Why *exactly* did Gore say he was dropping out?

Thanks.

I believe he didn't enter the race because it would have taken the country back to the most divisive time since the civil war - much more chance for chaos and violence even than there was in 2000. Time for a new voice to lead the charge. I only hope that he keeps coming out of the shadows and speaks his mind. Neither he, nor Clinton, are using their opportunities to assist the current candidates. I personally believe that early endorsements would be a good thing - this party needs all the focus and energy it can muster in a unified battle to oust the pretender.

I like your user name :kick:

I agree, they should be using their political clout, not let it sit on the shelf. I'm sure there's some kind of strategy here, but I don't like it. Mayhap BC is saving his endorsement for Al. That would certainly be a shocker. Of course, this wouldn't happen if there was a clear frontrunner.

:hi:

Al Gore: I would Never Start This War
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=21239

Al Gore has never been a supporter of Iraq war
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3451987&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue

:hi: Second, I would love an "old" voice to lead the charge! I think Al Gore would have been a great President! I am sorry he "decided" to not run in '04! I have to wonder what made him change his mind, because I truly believe he was headed in that direction!

Because the DLC will work against a Gore victory. Gore was too liberal for the Republican Democratic sell outs, at the DLC. Gore won in 2000 out of of pure luck. He cannot win in 2004. Perhaps in 2008 Gore could win. The DLC hates liberals more then Republicans. The DLC including Clinton fully expected Gore to loose which he did not so they stole the election and selected Bush as Resident.

N/T

Even if he doesn't run in 2008, the fact that he did win 2000 and had the chance to do so again in 2004 undermines the chimp's legacy and that is good enough for me.

the chimp's legacy by NOT RUNNING? I see.

those answers sound like opinions.
Again:
Why *EXACTLY* did GORE SAY he was dropping out
or not entering the race?
Did Gore himself say he was not running
because the DLC wasnt going to back him??

he didn't want to put his family through that again!

The corporate media is not for Gore. the whore media is for the little dunce g.bush.

He did NOT mention family as a reason. He did in 1992 when he dropped out (to be later picked by Clinton as VP) but he has NOT mentioned family as a reason - only party and country.

BECAUSE it's not a personal reason he is relating, but a strategical reason, there is room for disagreement, even among his friends and supporters. Hence, Draft Gore exists.

From http://www.draftgore.com/faq.htm

Has Al Gore given any indication that he would accept a draft?

No. But he said, quote "I personally have the desire and the energy to run."

Then why isn't he running?

When asked this question on 60 Minutes last December, he said, quote; "While I have the energy and drive to go out there and do it again, I think that there are a lot of people within the Democratic Party who felt exhausted by that."

This is the same Democratic Party that for two years has failed to act as a true loyal opposition, giving Bush a blank check to implement many of his policies that have proven to be devastating to our country and the world.

And they're telling us they have a better candidate in 2004 than Al Gore?

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5767082&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

"Karenna Gore Schiff addressed the Erie County Democratic Party dinner Friday night, after speaking at a charity event in Bucks County.

Schiff said she won't say which way her father is leaning, but she hopes he runs again."

"While I have the energy and drive to go out there and do it again, I think that there are a lot of people within the Democratic Party who felt exhausted by that."

By "that" I take it he means
he didnt want to further exhaust Democrats who had
been exhausted by the 2000 election--that Democrats
would not be able to get energized behind
another Gore run.

What has changed since December (assuming that
he IS considering a run after all)? If I were
him, I cd come up with some reasons to drop in,
but I just dont see how he would avoid the
perception that he's coming back because BushCo's
weaknesses have been exposed AND that other candidates
have re-energized the Democratic Party. Then again,
maybe that perception would prove insignificant &
short-lived if he did drop in.

It could be precisely because other candidates have NOT "re-energized" the party, at least in any constructive way.

The field/crop of candidates are proving their lack of mettle.

He would re-enter TO unify and re-energize the party.

It's still all academic anyways.

re-energizing going on around here, eh? OK.

So if he came back in saying he wanted to
"unify & re-energize the party," does that
mean that the real reason he dropped out was
because the party looked unified and energized
without him in December, but since then it has
come apart & lost its energy?

He dropped out to give others a chance. they have failed miserably.

Where undecideds were less than 10% typically at this point in other elections, many polls peg undecided over 30%.

It has come apart, and while there is energy, it isn't very positive nor unusually potent.

Leaving the field to tear each other apart will leave a weak candidate vs. Bush.

Of course, I'm just coming up with a potential argument.

he said he was dropping out because though he was ready willing and able to run and his family was encouraging him others in the Democratic party were not.

"Because I have run for president twice before and because a race this time around will focus on a Bush-Gore rematch, I felt that the focus on that race would inevitably have been more on the past than it should've been when all races should be focused on the future,'' Gore said Monday.

-snip-

The news was so surprising because Gore had been everywhere in recent weeks – promoting his books, making speeches, even appearing on "Saturday Night Live." But book sales were poor and so was Gore's ability to raise big bucks from political backers – maybe somber indications of what was to come if Gore had thrown his hat in the ring.

-snip-

A year ago, Gore accepted the job of vice chairman of Metropolitan West Financial, a Los Angeles-based financial services holding company. He has been juggling that job with his duties as college professor, speaker and author.

Associates have said Gore was getting more comfortable with the idea of life as a private citizen. He made an appearance on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" this weekend that might have been considered risky were he seeking the presidency.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/15/politics/main533080.shtml

"Because I have run for president twice before and because a race this time around will focus on a Bush-Gore rematch, I felt that the focus on that race would inevitably have been more on the past than it should've been when all races should be focused on the future," Gore said Monday.

Thank you, my friend. This is also an interesting bit:

"It wasn't one thing," said the former vice president Monday. "It was a slow dawning on me that this was the right thing for a whole bunch of reasons."

My first reaction is it just doesnt seem a very strong
case for dropping out.
The guy's got every right to be as vague as he wants
in dropping out, but it just seems weak for a guy who
won the frigging election in the first place. Because
it would focus on the past? What election doesnt focus
on the past as well as the future? And "a whole bunch
of reasons"???

A number of people have said he dropped out because
the DLC wdnt back him. That dont seem much stronger.

My next question is--IF he is truly considering
entering the race after all--what has changed since
his statement? IF the main reason was that he didnt
want to put the nation & himself through a re-hashing
of the past, of the 2000 election, certainly nothing
has changed on that front, has it?

He's being lobbied by major people to run, whereas in December he was lobbied NOT to run.

He would be coming back in a more powerful position than had he declared then, since he'd be "saving" the party it's divisiveness.

Or at least it could be argued as such.

"He's being lobbied by major people to run, whereas in December he was lobbied NOT to run."

WHO lobbied him not to run, and WHO is lobbying
him to run now? Do we know or are we guessing?

Although they could be categorized as "former officials from the Office of the Vice President" and "former advisors of the Vice President".

I don't mean low level, either. I mean top dogs.

That said, he was lobbied in part by Lieberman supporters (a), political strategists (b), and party officials (c).

They argued that his candidacy would dwell on 2000 in the media, would be a negative effect and too divisive for the country.

I personally do not have the "drop out" sources available where I am but others within our PAC do.

We know. I personally landed another "major person" who wants Al to run as well over the weekend.

I'm sorry but sources are sources. We'll have an FEC filing at the end of the month with contributors for the first half of the year. Maybe there'll be someone interesting in there :)

why would they not say who they are,
those urging him to run? Why the secrecy?

They are loyal to their former boss and want to try to change his mind without publicly contradicting him.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

The intent and ferocity of starting and pursuing this thread would suggest so.

joke, a bad one.
"pro-Lieberman"?
Get real.
"Ferocity"?
What question have I asked that was not civil?
Many people have responded with what I see as civility,
including Gore people who do not seem to have taken offence.