TAP article offers intriguing theory about Gore, Trippi, Clinton and '08

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11299

In past years, the moment at which Gore had to make that decision would have been rapidly approaching. When Gore decided to sit out the 2004 election, The New Republic reported that many of his associates blamed the grueling, crushing fund raising the campaign would have demanded. Not so now. Planned or not, Gore’s alliance with MoveOn and Dean’s army of online volunteers has ensured him unique access and affection among one of the richest, most easily activated cash sources in the Democratic Party. Trippi estimates that a well-timed entrance, under certain conditions, could raise Gore $50 million almost instantly, and hundreds of millions more if he won the nomination. “Remember,” he told me, “McCain in 2000 has 40,000 people sign up on the web and raises a couple million bucks. A few years later Howard Dean raises $59 million. The next <netroot darling> is going to be as exponential as Dean was to McCain.”

And it could be Gore, if he wants it. Here’s the scenario: Hillary Clinton continues rolling forward, amassing establishment support and locking down the large donors. Anti-Hillary voters prove unable to coalesce around a single champion, so Clinton is able to suck up all the oxygen but, as with most faits accomplis, attracts little genuine enthusiasm. At the same time, her hawkishness and ostentatious moderation sparks widespread disillusionment among the online activist community. Inevitably, the liberal wing of the party begins calling for a Bigfoot of its own to enter the primary, and the obvious prospect is Gore. DraftGore.com, which already exists, amplifies the drumbeat, collecting pledges and holding events. The press corps, sensing a Godzilla vs. King Kong battle, begins covering the events. As Marty Peretz, publisher of The New Republic and a longtime friend of Gore, says, “if he were to find that there was some groundswell for him, I think it would be hard to resist.”

again.

more people that favor Gore over Hilary!

money than Gore. Actually, I still fully support John Kerry, and I would vote for him over Gore anytime.

:patriot:

I can imagine Bill ending Gore's campaign with one interview or even one story, or even one remark.

Can you imagine Gore making a central policy initiative and Bill is asked what he thinks of it and says

"It's very interesting, but what I'm struck by is how we talked about the very same thing in the Oval Office, and the Vice-president was the most vociferous person arguing against this very same proposal that he's now on TV touting. Then a little aw shucks laugh. Well that's politics I guess."

I don't think Gore can beat Hillary with Bill as the secret weapon.

One reason Gore screwed himself a little in 2000 when he tried running without help from Clinton.

What if Gore has positioned himself as a new Bobby Kennedy--a little establishment, a little left--to counter Clinton's center-right, Hubert Humphrey, positioning? That's a scary thought on some levels, but let's erase the assassination factor from the equation.

point of view on many issues. I am just not going to vote for him because he criticizes Bush.

with you he's unpopular with the rest of us.

Kerry's a tough sell too. Gore has gone much further left than Kerry dares to since their respective "defeats."

For example, prior to Katrina, he has been to the left of substantially all of the Democratic leadership on climate change. He was to the left of all the other major contenders for 2008 (unless you include Feingold) on Iraq, when it mattered.

These will both be central issues in 2008, IMO, and Gore takes a back seat to none on either. Both issues now have real crossover appeal for independents and moderate Republicans and that trend is likely to continue to 2008.

profile at all.

they are.

treatment. The GOP goes after anyone who questions them. I don't see Gore receiving any more negative treatment than any other out spoken Dem.

Newsmax (according to Media Matters) has a cottage industry in smearing Gore.

which acted in tacit concert with the Repubs in 2000. That is truly unique, at least going back as far as Truman and probably much further. If you have read dailyhowler.com you are aware of that. If the MSM didn't treat Gore uniquely, can you explain why they booed him at the second Gore-Bradley debate in New Hampshire, something unprecedented in the modern era?

Anyway, I encourage you to read the Howler archive (just search Gore anytime between 1999 and 2005 and you'll get a plethora of stories about the sui generis bias in the 2000 campaign and deconstruction of how they spun it.

last Dem to win the popular vote in a Presidential election and the VP under the Clinton years which any honest American will tell you were much better than the years under *.

Also, in '08, I really believe Global Warming will be on the radar screen of many more Americans and Gore has always come across as a forward thinking person on environmental issues.

just my opinion..

gets in it's big news and reminds the Democratic party as a whole that he was cheated out of the presidency in 2000. I think his entrance would create a dramatically different race. I also think there is more enthusiasm for him than Hillary Clinton.

Feingold and Clark notwithstanding, Gore would be a solid nominee.

from the wilderness to rescue the people from the evil oaf.

The one Al Gore is a thoughtful left-minded individual who meditates on issues of vital importance, such as the environment and the Internet.

The other Al Gore is a conservative Democrat whose wife founded the PMRC in the 80's.

Another Al Gore allowed himself to be stage managed into absurdity in the 2000 election to the point where he had to kiss his wife, nominate Joe Lieberman to be his VP, and declare himself "his own man" (whose else would he be?).

That and I've heard personal stories around the area that he is a dick to the help. It may be utter bullshit, but I've heard it.

All that said, I like the Al Gore that has surfaced since the 2000 campaign. But I'm not sure I can trust him with another shot at the White House.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/06/29/gore-retreat.htm

Al Gore told top Democratic fund-raisers Saturday that the party's 2000 campaign had too many consultants and that if he runs for president again he will speak from the heart and "let it rip."

Gore said he "would spend more time speaking from the heart" on "the basic challenges of the country."

"We're at a time when very basic decisions have to be made about the direction of our country, and I don't think the American people want to see small tactical moves in one direction or another" by political candidates, he said.

(It's an older article, but he sure has done what he said he would, even if he's not campaigning.)

how people will react then.

just like you are, just like I am.

Sometimes people change, sometimes it is our perception. Ask yourself, which was the real Kerry, the athletic windsurfer or the studious Senator? It's a game the GOP plays, thanks for playing along.

who have independent viewpoints of falling for GOP talking points.

I'm still not sure who the real Kerry is. I haven't seen any pictures of him on a snowboard, a motorcycle, or windsurfing since the election.

The fact that the GOP are manipulative assholes and point out the most contradictory things about our candidates does not change the fact that they are contradictory.

Is Gore the guy who made Current, the guy who spoke up for the Constitution for MoveOn, or the guy who tried to subvert it with a music-labeling crusade?

Is he the guy who said count every vote, or the guy who said count every vote in heavily Democratic counties?

Gore did all of these things, and it matters to people.

I like him. But I don't like him unconditionally, or unquestioningly.

And anyone who does is not supporting a candidate so much as they are participating in hero worship; idolatry.

Let's review what you said.



Can't something be characterized as contradictory when in fact it isn't? To contradict is "to imply the opposite or a denial of <your actions contradict your words>".

You said



What did Gore say at the time the PMRC hearings were going on?



How does his contemporaneous opening statement at the PMRC hearings contradict anything in his MoveOn speeches? Gore said "the proposals made by those concerned about this problem do not involve a Government role of any kind whatsoever. They are not asking for any form of censorship or regulation of speech in any manner, shape, or form." How does this contradict anything contained in his MoveOn speeches or how is it contradictory to his launching his network?

So, is the GOP really pointing out contradictions about our candidates? Or are they just using character assassination against people they don't like? They attack the character of people by sticking to the general meta-narrative that they've been using for years - "Democrats don't know who they are" by exaggerating aspects of the candidate's personalities. They do the same thing for every candidate, election and issue. Democrats are either wooden people (Gore and Kerry) or they are perverts (Hart and Clinton) or they are crazy (Dean and Graham) but their guys are robust macho men who shoot wingless birds or fight with cedars.

In 2000 the GOP played up two minor themes to undercut Gore. First, they harped on integrity issues by pointing out that Gore didn't go on a helicopter ride on a particular day with James Lee Witt and by distorting and mischaracterizing his record (he pushed for funding) on the internet. The GOP capitalized on the integrity issue because of Clinton's blow job and the alleged shame Clinton brought on the office. Their second major theme was Gore was looking for an identity and the "proof" of their claim was that Gore was constantly "re-inventing" himself. In 2004 the GOP did the thing to Kerry. They used character to undercut him. Rather than saying that Kerry had integrity for his voting record the GOP used the Kerry's record against him by mischaracterizing and distorting it. Then, like Gore, they capitalized on the fact that Kerry was a well-rounded person with various interests.

Repetition is the key. And the media goes along with it. As an example:



According to the Ombudsman of the Washington Post, Gore was someone "in search of an identity". This followed exactly the strategy that the GOP used against Gore, Kerry and the same one they use every day to try to say that Democrats don't know who they are or what they would do if they were in control. The GOP scripts the play and they go forth and do their punditry. The lazy reporters merely pick up the GOP's talking points and help with the repetition. In short, the GOP likes to prey on the character of Democrats and avoid talking about policies that a particular Democrat is offering. By repeating what they say (and then defending it!) you are, IMHO, just repeating GOP talking points and doing their job for them.


You also said



Another misconception. Let's review the recount history using something accessible to everyone, CNN's November 2000 archives

Here's the timeline:

Nov. 7: Election
Nov. 8: Mandatory recount
Nov. 9: Citizens begin filing lawsuits over Palm Beach ballots (asking for recounts/revotes) http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/09/palm.beach.votes/index.html
Nov. 10: Palm Beach County election officials vote to do manual recount of all ballots http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/11/election.president/index.html
Nov. 11: Manual recount continues
Nov. 12: Bush, Gore supporters lay groundwork for legal challenges Here's a quote from this article:

"The legal fight takes an important turn Monday, when U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks will hear a request in Palm Beach from the Bush campaign to halt manual recounts in the state. As both sides await that hearing, their representatives gave some clues Sunday about their strategies." http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/12/election.president/index.html

Nov. 13: Gore legal team joins Volusia County lawsuit Gore joins a lawsuit already in progress, doesn't start one but joins one because he is letting the election work through the process. That is, he joined the suit to ensure the votes were counted in a county where a lawsuit was already filed.
Nov. 14: Recounts continue as certification deadline looms. GOP threatens recounts in other states (Iowa, Wisconsin and New Mexico)
Nov. 15: Gore makes first public statement on the recount:

(To mods/admin, this is a transcript of a speech given by Al Gore on Nov. 15 on national television. It is not an article. I have gone over the four paragraph limit)

Your assumption that I'm not familiar with these facts is flawed, though.

Just because the PMRC did not advocate for overt government censorship does not change the fact that it involved pressure from government officials on the exercise of free speech. I do not approve of that.

And while Gore said he was willing to undertake a full statewide recount, it's safe to assume that Bush was not going to take him up on this offer, and the Gore campaign was fully aware of this. So while you are correct, I think it would be more believable if Gore had actually requested a statewide hand count (IIRC, there were some legal hurdles to this, but it never hurts to ask), rather than leaving that decision to the Bush campaign, which clearly wanted no recount at all.

acknowledge that your thesis - Gore is a walking contradiction - is wrong.

First, let's review what you claimed:


Then you asked two questions to try to demonstrate how Gore was a walking contradiction:



So why don't you explain to me, based on what I managed to cobble together, as well as your own familiarity with the facts, how Gore is contradictory?

Can you explain to me how Gore, as a sitting senator, tried to subvert (defined as:1 : to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : RUIN. 2 : to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith) the United States Constitution? What overt actions did Gore take to subvert the Constitution with a music labeling campaign? Not to mention that it was Tipper who was a member of the PMRC, not Al. So how did either of them to subvert the music industry? How did labeling music subvert the United States Constitution? More specifically, how did Al Gore subvert the United States Constitution vis-a-vis the PMRC? What rights have we, as American citizens, had taken from us because of the opening statement that Gore made at the PMRC hearing? What rights have we, as American citizens, had taken from us because of the testimoney that Tipper gave at the PMRC hearing?

As for the members of the PMRC and their subversion of the constitition: Yes, we have warning labels on music just like we have a rating system for the movies and video games. How many lawsuits has the government initiated over lyrics because of the labeling? How many songs have been banned as a result of what the PMRC did? How many musicians are out of work because of PMRC? How many times have members of the PMRC threatened, intimidated or otherwise used the labeling system to subvert after the music industry? How many times has the PMRC called on the government to threaten, intimidate or otherwise subvert the music industry? When is the last time the PMRC did anything with that music industry that affected you directly or indirectly? Just because you don't approve of it doesn't mean it was a bad thing.

Oh yeah, about Al subverting the music industry, did you know he's on the Board of Directors for Apple? You know, the maker of the iPod? Yep, that Al, still trying to subvert the music industry.

Now back to the other point. Gore did ask to for a statewide recount and Bush refused. You claimed that he didn't ask for one, I showed he did and then you add your own interpretation to it. You specifically asked,



then you tell me you are familiar with the facts. If you were familiar with the facts I believe you would have have phrased your question differently, if you had bothered to even ask it.

I used direct quotes, found transcripts and other contemporaneous information to refute your statement that Gore is a contradiction. Yet, instead of talking about the substance of the information I have provided you become dismissive ("Your assumption that I'm not familiar with these facts is flawed" and "I do not approve of that" ) and then add your own interpretations that aren't based on anything other than your own recollections.

Well, if you were half as familiar with what was going on as you claim, you'd admit that your thesis (Democrats are contradictory) is flawed. More specifically, you'd admit that you misspoke when you accused Gore of trying to subvert the constitution and you misspoke when you said Gore asked for a recount only in heavily Democratic counties in Florida.

He didn't ask for recounts anywhere else. You noted that he joined existing lawsuits, which is true. He did not ask for a statewide recount, he merely joined suits in counties that stood the best chance of benefitting his campaign. So I stand by my assertion that he asked for votes to be counted in the counties that stood to benefit his total the best rather than ask for a statewide manual count.

I will allow that I misspoke when I said that Gore subverted the Constitution. My point was that I find it contradictory that a man who has by all means revolutionized media with Current TV would have used his voice to encourage a labeling campaign. The effect of age-related labeling campaigns has historically been to lessen the audience that a piece of media can reach, thus shrinking its potential market, and making that media less likely to be funded, accordingly. This discourages free speech, and we see it all the time when movies are edited to avoid an R or NC-17 rating.

Granted, Gore has helped a great deal as well on these matters. Encouraging adoption of the Internet and the development of Current have done wonders in terms of enabling free speech.

Let's take one more look at what you originally asserted:



Now you are trying (again) to add expand/change/nuance your original assertion to meet your current needs. You asked a very simple question and I found the answer. Now you're trying to make it something different. That's not being intellectually honest.

I'll do a short review, point by point of what Gore said in response to your original question:



...every voter and every vote That sounds like someone who wants to have every vote counted. Did he start of saying only in heavily Democratic districts? No. He said every voter and every vote

Then instead of going out and filing lawsuits he said


Why did he say that the recount should be completed? There is a doctrine of ripeness in the court which says that an issue must reach a point where it can be adjudicated before the court will hear the case. In this example, Florida's mandatory recount process was still underway. Bush wanted to stop the process via an injunction. Bush's purpose for seeking an injunction was to stop the recounts that were going on under the law therefore, the one way he could do it legally was to file suit to stop the process.

At the same time, because the legally mandated process was on-going, it would have been foolish for Gore to have gone to court to have the ballots counted while they were counting them. A lawsuit to get the government to do what it was doing (and required to do) under the law is not "ripe" for litigation. Now, if they had refused to do a recount, Gore could have sought a writ of mandamus to compel the election officials to do what they should do under Florida law, that is, count the votes. Beyond that, his legal options were limited to when the election was completed (i.e., recount completed and votes certified).

If Gore had intervened at an earlier time what would the basis of the suit have been? He had to wait until the process had completed (mandatory vote recount) before he could ask the court to intervene. Otherwise the court would say, "Mr. Gore you are asking for a recount before the state has 1) finished completing its mandatory recount and 2) before the vote has been certified by the appropriate officals." The court would then dismiss his case and tell him he could refile his suit after the recount had occurred. In short, Gore could not contest the election until after the election was certified. On the other hand, since Bush's objective was to stop counting the votes he could file for an injunction (whcih he did) to get the government to stop what it was doing.

So at this point in the process Gore was joining suits because he had no independent basis on which to file his own and wouldn't have until after the recount and vote certification.

Gore continued:



See, even Gore admits that legal action to challenge the result would have to occur after the recount and after the vote was certified. Instead, he asking (remember what was going on?) that the recounts be allowed to continue until all the votes, even the contested ones where citizen lawsuits were filed, were recounted under Florida law. Why would Gore say this? Because he knew that the votes - those votes where the voter's intention could be ascertained and where the machines had failed to count the ballots the first time - needed to be counted. Moreover, unlike the GOP which was determined to stop the votes being counted (i.e., letting the people decide) Gore and the Democratic Party wanted the votes counted so the people's voice could be heard. Would the outcome have been in Gore's favor? Who knows? But he was willing to let the people's voice be the determinating factor in the election. It was Bush who ran to the courts to get the outcome he wanted.

Finally Gore said, that he was prepared to include a recount of the entire state.



He asked that the legal process per Florida laws be allowed to continue, and to be fair, that the recount be done in all counties of the state.

You asked if he wanted a limited recount or if he wanted to count every vote. He asked for both a recount in heavily Democratic counties AND said he would be prepared to include a recount from the entire state. With the record, i.e. the transcript of Gore actually said, that states both the propositions that you offered, not either/or but he offered both. Can you point to me where he asked for just one and not the other as you tried to allege? Or, is it as the transcript says, he offered to do both. Why would he offer to do both? Because he realized how the country was being torn apart by the election and he wanted to get it resolved as quickly as possible, without resorting to the courts, based on what the voters wanted by getting the votes counted. He wanted the people to decide, not Bush and courts.

In short, the people filed the lawsuits and Gore joined the people because if he had filed his own lawsuit contesting the election before the results were certified it would have been bumped out of court. Bush, on the other hand, didn't join lawsuits he instituted them to benefit himself. As for where the lawsuits were filed, it was good-old-fashioned on the ground Democratic activists who filed the lawsuits in their counties which also happened to be the counties that would benefit Gore the most. Since he was precluded from filing a suit that was not yet legally ripe (and wouldn't be so until after the recount and certification) what else could he have done?

You brought up Gore and the PMRC and said he tried to subvert Constitution, now you're going off about movies being edited. How does the decision of movie people to edit their films to make them more profitable (i.e., increase the number of possible viewers at the theater) play into Gore and music labeling? I don't think someone like Eminem would agree with you. He's still able to produce whatever music he wants. I gave the analogy of the music labeling being akin to ratings for movies and video games. Then you give back ancedotal information about movies being edited, that's apples and oranges - what the movie industry (self-censorship to increase box office returns) does vs. what the music industry does (which is?????). As I recall, the biggest boycotts concerning the music industry in recent times did involve freedom of speech. It was when Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks said (something like) she was ashamed that Bush was from Texas. I also recall what Gore said at that time:



Which brings me back to my questions, that you haven't answered: What censorship in the music industry has been imposed by Gore vis-a-vis the PMRC? What musical artists has Gore, vis-a-vis the PMRC, prevented from recording their material?

You're asking who was forced to change their record when the PMRC failed to get records labeled. That's like saying President Bush isn't responsible for trying to privatize Social Security because he didn't succeed at it.

And yes, I can point out where he asked for one and not the other.



This statement, of course, was completely disingenuous, because everyone knew that Governor Bush wanted no recounts, and only wanted the certified total to reflect that he was the winner, as it did at that time.

By leaving it up to someone who clearly had no intention of agreeing to recounts, he was effectively having it both ways...saying he was willing to abide by a statewide recount, while making sure it would never happen. The irony that a statewide manual recount reportedly would have won the contest for Gore is not lost on me.

You started off saying there were several Al Gores as part of your argument. You said

In your next post you went further and said:




You keep playing some weird game where people are "either/or", "black/white", and no middle ground. I said that this was a tactic that the GOP used, to try to fragment a person's personality, their votes, their life so they can then turn around and accuse Democrats of being "liars", "flip-floppers" or "crazy". My contention is that people are multidimensional, complex beings whose actions can be characterized as contradictory when it fact it isn't. You haven't done anything to further your original contention that there are "multiple Gores" or to show that what he has said is contradictory to what he has done.

You asked several either/or questions. I went to the trouble to find links readiably accessible to you and I'm beginning to doubt that you have even taken the trouble (or courtesy) to read. So here's the situation. You make an accusation, I do research and find articles, quotes, transcripts (i.e., supporting evidence) and in return I get your myopic musings of how you choose to interpret it. You asked, did he want some votes counted or all votes counted. He wanted both. You said he tried to subvert the music industry (and the Constitution) and when I ask you how you are unable to provide any proof of what you said. You are the one who is being intellectually dishonest. You are the one who would rather repeat what is considered conventional wisdom (much of it propagated by the GOP for their benefit) rather than thinking for yourself. Or maybe you are thinking for yourself but you are just unable to think outside the box you've painted yourself into.



Instead you accused me of being obnoxious and then you try to change you have said over and over again.

playing the GOP's game.

And everytime I answer your concerns, you go back to something else I've said to take issue with it.

You haven't acknowledged/rebutted my arguments that Gore was being disingenuous by putting the burden of statewide recount on Bush or that ratings/labeling systems discourage speech.

Because you can't.

The reason I asked if you had taken the time to read the speech or at the very least look at the context in which it was given (i.e., what was going on in America) is because the country was on the verge of a crisis. There were GOP aides descending on Florida led by James Baker who claimed that the votes had been counted multiple times when they had not. The GOP and the media went for the strategy of portraying the Democrats as obstructionists who were trying to get only Democratic votes recounted. In reality it was the GOP that tried to stop the votes from being counted.

You asked which votes Gore wanted counted. I gave you the framework of what was going on at the time and tried to put the pieces in place for you rather than relying on my memory or your memory to demonstrate that he asked for both. First complete what was in progress and then, in the interest of the United States, Gore suggested recounting the entire state. Rather than saying, sure, let's get all the votes recounted, Bush went to court. Gore tried diplomacy, not ultimatums. If Gore had come out and made demands he would have been excoriated further by the press and the GOP.

I do not believe Gore was being disingenuous. His speech wasn't only for Bush but rather was an attempt to reassure America that the process does work if it is allowed to continue. Gore was trying to stop Bush from going to court so he could stop the recounts by going to court. We all know that Bush chose to go to court rather than get all the votes counted.

I'm familiar with Jim Baker's outrageous claims of "counted and counted again," Tom DeLay's staffers in the Republican 'riots,' the felon purges, the overvotes, etc.

I wasn't saying that to support the GOP interpretation of the events in question, which I utterly refute. I was saying it because I am still bitter that Gore didn't push harder for the statewide manual recount which might well have gotten him the Presidency.

And granted, he didn't get much opportunity to request it legally, but when he did comment on the possibility, he didn't ask for it, but rather said he would be willing to do it if Governor Bush preferred.

And honestly, it didn't matter what Gore did...he would have been excoriated by the press and the GOP no matter what happened, as the Daily Howler's excellent analysis of the 2000 election media coverage shows.

It's terribly depressing.

Fair enough. That explains it.

(one of which I attended and shook his hand at), and I'd like to think he'd make a great President.

I tend to speculate that Lehane and Brazile and the rest might have talked him out of pushing harder for a statewide recount, which was (imho) inarguably the right thing to do under the circumstances, even if it wasn't legally possible until there was a certified vote total.

Maybe given a second shot he would ditch the pollsters and strategists and let 'er rip, as he said.

But I feel like he had the chance, got more votes, and still didn't get to win.

More fault lies with the Republicans and the media than with Gore, true, but I tend to think some fault lies with Gore.

I might be wrong on that.

:yourock: :patriot:

he is done. It is going to be about serious security issues,Protecting our country, the Iraq war and a stable ME along with many social and health care issues. Gore is going to have to run on more that commenting on Bush's activities.

That's what Roberts and Alito are for.

outside the blogs and neither of these guys register. For that matter, Gore still has a long way to go. He couldn't win in 2000 and he had the advantage of being VP and following a popular President. He didn't win his home state and his opponent was a very inexperienced underdog. Tell me why everyone thinks he is more appealing this time around?

To address your second question: Have you seen and heard him in the past 3 years or so? He's magnificent!

But, when he speaks what does he address, other than the important issue of Global Warming.
It is still considered speculation that he won in 2000. And even if you give him that, he still should have won by more and not run such a close race. He had the major advantage and he blew it.

:patriot:

Come on; that's like saying Kerry couldn't win in 2004. Both statements are patently untrue. Gore not only won the popular vote, but according to the final after-the-selection recount, http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181">would have won Florida had they been allowed to finish the count. Would I like candidates that could win in a sweeping landslide to override any possible foul play? Sure. But I live in America.

I'd be happy to have Kerry or Gore run again. I'm proud of the job both of them did. (My favorite fantasy scenario is a Gore/Kerry ticket, and two terms each.) And I'd be happy with a number of others. I'll vote for whoever wins the primary, regardless, unless I see him eat a baby on live t.v.

Edited to add link.

:shrug:

Also, it is a big advantage not to be in office right now. He can make speeches on the subjects he chooses and fix an agenda accordingly. He has also more time to make speeches that are meaningful.

Not sure this is a disadvantage.

Who is your choice? Kerry? Hillary? Lieberman?

It depends on who is running and in what scenario. He's not my first pick in the primaries, but I would vote for him in the general election in a second.

but there are a lot of people who didn't vote for him in 2000 who happen to be crazy about him now, same people who hold Feingold in very high esteem. did you see daily kos on Feingold's numbers?

Maybe if elected, he could make Kerry Secretary of State or something!

in a Gore/Feingold administration. Then he could FINISH the job of investigating and prosecuting those Iran/Contra and BCCI felons. Of course some of them have accumulated a lot of new material, so the project should keep him busy for at least eight years.

if not president.

He can lead the nation next.

it sure would be fitting for his campaign to be launched into the stratosphere with a quick flood of internet-based donations.

I believe Al Gore has done more for democracy and empowered the American People more than any other political leader.

Kicked and recommended!

:kick:

I can't stop smiling at the OP. Usually I don't give Gore much thought as a potential candidate, but the scenario painted is very intriguing. Especially the part about his alliance with or fan-base of MoveOn folks and Deanites.

Hekate
:-)

Hey, that rhymes! He rightfully belongs in there. I wouldn't wish cleaning up that cesspool on my worst enemy, but if anyone can do it.. it would be Al. He HAS to have a very good running mate. Conventional wisdom always says to have a northerner and southerner on the ticket. Bull.. Gore and a down-home type southerner would be great (edwards?), A young up and comer?? Obama??? hmmmm....

What would it take to make Gore run? Do we have to beg??

Or Feingold or Clark. So who's on your list?

while Gore is not my first choice, he is definitively one of my first choices, if anything for speaking out on subjects that I care about.

Wesley clark is the only truly electable candidate I see in the pool of potentials.

Hillary would be a great candidate, but the right wing media juggernaut has had over 14 years to vilify her. Most of the Joe six-pack demographic has been fed the idea that she is "anti-american" and they have eaten willingly. If you listen to the radio talk shows (O'Reilly, Hannity, Michael Savage, etc.), you will hear them actually say that they think Hillary is the most dangerous person on earth. Unfortunately, if you tell the public something often enough, a large number begin to believe it. She cannot win in the general election due to this concentrated propaganda effort, which has not eased off even a little since the original smearing of her reputation in connection with health care reform, way back in 1992-3.

Lieberman - not even an option - no fire in the belly.

Dean - Same as Hillary, except they managed to destroy him based on nothing at all, and in much less time.

Gore - Just can't see it.

Wesley Clark not only has the faith and trust of our armed forces, he has no real negatives for the right wing media juggernaut to pound on. The only thing they can fault him on is his willingness to play a bit of brinksmanship with the Russian military in Yugoslavia. Even that is a positive, because it gives him something unique. He engaged in said brinksmanship in order to stop the continuing genocide of Muslims in Yugoslavia.
This gives him something no one else can claim - credit with the Muslim world. Kind of hard to go on bitching about the "Great Satan" when it's leader is personally responsible for saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
Add to this the obviously clear grasp of Geopolitics (So clearly lacking in the current administration.) and a brilliant mind with a real understanding of strategy and tactics and you have the makings of a great statesman, a man who could lead America into a new age of global cooperation.
I have to admit I am not totally comfortable with the idea of a General being President, but despite that, he is my choice for the office.
On the domestic front, he has shown a penchant for putting forth realistic solutions that have been well thought out and can actually be implemented. Contrast this to the behavior of the current administration, which throws out an ill-considered initiative periodically, then implements just enough of it to put more money in the pockets of their corporate cronies (Halliburton,etc.). He has firmly established himself as a Progressive in the political arena, embracing many of the issues that matter most to the poor and middle class such as health care and schools.

Will we back the strongest of us, or will we divide our efforts, crippling ourselves and allowing this gang of criminals which are currently in power to retain their stranglehold on America? Will we struggle to regain our freedom, or will we give it up in the name of Homeland Security?

It's up to you, but for me, Wesley Clark is the right man to lead us from the depths of depravity to which our leadership has sunk into the bright clear light of a new and honorably lived day!

Wesley Clark for President 2008!!!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Where is Clark these days, by the way?

Unfortunately, the fact that he did already win is a large part of the problem. I don't think it should be this way, but the fact that 49% believe(d)? he lost once already makes for an awfully large obstacle to overcome.

The right wing media juggernaut will make every bit of hay they can out of that and the whole "I invented the internet" misquote. These guys are so tenacious that even something as small as that (or the Dean Scream) can be leveraged to ruin a candidate and make them unelectable. The real obstacle is the constant drumbeat of HyperNeoCons over the radio and TV meganetworks.

Clark is fairly impervious to that same propaganda apparatus, at least for now. I would like it on a personal level if he were a bit more to what has been labeled the Left (but is really the center). All the same, there is no other player on the scene who can command the respect Clark does from even the true Conservatives (As distinct from the fundies and HyperNeoCons). Internationally, he stands a good chance of being able to both smooth things over with other geopolitical power blocs while at the same time fixing the notion that our bark has bite again in the minds of those who might genuinely mean us some harm.

or Defense. But personally, I think the country was robbed of a vision when the SC handed the White House to Bush in 2000. And I think the vision has become sharper since Gore has been out of office.

I'm not sure their efforts would work again. Of course, they will try. But people don't trust what they say anymore.

If Gore ran, it would be useful to remind people of his "high road" behavior in the Senate when he presided over the stealing of his own presidency. He put the nation and the rule of law (though that had been mangled by the SC) above his personal ambition. I think people would view that favorably.

I'm a huge fan of Clark's, too, so I'd be happy with either of them, as well as with a few others. Gore-Clark could work for me.

As the OP points out, Gore's entry into the race would be a huge news event, which could work out very well for him.

:hi:

I love that.

but if he cozies up with Trippi, it's all over for me.

And he's dead wrong about the fundraising. Internet markets only grow that exponentially in the first leap, which has been done in politics. After that, it's much slower and more along the lines of general internet growth. There won't be another ten-fold jump in online donations.

To be honest, I haven't been following him closely over the past several years...aside from a few speeches every now and then, is he still involved? And how is Tipper doing? I can't imagine he would go through the grueling process of campaigning if she wasn't feeling 100%.

Are you kidding? There's already "some"! Sheesh!
Gore all the way.....Edwards as vice and Clarke as defense secretary.
Let's go.

Anyone who supported in a major way and/or voted for the Iraq war in Congress will
be totally unacceptable by 2008. Now, I worked for Kerry so don't peg me as
sanctimonious (for this anyway;). It's just a fact. It's so ugly and such a failure
there will be massive guilt by association.

GORE'S THE ONE. NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

People are finally sick of Iraq.

:evilgrin:

One IMHO Hillary would lose a lot of the "locked up Big Donors" if Gore enters the race.

Two, the day he is serious I have $1,000 ready to give him. :bounce: :bounce:

If he decided to run again, there'd be no contest! I wish he would just do it already...

But the most pragmatic thing is probably to wait. Peaking too early could be fatal, as it was, perhaps, for Dean.

I wouldn't expect any formal announcement before summer of 2007 and maybe later. Jack Kennedy didn't enter the race until January of 1960 (New Hampshire).

I'm just so impatient! ;-)

I would contribute $$$ to the Gore campaign.

We don't need a "Will he or Won't he?" guessing game at this point.

Goere shouild decide NOW whether he has the fire in his belly for 08 or not. If he does, then he should enter the ring now, and try to build a coalition of lefties and anti-Hillry moderates enough in advance to give some shape to the campaigns.

That would also provide enough time to have a real competition to determine if Gore is new nd improved enough over 2000 to actually have a shot at the White House.

If, on the otehr hand, he doesn;t have the fire in his belly, he should make that clear, so that the Big Question doesn't suck all of the air out of the room from other Non-Hillary candidates.

.....:hi: :hug: however my President gets in the WH is fine with me. :toast: :grouphug: :loveya: :bounce: :yourock: :headbang:

edited for spelling