello."

[Uncle Joe]

556. I know what you mean, I almost locked up my computer clicking on to this thread.

:)

[bdamomma]

554. that would be dream if Gore stepped in.

Gore/Obama would be great, but Edwards still remains in the shadows.

[Generator]

557. Oh my God, this is crack

for some of you people. Step away from the computer. Do not believe what you read. Gore is not the savior of America or the Democratic party. If he actually was, he would already be saving it. You wouldn't be feeding on this pipe dream where you are begging him to.

[BreweryYardRat]

583. Yes please! Gore/Clark or Gore/Edwards ASAP!

[sofa king]

590. We need some cryogenic tanks.

We'll just take the two who don't win and put them in the tanks for eight years, then thaw 'em out and let them try again next time. Repeat with the loser of that one. Twenty-four years might be just enough to fix what George W. has broken.

Seriously, I have never before seen an election year with this many qualified, electable Democratic candidates and hopefuls. It's a shame they're all occupying the same space at the same time.

[Endangered Specie]

592. At this point in time, I really like this idea...

Im getting really sick of both Hillary and Obama nowadays.