Skip to main content

To those who have held out hope, it just ain't gonna happen.

Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000 election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.

"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.

Would Gore be a great addition to the race? Undoubtedly. I might even get excited about 2008 as a result. Will it happen? Nope.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:43 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Gore (3.71)
    is a good man. Would have been a great President.

    "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".

    by ParaHammer on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:40:33 PM PDT

    •  There goes our country and our party--a shame (3.50)
      Please reconsider, Gore. We desperately need you.
      •  Gore has not said he won't run (3.90)
        This is the standard answer candidates say years before the election. Remember Dubya saying he wasn't going to run in 1998? Kos should change title of this post.
        •  Thank u-that's right! title sucks, not true (4.00)
          We care if he runs, it's too depressing to even contemplate him not running, very upsetting. Thank you for some levity. Gore is our hope and am fightin back tears. sorry folks.
        •  actually (4.00)
          Those comments sure sound like he's mulling a run to me.  I'm surprised Kos reads this so unambiguously, politicians always give non-answers to such questions this far out from an election.
        •  That's the way I read it as well (4.00)
          He said he has no plans or expectations.  The author of the article used the phrase "no intention" of ever running again.  
        •  yup - Sorry kos... (4.00)
          You are still stuck with us griping at you for not including Gore in your next Straw poll.

          I still intend to vote "other" for Gore until one of the other "candidates" gives me a reason to vote for them...

          I think I MAY NEED A BATHroom break?

          by marchmoon on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:04:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Kos, you're wrong! (none)
          It's a strategy, take it from me.

          You always want what you can't have.  You really want what you can't have.

          Mark my words. He'll run, but we'll have to really, really beg him.

          http://www.epluribusmedia.org/donate.htm

          by nyceve on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:23:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just like Jeb Bush has said he won't run. (none)
          It's not in either of their interests to even suggest it until much, much later.

          I'm still holding out for Gore, he's so much better than any of the DLC standard-bearers to date (Hillary, Biden, Bayh, Kerry).

          Only Warner, Clark and Feingold stand a chance for me.

          The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. Somerset Maugham

          by verasoie on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:39:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Then, what's this say? (none)
          "I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again."

          Don't get me wrong; I have the utmost respect for Gore, more than Big Willy even. I want Gore restored to the Presidency from exile. But how does "no plans and no expectations" turn into "maybe I'll run"?  It looks to me like Gore has definitively said he won't run.  Does he need to say, "I won't run" for people to believe he won't run?  I wish he would, but wishin don't make it so - and the sliming began when he started making speeches a year or so ago, and it's being repeated now: he's on the verge of dangerous, disturbed, wild-eyed, out for revenge, hate-filled like all the Democrats (why didn't we use that one on them?), thoroughly out of the mainstream.  And "a recent poll" showed Gore at the bottom of the "trustability" issue.  Yes, clearly America can't afford to take a chance on this Radical!

          •  Think of it this way... (none)
            "I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being the centerfielder for the New York Yankees."

            But... if they offered me the job and a crapload of money, I sure would do it.  

            Seems this is short of "never" or "definitely rule out."

            IMHO, I think of it as more of a "draft me and I'll do it" message.  

          •  Well (none)
            "I have no plans and no expectations" translates to "When other people plan my run for me it will be unexpected" or "unexpectedly I will develop plans down the road." Saying "I have no plans and no expectations" does not mean, "I will NEVER have any plans or expectations of being a candidate EVER AGAIN for the whole rest of my life"

            You just weren't reading it properly. ;)
            (That was a joke, not being mean, for you dense ppl out there ....)</disclaimer>

            the world would be a better place if everybody biked.

            by IAblue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:04:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What's good for the goose is good for the gander! (none)
            The same way "I don't have any intentions or plans for running" gets interpreted as a possible candidacy for Hillary Clinton.

            http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/hillary/

        •  I hope and pray you are right! (none)

          The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

          by TXsharon on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:47:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gore is not Bush (none)
          He is not the standard retail politician, not this dumbed-down generations' idea of a dynamic, electrifying personality, which is one of two things that cost him the election. (The other being Monica)

          If he's says he's not running, I'm (sadly) taking
          him at his word.

          "Stop comparing Bush to Hitler. Hitler was a decorated war veteran who saw front line combat." - Bill Maher

          by Jank2112 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:01:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  things that cost Gore the election (none)
            1. The Supreme Court
            2. James Baker and the GOP establishment
            3. The "clowning" media (Bob Somerby's characterization)
            4. Gore's inability to decide who he was and project it
            5. Ralph Nader's idiot run
            6. Gore's relatively awful debate performance (how bad do you have to be not to cream Bush decisively as Kerry did?)
            7. Gore's alleged refusal to accept Clinton's help
            8. Gore's verbal pratfalls that allowed the clowning media an easy ride in deriding him

            Monica was not a factor. Look at Clinton's poll numbers during the worst of Monicagate - almost double what W's are now. And people did understand that Gore had nothing to do with Monica.

            Gore got election handed to him on a silver platter. As Naderites have long contended, he does share a large part of the responsibility for the election being close enough to steal.

      •  Gore hasn't ruled out a run! (4.00)
        The other part of that interview  is this:


        Gore, who now runs a cable TV channel and is the chairman of an investment company, did not completely shut the door to future political endeavors.

        "I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," Gore said.


        I have posted a diary titled "Al Gore sends mixed signals about a run". Please visit it for extended coverage, continued discussion, and a poll, and RECOMMEND that diary to get it on the REC list!

        thanks.

        •  Kos, (4.00)
          call me what you will, but one way or another, we, the scores of loyal Gore supporters, intend to get Gore inaugurated as POTUS in 2009, and as Howard Dean would say, WE WILL!

          :)

          Gore is our contry's, and out planet's best hope!

          •  yeah, go baby go! (4.00)
            Gore 2008! The Real Deal!
            •  Dug NeuvoLiberal diary on Gore-very cool (none)
                •  Didn't do your job,,,, (none)
                  very well in 2004.  

                  He said he's not running, I'll take him at his word.  My vote goes to Feingold until HE says he's not running.  

                  Seems to me we needed Al in 2004.  I cried when he said no, but I'm over it, and I'm over him.  Love the man, but he didn't cowboy up when we needed him to.

                  "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine Pay attention Georgie - 1950+ dead Americans, 100,000+ dead Iraqis, all on your head. WWJS?

                  by Miss Blue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:37:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He said he wasn't running in 2004... (none)
                    So why weren't you all out here begging him then before Bush got his foot in the door again? Why did you all go with Kerry, the Party choice, if Gore is the right man to you all now? Wasn't he then? He sure was for me. And I'm not asking that to be be antagonistic, I really want to know.

                    And I also wrote a diary on this news today as well, but it seems no one wants to discuss what this man is actually doing NOW for the American people and the accomplishments and contributions he can make for a better world with or without the word President before his name. In all the fuss about this story today, I didn't see ONE comment about the economic summit he was speaking at in Sweden, nor what he talked about. I didn't even see that reported on. I didn't even see anything discussed in depth about the substance of his climate change speech in Bejing this week.

                    So really, just why do some of you really want this man to run in a corrupted, status quo, good ole boy system you claim to despise? Do you really think he would be allowed to say all he has been saying as a candidate now? And if you aren't even interested enough to discuss the substance of what he is saying and doing for this world now, why should he even care to run? Anyone who writes a diary here about CURRENT falls into the abyss. Anyone who writes about his speeches gets maybe a few comments. So again, is it support for the man , or just your chance to get political revenge that guides your support? I would really like to know.

                    "No matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shake the soul and let the glory out." Al Gore

                    by Patriot for Al Gore on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:51:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  It just hit me! (4.00)
            Breaking...breaking...Kos from DailyKos endorses Gore!

            ....or did I miss something?

            If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger Gore/Clark 2008

            by mattes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:36:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Damn straight! (none)
            I believe if enough of us let him know we want him, he will run. Keep voting in those polls! Like Obi Wan Kenobi, he is our only hope!

            "The unholy matrimony of George Bush and the Religious Right threatens the rights of all Americans. It's time for a divorce." - Rev. Barry Lynn

            by lezlie on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:26:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (none)
        If Gore really is the last hope for the Dems and America, we're in much bigger trouble than I thought.  Do you really find Richardson, Clark, Warner, Fiengold, etc. so awful?

        Honestly, I love the guy now.  But as many here have already remarked, he's only able to be as forthright as he is now because he's not running for any kind of office.  

        This may not be the most popular position here, but I'm hoping for a candidate in 2008 that hasn't already lost to Bush.  Bring in some fresh faces, our bench is full of good candidates.

        •  asdf (4.00)
          ...Do you really find Richardson, Clark, Warner, Fiengold, etc. so awful?

          Yes, a little, Yes, and No

          ...I'm hoping for a candidate in 2008 that hasn't already lost to Bush.

          I don't think this disqualifies Al Gore :)

          Fake ranch.  Fake Texas accent.  Fake turkey.  See a pattern here?

          by freedom fried on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:36:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (4.00)

          > Do you really find Richardson, Clark, Warner, Fiengold, etc. so awful?

          Richardson:  Anti-Manual Recount in 2004, Pro-Iraq invasion, mushy-middle-of-the-road Liebermanite.  Not good.

          Clark:  Solid, but a few unknowns and some contradictory statements about Iraq.

          Warner: Not sure of all his positions, probably a good guy -- but not well known and with Gore you have an Environment expert, a Foreign-Policy expert, an Internet/Communications expert, a hands-on guy as well as a "big-picture" guy.

          Feingold:  Good VP choice.  I don't think he is a forceful or aggressive enough guy to pull off the Presidency.

          •  Good Veep (none)
            I've never understood the "He'd make a good veep, but he couldn't handle the presidency" line.

            Leaving aside the "Heart Beat Away From The Presidency" aspect, which is nevertheless important, don't we want to nominate someone who will get the top of the ticket re-elected and will be a strong candidate eight years down the road?

        •  I agree with you (none)
          The Gore nostalgia I just don't get. He has run three awful campaigns, he barely won his debates with Bush, he seems tone-deaf and out of touch much of the time.

          On the other hand, he's given some speeches recently that, had they come from an unknown, would have easily drawn me into his camp.

          Sorry, the guy should have been president, but I don't think he's the best, and certainly not the brightest, we can come up with now.

      •  We just have to (none)
        make him an offer he can't refuse Corleone style.  Can't say as I really blame him much for not wanting to clean up after Georgie though...It is going to be a sucktacular job.
    •  He WAS elected President (none)
      but lost in the SCOTUS in the lamest of fashions.  People, we must back a candidate who campaigns to win, unlike the last two efforts of playing NOT TO LOSE.  
      •  Amen (none)

        --we need a fighter...

        The barrier to entry to the Presidency is the effing  fight that it takes to get there.  That barrier cannot be intellectualized, finessed or otherwise skipped.  It must be dealt with directly thru a combo of ambition, shrewd management, ruthless intelligence and BIG ONES.  Ya gotta have fire in the belly and everyone around you has to have fire in the belly.

        I admire Gore and will give him a shot to show his stuff.  I also will give Clark, Dean and anyone else a chance.  But the criteria are what they are and only those with the right stuff can play.

        Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

        by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:45:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fire in the belly (none)
          I think Gore showed real statesmanship in his concession speech, and real fight in his subsequent speeches on the environment, but also in the diary published so recently.

          In fact, so much fight that this Eagle Scout can be portrayed as unbalanced.  I like his jabs, but I too want to see the full 10 rounds.  I have the feeling that he could do it now and unlike Bush, could actually learn from his mistakes.

          And if you can parse it so that a little fuzziness in a statement can = I'm not running wink wink nudge nudge, well, we'll see.  There is a Gore forum still.  One might drop by and see what's what.

    •  Gore For President (4.00)
      Good for Al Gore saying that if he were President we wouldn't invade a country that didn't attack us, or give tax breaks to rich and tax the poor.
      Keep it up,, most American's regret not electing Gore and Kerry. And will really regret it when their heating bills are $1700 a month. And no one to stick up for them.
      AL GORE AMERICA NEEDS YOU AS PRESIDENT!!!
    •  Unfortunately (none)
      I think Kos may have missed the boat on this one . . .

      GORE/CLARK - 08 and they wil win

    •  Gore is not running again? (none)
      Give me a break.  Way too soon to tell.
    •  Is there some way to contact Gore (none)
      And BEG him to run?

      He really is the only person I'd consider voting for in the Dem party at this point. The rest of them are whores and thieves.

      A Gore/Obama ticket would go a LONG way to resucitating the (ersatz) Republican Party.

      In the meantime, y'all should check out John Dean's Worse Than Watergate book to truly understand what the Dems are up against in '08. It's essential reading for political junkies, and is the best, most thoroughly-researched and least biased bio-commentary I've read so far on the Bush WH. Truly an insider view - as Dean was involved in the Nixon WH and still maintains an extensive Repub Rolodex.  

      Best,
      Nails

    •  Ummm.... (none)
      Gore was DLC.
    •  this news really really REALLY bums me out..... (none)
      dammit--
    •  Actually (none)
      I think Gore is thanking his lucky stars that he didn't get to be president.  Would you want 9/11 on your watch?

      Too bad our country has had to face the last 5 years with the stupiest president since the great depression at the helm.  I'd rather have Clinton back, personally.

      Or perhaps Gore realized what many great leaders in our country have realized: being president is in fact, not the greatest job in the world.  It's a job for lackeys and slackers.  The real power comes from  a less public, less scrutinized, stealthy position like CEO of a company like Haliburton, GE, or Micrsoft.  Not to mention, a position like that lasts more than 8 years and your job prospects are a lot better than just hitting the lecture circuit.

      I read in both Lee Iacocca's and Jack Welch's biographies that they would never run for president.  I think there might be some wisdom to that concept.

      •  9/11 would have been prevented under a (none)
        Gore administration.

        Nawaq Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Midhar would have been "shaken out" during the threat period (summer of 2001), just like the associates of Ahmed Ressam were "shaken out" of the CIA and the FBI in 1999 Dec. It wouldn't have been rocket science.

        For Gore "shaking the trees" would have been routine procedure.

  •  A Real Shame (none)
    Gore ran well last time, he would win in 2008 without a Ralph Nader-type spoiler.  I've liked him more and more as he's left the limelight.  He is far better than Kerry, I wish him the best.

    Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values--they go hand in hand. - Bill Clinton

    by skidrow on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:41:21 PM PDT

    •  2008 Spolier (none)
      Count on a left-wing alternative candidate running in 2008 (no matter who wins the Democratic primary).

      Katrina Changed Everything - A New Era Demands New Policies

      by ROGNM on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:49:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Better than Kerry? (4.00)
      How? Honestly, I'm interested. Do you mean as a candidate, on the issues, as a speaker? What?

      I'd rate them both the same as speakers. Kerry actually got around to talking about real issues in his debates. Kerry might not have killed the Swift Boat Liars, but Gore couldn't even kill a simple 'I invented the internet' meme.

      I was underwhelmed by both times after the elections. Gore disappeared, and Kerry just became another Senator, instead of a big name Democratic Powerhouse.

      Better than Kerry? How? Honestly, I'm interested.

      •  post 2000 (none)
        the post 2000 Gore sounds like he's channeling  Dean. and he's way more in line with the Liberal/Progressive issues of the party.

        When I hear the phrase "culture of life" I want to reach for my gun.

        by PoliMorf on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:54:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But do you think he would stay that way? (4.00)
          I think the reason he is that way is that he is out of politics.  If he went back, I fear all the equivocating would start again -- all the things that drove people nuts about Gore, the sing-songy stilted speaking style, the attempts to re-make himself, etc.

          Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Al Gore.  I did even before, even when I could see what people didn't like about him.  But I think the thing that makes him so attractive right now is how he's speaking out for what he really believes in, and I think the reason he feels free to do that is he's NOT running for anything (alas!).

      •  Well, I think Kerry would be better than Gore (none)
        but it's a moot point.  ANY of our top Dems would be better for all of us.
      •  good points (none)
        Kerry was excellent in the debates, far superior to Gore's performance. If not for the slow response on attacks, I would have rated Kerry higher as a candidate. It is post 2000 though that Gore has shined by showing a lot of emotion and fire.

        Tom Coburn: There is No crying in Baseball or SCOTUS Hearings. Your brain has been recalled.

        by wishingwell on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:37:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Al Gore Shows Passion (4.00)
        They are both rather stiff, but Gore was far more likable and didn't come off as a flip-flop (I don't think Kerry is, but he appears very indecisive).  Gore as a candidate at least sometimes shows a sense of humor, unlike Kerry, from whom i cannot remember a single memorable quip.  Both men are smart enough to be president, but Gore actually speaks to people; Kerry did as well as he did because of the powerful anti-Bush vote, he couldn't improve on it.  John Kerry was a horrible candidate, I thought Al Gore was pretty good and is even better now since he has been speaking out with passion.

        Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values--they go hand in hand. - Bill Clinton

        by skidrow on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:40:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A comparison (4.00)
        Gore is younger, a southerner, more religious. Kerry is no less boring or "wooden", genuinely more calculative and mechanic, more closed personality. Has Kerry more sense of humor?

        Gore relied too much on advisors in 2000, did not dare to decide himself the tactics, underestimated ferocity of Bushies' methods, suffered terrible media bias. But Kerry did not learn much from that for 2004, made similar mistakes, was just as inaggressive. Who is learning better?

        Gore had more consistent and fitting positions on Iraq. He has more active carrier in the Senate. Gore can talk about values better. Kerry looked very electable during primaries, but just as with Dukakis that magic dissapeared when mattered most.

        In the debates, Kerry looked more successful, but he did not take much advantage from that. Even in the first debate, the "global test" was just as influential as Bush's haplessness. Kerry was well prepared, but unable to improvise or notice killer opportunities. He did not demonstrate that he can seize upon unexpected circumstances. Regarding Gore, we have some "terrible" memories thanks to very fat media spin. But in real time, no pundit noticed a problem with sighings, for example. Bush's fat lies were ignored or "balanced" with trivial "exaggerations" from Gore. Gore's substance was very good, but the media (and even the moderator) did their best to play it down. Wouldn't Gore fight the media spin better next time?

        Last but not least, Tipper Gore is more respectable than Teresa Heinz Kerry.

        •  I will take boring or wooden or any reasonable Dem (none)
          Over the current administration.  My thought is that Dems need to figure out who has the best shot, not tear each other down, and take it all the way to POTUS, UNITED to get the White House back, and Congress.  No fighting.  Just pick decent Dems that have some political savvy and intelligence, don't split their vote by infighting.  Don't give the other side ammunition against our candidates.  The future of the US is at stake.
          •  Kerry had the unity benefit (none)
            right from Iowa & NH. That was not enough.

            A decent discussion and competition should not be avoided, I think. Candidates have to show more than electability in a couple of primaries.

    •  Totally agree (4.00)
      Is there something going on though? Why did Dean and Gore, our 2 best candidates, take themselves out of '08? I'm still hoping we get Dean to run and I would be just as happy if Gore was our candidate. He has been a much better liberal since he's been outta politics.
  •  Schweitzer (none)

    I think Schweitzer is running.  He can't just come right out and say it- he'd look, in his words, "kooky".

    But he can up his visibility.  A DRAFT gets started, like with Clark.

    If he enters IA, NH and the Western early caucus state in 1st - 3rd place, he's in.  

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:41:33 PM PDT

  •  ask after 2006 (4.00)
    Ask him again after the Dems win back Congress in 2006.

    When I hear the phrase "culture of life" I want to reach for my gun.

    by PoliMorf on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:41:49 PM PDT

    •  i agree i cannot accept gore not running (none)
      we need to definitely ask him again -- maybe he'll reconsider. afterall, mccain also said never run 4 prez again...

      i'm still unwaivering in my support for GORE 2008!

      •  yup (4.00)
        my point is its still 2005. Gore is still obviously interested in politics( note all the anti Bush speeches he makes). but he's been burned once.

        a Dem victory in 2006 would change the landscape and indicate that country may now be ready for Pres. Gore.

        When I hear the phrase "culture of life" I want to reach for my gun.

        by PoliMorf on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:01:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Think: NIXON (4.00)

          Remember what Nixon's career looked like after he got trounced in the California election after the 1960 election.  I don't know when he put out feelers for the 1968 run.  After 1964, conservatism looked pretty dead as a political movement - did Nixon bury his head in the sand?  

          I'd love the hear comparisons.  

          "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

          by quaderni on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:37:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  1962, actually (4.00)
            Nixon was beaten in the CA governor's election in `62. In 60, he lost the presidential election (by a slimmer margin than the one with which Al Gore beat Bush in `00, FYI). His parting speech included the famous jab at the press, whom he was convinced hated him: "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore."

            IIRC, Nixon was recruited by Republicans who thought Nelson Rockefeller, the inititial frontrunner for the nomination, was too liberal. And IIRC, he was publicly very coy about whether he'd run again or not right up until maybe shortly before primary season started. (Again, my memory's a little cloudy about this, but I think that's how it was.)

            YOu're right - conservatism was rather weak, if not exactly dead, after `64, and Nixon didn't really win in `68 because of any conservative resurgence. He won largely because the Democratic Party all but imploded from the Viet Nam War, especially after RFK was assassinated. (I'm convinced RFK would have trounced Nixon.)

            (There's also the matter of Nixon's people, including Henry Kissinger, "allegedly" sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks. I say "allegedly" because it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that it happened, but it hasn't been "proven" as of yet. Had they not done this, and the peace talks had successfully ended the war, Humphrey almost surely would have won, and tens of thousands of American soldiers (and an untold number of Vietnamese people) wouldn't have been killed. For this reason alone, Kissinger has a special place in hell all picked out for him. He can bunk with Nixon and Agnew.)

            ...Freedom is on the march. Straight to the gas chamber. this is infidelica...

            by snookybeh on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:01:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'd worked so hard for 'Gene McCarthy... (4.00)
              that spring and summer, and with my fourteen year old's naïveté, thought that following the murder in L.A., that he (McCarthy), would recieve RFK's delegates as a matter of course since he was the only other candidate at the time who had spoken out against the war, when Humphrey got the nomination it was a most painful lesson about politics and political parties.

              "We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." Abigail Adams, 1774

              by greeseyparrot on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:54:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (4.00)
        Maybe he doesn't want the burden of fixing the godawful, unholy mess that Bush will leave behind for his successor.

        Can you imagine the horror that person will have to face?

        Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

        by saucy monkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:18:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There's always the possibility of a Draft (none)
        Always, always, always.

        I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks in Sozadee CA.

        by The Messenger on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:14:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't accept this. (4.00)
    I can't accept this.

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Rate me, rate me my friend

    by missreporter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:42:23 PM PDT

    •  Intend...intend.... (4.00)
      key word here....
      ...after 2006, do you really think he would say no to Dean???

      Cheney's options --$241,498 a year ago -- now valued at more than $8 million! Gore/Clark 2008

      by mattes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:45:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  who knows? (none)
        He says he has no plans and no expectations of EVER being a candidate...i would like to hold out hope...but I'm already holding out hope that the VP will be indicted, so I don't have much hope to hold out right now.  

        Rate me, rate me my friend

        by missreporter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:58:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't despair:Gore hasn't completely ruled it out! (4.00)
      Here is the fuller version of Gore's interview, from this link.


      Gore: I Don't Plan to Run for President

      Wednesday October 12, 2005 6:46 PM
      AP Photo STO804
      By MATTIAS KAREN

      Associated Press Writer

      STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be ``a different country'' if he had won the 2000 election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.

      ``I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again,'' Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.

      When asked how the United States would have been different if he had become president, though, he had harsh criticism for Bush's policies.

      ``We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us,'' he said, referring to Iraq. ``We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families.''

      ``We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people,'' Gore said. ``We would be a different country.''

      Gore did not elaborate. But last year, he blamed Bush administration policies for the inmate abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

      Mike Feldman, Gore's spokesman, did not immediately comment on Gore's remark when reached by phone in Washington.

      Tracey Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called Gore's comments ``fictitious rants that border on dangerous.''

      ``To accuse Americans of participating in 'routine torture' is absurd and reveals that while Al Gore may no longer be a leader in his party, he still embodies the maniacal anger that guides Democrat leaders in Washington today,'' Schmitt wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

      Gore also reiterated his criticism that the Bush administration was too slow in responding to the crisis in New Orleans after the city's levees failed during Hurricane Katrina. He said that should have been predicted.

      ``There were specific warnings that the levees might break,'' he said. ``But for whatever reason those warnings were not acted upon in a timely way.''

      He said the United States and other countries are similarly ignoring the threats that global warning pose to the environment.

      ``My country is extremely attentive to the slightest increase in a risk from terror, and that's appropriate,'' he said. ``But why should we be so tolerant of risk where the future habitability of our planet is concerned?''

      Gore, who now runs a cable TV channel and is the chairman of an investment company, did not completely shut the door to future political endeavors.

      ``I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that,'' Gore said.

      He declined to comment on New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's possible run for the White House in 2008, but he said he believes the country is ready for a female president.

      ``Of course a woman could get elected president,'' he said. ``I am not going to make any comment on individual candidates. It's quite premature.''

      Please visit my diary Al Gore sends mixed signals about a run for extended coveragem, continued discussion, and a poll. Please RECOMMEND that diary! :)

      thanks.

  •  I have only one thing to say about this (4.00)
    :(

    HurricaneHousing.org -- Donate Housing -- Find Shelter

    by socal on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:42:42 PM PDT

  •  Thank God (2.75)
    We need new blood.

    Go Red Sox! See you next year!

    by MikeBaseball on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:42:46 PM PDT

    •  There's always Dukakis... (4.00)
      <ducks and covers>

      IOKIYAR! They believe markets and competition solve everything AND that the universe is centrally planned.

      by No One No Where on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:05:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You took the words right out of my mouth. (none)
      I am sorry but we need a candidate with some teeth.  Gore rolled over and played dead after 2000, how am I or anyone supposed to take him seriously after the debacle of the past few years.  He may have won the election, but he did too little to stake his claim.  
      I am tired of our party supplying us with wimpy candidates who are afraid of their own shadow.  Give me someone who is willing to bite back when the bastards start nipping at their heels.  
      I am happy that Gore plans to bow out, he is history and we need to move on.

      "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." Seneca the Younger

      by BritishBaron on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:47:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  well FUCK (4.00)
    sigh... wake me up in 2008 then I guess.

    What a depressing snoozefest the next Presidential election's turning out to be already.  Unless some out of left field dark horse comes around, the only candidates that seem to offer any hope are the two least experienced: Edwards and Clark.  I have very little faith that either could stand up to a coordinated push by Hillary.  Gore could have stopped her.

    Fuck fuck fuck.

    "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

    by ChicagoDem on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:42:53 PM PDT

    •  hope (none)
      Russ Feingold.
      •  Feingold... (none)
        for teh win!!111

        His voting history and ideals put the rest of the party to shame.

      •  I dunno man (none)
        I like Russ.  Seriously.  But I think he's low enough on perceived electability that most people won't get behind him as a Stop-Hillary candidate.  And I feel like that's what the primaries are going to come down to.

        People will be uncomfortable about his politics, sure, but I think they're right on.  But they'll also be upset at the fact that he's divorced (and hasn't remarried-- what was the last single President?), that he's Jewish, that he's from the North.  There are all these dumb Democratic traditions that keep people from supporting various candidates based on "electability" and Feingold trips over a lot of them.  

        So I dunno.  Maybe Feingold offers some hope.  But I'm not confident about it.

        "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

        by ChicagoDem on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:55:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know (none)
          that's kinda what they said about Clinton. Too southern, too unknown, too many skeletons.

          It's early. Too early. We'll see what happens after next year.

        •  I owuld hope we learned our lesson (none)
          Our most "electable" candidate lost to the Worst President Ever. Maybe we can stop worrying about "electability" (read: blandness) and start worrying about good policy and the ability to communicate those policies.

          he's divorced, that he's Jewish, that he's from the North

          Reagan was divorced, as was Kerry (ok, bad example) and half of america. I don't think that's really going to be an issue. adn lets face it, people who aren't going to vote for him because of that or the fact that he's a jew aren't going to vote for any Democrat. As far as being from the North, that's not such a bad thing. North east has a stigma, but Wisconsin is pretty much as midwest as you can get. We go around wearing sliced of cheese on our heads on a regular basis for gods sake.

          Donald Driver for Wisconsin - Senate 2008 (Feingold for President)

          by Groper on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:12:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Listen (none)
            I like Feingold a lot.  And, being from Chicago and living in Madison for a few years, I know that Wisconsin is quite a culturally Midwestern state.  But pretend you don't know any of that.  Pretend you're totally clueless.  Pretend your head is stuck so far up your ass that light can't reach it.  In short, pretend you're a Washington Democratic strategist.  Now do you see where you're coming from?

            I do think the divorce thing will matter BECAUSE he hasn't remarried.  I mean geez, remember all the shit Dean got for not putting Judy out on the campaign trail early and often?  As for the Jewish thing, I think that what you're saying is 100% true, but I also think that a lot of Washington Dems have a "will it play in Peoria?" mentality that severely underestimates the intelligence and tolerance of most Americans, and I think his religion will play into their decision.  Sure it's childish.  But y'know... I'm pretty damn cynical after 2004 and I think it'll mean something.

            I'm not saying these are good reasons or smart ones.  But I do honestly believe that these are the things that too many influential estabilishment Democrats look at before choosing their donations and political support.  But hey, maybe I'm wrong.  We'll see.

            "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

            by ChicagoDem on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:34:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Clearly veep (none)
              Russ will be the "Howard Dean" of 2008--and will be a perfect ticket balance for Gore, Clark or even HRC.

              I am willing to bet big money on seeing Russ Feingold take the first oath on 1/20/09.

              -8.38, -7.13   Soapblox/Chicago, for progressive Midwesterners

              by rhubarb on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:44:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Condi is single too (none)
              While I doubt the GOP would seriously nominate Condi as this admin. will have so tainted the party that whoever wins will be running AWAY from Bush- probably to his right IMHO. But if Condi were to get the nod, she being a single woman of "questionable" heterosexuality, then all the Feingold naysayers (please people, did we not learn the lessons about guessing what other people find "electable?") should kindly quit doing the GOP oppo research for them and realize that he has a good a chance as anybody- if the party as a whole decides to support them and stand up loud and clear to prevent any future Swift Boat attacks from the hate radio smearmongers and the VRWC.

              Dick should go Cheney himself in the George Bush.

              by Joe Willy on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:54:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uh right (none)
                And what are the chances of that happening?  The same people who compared Howard Dean to Osama bin Laden when we had a PERFECT chance to beat George W. Bush are going to suddenly find a conscience when it comes to Feingold, a guy who's been a MUCH bigger maverick than Dean ever was?  I don't think so.  If Feingold wins it's going to be despite the party, not because of it.

                "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

                by ChicagoDem on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:25:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Dean would have his back (none)
                  Have you forgotten that our party chair is no longer a corporate tool, but a maverick himself? In fact, the same maverick who got "Swift Boated" before it had a name?

                  Dick should go Cheney himself in the George Bush.

                  by Joe Willy on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:17:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I like to pretend (none)
              that the Dean takeover of the DNC, the current theme of reform, along with a surge of fresh blood at state and congressional levels (not to mentiobn the all too painful lessons we learned in 2004 after losing to the Worst President Ever) will help to loosen the grip that consultants and sell-outs have on the party. There is nothign wrong with Feingold. He's completely electable. He's the posterboy for the anti-culture-of-corruption party, adn Clinton showed that you can win with questionable marital history if you pound in "balanced-budgets-or-your-children-are-gonna-pay memes.

              Donald Driver for Wisconsin - Senate 2008 (Feingold for President)

              by Groper on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:17:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  If I read one more sigh (1.33)
      over Al Bore I think I'll puke.  What the hell is with dkos and Al Bore anyhow?  It says something pathetic and unreal about the brand of politics around here.  "If only..." and "Sigh" and "He looks so good in khaki".  We fall into every stereotype of wistful and cloud dwelling noodles with every fawn over the likes of these DLC prepackaged nitwits.
      Thank God he didn't win I say.

      "I'm an insect who dreamed he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over..." - Charles E. Pogue, "The Fly".

      by edsdet on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:19:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: the "new Gore" (4.00)
    Once he decided that he wouldn't run in 2004, he became a changed man: warm, funny, and a hell-raiser on the stump.

    "I don't see any more serious division in our country than we had in the Civil War and at other times."--Richard J. Daley

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:43:21 PM PDT

    •  Too bad (none)
      Too bad he didn't show more of this side of himself during the campaign.  He would have won by a landslide
      •  Landslide, you say? (none)
        Too bad he didn't show more of this side of himself during the campaign.  He would have won by a landslide.

        Just like Dean did. Oh wait...

        •  Actually (none)
          Actually, Gore has become too outspoken to be a viable candidate for the presidency. A contender for the presidency has to steer away from being controversial.
          •  Take Bush for example! >; n/t (none)
            •  Good point (none)
              Being controversial is discussing uncomfortable truths, such as unjust war and unfair detainment of foreign prisoners and torture. Those are the things that most of most America doesn't want to think about.
              •  By then (4.00)
                We may be in such a shithole that a competent, wise truth-teller could be just what the country is hungry for.

                I mean, really, look the polls. I think that Americans are starting to realize some uncomfortable truths all by themselves.

                Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

                by saucy monkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:22:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  maybe at one time, but now, no way! (none)
            the people want passion and common sense. this middle of the road and i am so skeered of telling the sheep the truth bullshit is sooooooooooooooooo over.
            •  Well (none)
              Do you think that the frothing-at-the mouth angry liberal image can still repel many voters? That was going to be the Bush attack on Dean, were he nominated for President. They already had prepared an attack with him red-faced and screaming. I am sure they would do the same for Gore.. not exactly red faced and screaming, but they would go through all his speeches and try to potray as an extremist in tow with radical leftist groups like Moveon.com.. Now, unfortunately, that attack may just work for many Americans. I think we need a candidate without a previous record, so no attacks on him can be made. Both Roberts and Miers, were nominated to the Supreme Court, because their paltry records made them hard to take to task for being conservative. If the Democrats nominate a dark horse candidate, the Repub attack machine won't be able to dig up much on him and demonize him to the general public..
  •  barring Diebold, Dems should win in 08 (none)
    The republicans have no viable candidate.  Even McCain is getting wiggy.  

    Hilary, Clark or even my favorite, Warner, can all win, especially after the fatigue of eight years of failed Bushonomics.

    Why do the facts, reality and objective truth hate America and the baby Jesus?

    by WinSmith on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:44:32 PM PDT

    •  not so fast (none)
      Don't be so quick to discount ole' Jebby the Bush.  No way will they let the PNAC dream of an enslaved world die with the shrub.
      •  i agree (none)
        none of the current crop of losers is really electable in the classic sense of Republican electability - goofy, folksy, retarded (not to insult the developmentally disabled). And none are crazy neocons to my knowledge.

        Which raises a good question: Are there any Republican neocons in Congress? Who? Just curious.

        I think it's going to be Jeb in 2008. Just my gut. If not 2008, then definitely 2012 - or god forbid, 2016.

        Rate me, rate me my friend

        by missreporter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:02:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (none)
          It's rather useful to remember that Kentucky elected Senator Bunning despite many signs that he was mentally unstable. Nowadays the Democrats even have trouble winning against incoherent candidates.. so I could imagine a goofy, folksy, "retarded" Republican being elected to the presidency.
          •  goofy, folksy, "retarded" (none)
            is what gets you elected if you're a Republican. That was my argument and I feel Jeb fits that bill.

            I wouldn't describe any of the Republican leadership as "folksy," or any of the people bandied about. Don't know much about Bunning at all except his antics toward Nov. 2. What a crazy man. He just barely hung on to that election, didn't he?

            Rate me, rate me my friend

            by missreporter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:43:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Another Bush? (4.00)
        Not in our lifetime. The current one blew it for #3. It was possible at one time, but Bush has ruined it. So did his asshole mother. With this Mormon cover story in Newsweek, I think they are prepping the country for Romney, but that's just a hunch.
        •  WIth all due respect to my compatriots... (none)

          ... we're really a fucking stupid country and we have no memory.

          There was a poll once - was this apocryphal? - that said a huge percentage of Americans voting for Bush in 2000 thought they were voting for the former president Bush and thought it was was OK for him to come back.

           

          "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

          by quaderni on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:42:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Scary! n/t (none)
          •  I believe but cannot prove (none)
            that you are referring to a pre-1998 poll intended to gauge primary support for GWB. In that case, it was entirely reasonable for Republican voters to think that the pollster was referring to a potential repeat candidacy of GHWB. IIRC, the name recognition of his father gave GWB the edge in the poll, locking him in as the establishment candidate contingent on gubernatorial reelection in 1998.
            •  You're most likely right... (none)

              ... but my memory is frayed - for some reason, 2000 does stick in my mind.  Probably old age.

              "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

              by quaderni on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:20:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  but then.... (none)
          In 2000, I never pictured another Bush ever winning the Presidency or get elected to two terms.
          I figure anything can happen.
          And there is a lot of anti Hillary sentiment out there and if she is the nominee, it will be tough for her to win even against an incompetent, crazy Republican. I know Democrats who say they will not vote for Hillary ever and that is scary. I cannot picture Hillary winning hearts and minds in some Red states that are clearly becoming pink..and almost purple like Nevada and Colorado..as if Democrats cannot win the South, that is fine. But they need to make gains in another section of the country.

          Tom Coburn: There is No crying in Baseball or SCOTUS Hearings. Your brain has been recalled.

          by wishingwell on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:45:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  romney did you say. they may dream but i (none)
          don't think so.
      •  Jeb is tainted... (none)
        ...by Terri Schiavo.

        operation rescue said that they would attempt to punish him, because he did everything that they wanted except actually break the law...

        Thanks,

        Mike

      •  I think, I hope, I wish (none)
        I believe that Jeb blew it with his handling of the Schiavo case. Most of America was appalled by his behavior.

        Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

        by saucy monkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:24:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  McCain will be too old. (none)
      That will be why he won't run.  I've said it many times before.

      Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

      by AnthonySF on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:03:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plus, his health (4.00)
        I don't know why, but every time I look at McCain I think that he's living on borrowed time. I know that's a sucky thing to say, but the dude has had melanoma recur a couple times, right?

        Bush is the Disaster President: Iraq--He Lied & People Died; Katrina--He Clowned Around While People Drowned

        by el ganador on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:25:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. (none)
          He'll be 72 on Election Day.

          Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

          by AnthonySF on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:44:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  1996 (none)
            Bob Dole was 73 on Election Day 1996.
            •  And look how well (none)
              that turned out for him -- falling down and all, and losing.

              Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

              by AnthonySF on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:58:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But then Dole (none)
                Was running against a popular incumbent. McCain will not be running against an incumbent and if the Republican corporate machine favors him, he will win the nomination but I cannot picture that. However I can picture Rudy running away with this if the powers that be in the party decide he is the candidate who can win.
                Or they may go with Romney as Governors have a good record of winning. And Romney, although , being Mormon, might actually be able to sway Evangelical votes if he works at convincing them Mormons are not a cult. I know Evangelicals do not view Mormons as good Christians so he will have some work to do to convince them. But there are other Repubs, who if they get the support from the Dobsonites or more so Big Business, will emerge.

                I have no idea who can beat Hillary in the primaries but I hope someone emerges. As her candidacy bothers me a great deal. I think there is still too much anti Clinton sentiment and she would be better off running later on when that dies down. Some believe 08 that it will die down but there are some swing voters and even Dems who do not like her at all.

                Tom Coburn: There is No crying in Baseball or SCOTUS Hearings. Your brain has been recalled.

                by wishingwell on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:50:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  "Melanoma McCain" (none)
          Yeah, it is NOT politically correct, but I have heard that term used to describe him by local politicos in Arizona.  This is not a healthy man.

          He'll be 72 in 2008, and has had melanoma three times.  The country gets the willies when thinking of having a president running the country who is in that poor of shape.  

          "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Justice Kennedy, Lawrence v Texas

          by HillaryGuy on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:50:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  barring Diebold (none)
      That's the key part. We won't win anything as long as the votes are counted by GOP operatives. Remember what Stalin said: It's not who votes, it's who counts them. (I'm paraphrasing, obviously.)

      Donald Driver for Wisconsin - Senate 2008 (Feingold for President)

      by Groper on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:14:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Both McCain and Giuliani... (none)
      run ahead of every Dem in current polls. I have my doubts about whether they could win the Republican primary, but either would stand a strong chance in the general election.

      I feel Dems will do well in 2006, but 2008 is a long way off, and there is a very good possibility that Bush's failures will not stick to the next Republican nominee (in fact that will likely be the deciding factor in who gets the Rep nomination--who can run away from Bush faster).

      •  Let's do for Rudy and John (none)
        What Citizens for Tax Reform or whatever the group was did to Dean before Iowa. I think the Kos Black Ops team needs to form and do some covert work to sow the seeds of discontent.

        Can we convince Dobson to run? Even Kucinich could probably beat him!

        Dick should go Cheney himself in the George Bush.

        by Joe Willy on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:58:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sure... (none)
        ...against Hillary or Kerry, they run ahead of them-and they will beat them.

        But beyond that, you can't poll vs. Feingold or Clark yet because thier name recogniztion is so poor.

        Polls of the general public for presidential races only mean something maybe six months to a year prior to the first primary.  Before that, they are name recognition charts and way wrong.

        •  Sure... (none)
          but my response was in reply to a post that said the Republicans have "no viable candidates" for 2008. That's simply not true. Either Giuliani or McCain is a viable candidate. It would be foolish to underestimate the Republican chances of holding onto the presidency 2 years ahead of the primaries.
  •  he won't be a candidate (4.00)
    but he sure as hell can be an appointee.

    When dems win the Presidency in 2008, he damn well better have a spot in the administration somewhere. The guy is just too smart and invaluable.

    EPA head perhaps? Energy Secretary. Something.

  •  Today's Gore running . . . (4.00)
    and Howard Dean chair of the DNC . . .

    Damn, having two smart, straight talkers in front of the democratic party.

    Yeah, the world would be way different.

  •  C'mon, kos, tell the whole story... (4.00)
    Further down in the article:

    "I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," Gore said.

    Typical political posturing.

    Frankly, I don't care if he runs.  But to claim he flatly and unequivocally ruled it out is not true, either.

    Triangulation is not a guiding principle. It's a tactic.

    by Bob Johnson on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:46:46 PM PDT

  •  Too bad but maybe (none)
    when our Democratic President is inaugurated in 2009, *"she" will appoint Al Gore as Secretary of State. He would make a fine one.

    *(snark)

  •  Shame (none)
    How sad.  He's been my top pic since 1988.  At least Howard is still in the running... D'oh - he's out too.  Oh well...good thing I can't vote.
  •  Re: Arianna Huffington (none)
    I wish someone would tell Arianna to go shut up when it comes to commenting on Gore.  See Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/2008-will-al-gore-be-the_b_8708.html
    I think she has a personal vendetta against him and recuse herself from further comment.  I lways wondered why during the 2000 campaign she kept attacking heim over trivial items. Comments like "Automaton Al remaking himself as progressive firebrand" are uncalled for.  Is she happier now with Bush in office?
    •  agreed huffy's post is ludicrous trashy gossip (none)
      and how can anyone valorize, support or vote for anyone who wants to escalate the war?!

      Gore spoke sense long before others were courageous enough to be vocal opponents to the war, and guess what, he was right. It's utterly lame and wrongheaded to support sending more troops into this awful quagmire of Iraq and that's what Hilary and Kerry have been proposing, even though Kerry spoke out against the war. I like Clark, Obama and Feingold who have spoken out against the war, but it almost seems like some creepy freepers have gotten to them and even they seem to be diluting their positions.

      Gore is the real deal. He's our man. IMHO

      •  MSM needs to be responsible. (none)
        We can't keep letting the people in the MSM trash viable canidates simply because they don't "like the way they look".  The MSM never bothered to look into why Gore or Kerry was being trashed.  And yet they shied away from Bush.  They need to be made to be responsible for their double standards.  Someone needs to be calling them on this.  That is why I like the Blogsphere, perhaps if this double standard is brought up here, people will start to notice.
  •  Draft Gore!!! (4.00)
  •  Gore! Say it ain't so! (4.00)
    He's a great man.  He obviously has got other pursuits he'd rather do... for example, starting up a new TV network, teaching a few classes,  and doing generally great things for people in need (ie. flying relief planes to help Katrina victims).  Heck... he's hanging out at an economic forum in Sweden!  Sounds pretty wonky to me... right up my alley.

    I would've loved to have him in the race.  Oh well.  Godspeed President Gore!  Remember... Americans are forgiving... you can always change your mind!

    Something tells me this is not the last we've heard of Gore and elective politics....

    If Rove concealed the fact that he was a leaker from the President, why hasn't the President fired him?

    by wintersnowman on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:49:25 PM PDT

  •  I'm disappointed (none)
    I'm disappointed and still not quite accepting that anyone (especially someone who grew up in a family steeped in politics) would turn down an opportunity to run for President if he thought he had a chance.

    I still think that Gore in 2008 (if he could maintain the voice that he found in 2003) would be the strongest possible candidate and the best possible president of those whose names have been mentioned.

    I take Gore at his word that he does not intend to run for President in 2008,  but I still expect that he might change his mind if a moment occurs where he sees a clear path to election.   He does not have to "test the waters" a year in half and judge support.  

    At some point I will accept that he is not running (perhaps after November 2006) but not quite yet for me.

  •  gore/dean (3.50)
    we have such a lack of "face" leadership.  witness the accolades obama received after just one speech (albeit a good one) at the dem convention. "a great prospect for '08," they said.  

    who knows who any of our "stars" are, except us.  the proof is that all anyone in the msm talks about is hillary and bill, bill and hillary.  we've been shunned, punted, blashphemed and treasoned ever since 2000.  well, those days are soon gone, and i think that our leaders have to come to the forefront and take their responsible places and do their duty.  

    you just don't say you're prepared to lead our nation one day and then the next say you'll never be involved again.  we're not talking about after-school club fairs, we're talking about saving our country!

    i believe that both gore and dean could excite our party credibly and lead us to a victory in '08.  i refuse to accept that either of them will never run again.  

    so there, f

    •  Rating (3.50)
      I appreciate your "1" rating for my views that we need "new blood." If you are not interested in an open debate and any views but your own, might I suggest you join the GOP crowd, they're notorios for that kind of thinking.

      Go Red Sox! See you next year!

      by MikeBaseball on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:59:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is not final. (none)
    It's three years out, and his language is explicitly vague enough to let him in the race.

    Having no plans to run, and saying you're done are two very different things.

    --
    The neocons will not give us our country back. If we want it back, we'll have to take it.
    --Lila Garrett

    by peacemonger on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:50:37 PM PDT

  •  I would be pissed (none)
    if I lost to george because of a bogus count. He should have won.
  •  I'm glad he is not running (none)
    Hey, he's an admirable man, and he got jobbed in 2000. But he ran a mediocre campaign and "lost" to a moron when the race never should have been that close. Let's see some fresh faces.
    •  He didn't (none)
      He had a bunch of advisers dumped on him by Clinton-era DLC strategists who thought they'd written the book on Presidential elections.  They took every one of his political instincts and bent them into useless parodies of themselves.  It was a campaign run by incompetents, but Gore didn't have a choice.  Those were the strategists the party had.

      "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

      by ChicagoDem on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:59:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ironic, really (none)
        given gore's role in creating the DLC in the 80s. at least he seems to have woken up to their suckiness.

        crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

        by wu ming on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:28:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah (none)
          I think what happened is that the 80s-era DLC achieved all of their conservative goals really fast in the 90s and then had a choice: either work with the rest of the left or stay distinct by taking the old Blue Dog niche.  So they chose to CONTINUE moving right, and I think they've been leaving old members behind since.  Howard Dean and Al Gore, for example.

          "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

          by ChicagoDem on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:33:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  That statement means nothing. (4.00)
    Bush said repeatedly he had no war plans "on his desk" and we all know how that turned out.

    Gore's statements above can be parsed any way you like them.  In no way do the statements read that he will categorically not run in 2008 or in the future.  All politicians play language games.

    So if you are pro-future Gore candidacies, fret not, the news today changes nothing.

    •  Playing Hard to Get (4.00)
      Gore doesn't want to appear that he wants the job. It has to be a draft of the senior statesmen type of event.

      Imagine the impact he would have if he joined the race at the last minute.

      A president in his own league. The Bush League!

      by Tuba Les on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:04:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Give me a break (4.00)
    No one seriously considering running says they are running prior to the midterms. I still bet he runs. There is more buzz about Gore running, than most other potential candidates. BTW, title of this diary is totally misleading. Gore has yet to say he is not running.
  •  say it isn't so... (4.00)
    While recently viewing the whole set of Back to the Future movies with the family, I found myself wondering how it would have turned out in our "alternate reality" if we could have had Gore back in 2000...damn if it didn't just about make me cry.

    how long before my soul gets it right?

    by vrexford on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:54:56 PM PDT

  •  Had ya beat Kos. (none)

    To find his equal, and Irishman is forced to talk to God.

    by Delaware Dem on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:55:10 PM PDT

    •  No, No, No!!! (none)
      DD, you are supposed to say, "DUPLICATE!  PLEASE DELETE!!!"  

      Geez, haven't you learned anything from the Diary Police?

      re: Gore.  Hell I wish he'd run just so we could vote for a president who knew enough about technology not to say "internets."  

      An added benefit could be that it might get rid of his cable tv channel which gives "pod" casting a bad name.  At first, I gave it the benefit of the doubt figuring they had to slap something on just to get their foot in the door.  But it has not improved very much.

      Hmmm, if one programs "pods" to keep one's proverbial foot in the door does that make him a podiatrist?

      80W-71S
      The most un-American thing you can say is, "You can't say that." -G. Keillor

      by Eddie Haskell on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:18:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There goes our anti-Hillary... (none)
    Now what?

    Why can't we convince Obama to run?  We all like him.  We all want him.  Why wait?

  •  Great News! (4.00)
    Gore is yesterday's news.

    We have so many good candidates, we do not need to turn to our past to have a future.

    Thanks for eight years, but it's now time to move on! (dot org).

    •  Yep, great! (none)
      However...I bet the Brits were pleased when they brought a man with vision, who was out in the political wilderness for a decade...and what was his name? Oh yeah Winston someone.

      Point is...

      you can look to the past...

      ...to lead the future. Especially if that man from the past...

      ...has a vision for the future.

      •  Except Gore's vision (none)
        keeps changing. He ran as a Southern moderate-conservative candidate in 1988 against Jesse jackson, Mike Dukakis and Paul Simon.

        Ran to the right of Bill Bradley in 2000.

        Now he talks a good game on progressive issues.

        But look at his record - nothing suggests that he's the real deal.

        •  So Let me get this... (4.00)
          ...straight. Every candidate YOU support has maintained exactly the same, identical positions on every issue ever? It just doesn't seem possible...
          No change of mind?

          Ever?

          Wow, these politicians must be amazing! Because even the best have a change of heart or campaign in a certain matter in order to win. I guess it's all relative. Al Gore would be a moderate California, a conservative in Europe, and a liberal in the South.

          So where do you stand?

        •  You don't think (none)
          that having the presidency stolen from you by a fascist cabal might be a life-changing experience?

          Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

          by saucy monkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:30:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We have many good candidates? Don't think so (none)
      Most voted for the immoral war in Iraq or like Wes Clark wavered on whether to support the Iraq war or not.

      Gore was the only potential candidate I could enthusiastically support.  Feingold is my #2, but he's got some problems, one being he is recently divorced.  Americans prefer married candidates for President.  I won't put much effort into Feingold's bid unless he proves that he's a good campaigner.  Most likely if Gore is not in the 2008 race, Feingold will be my protest vote.

      I will not support any pro-Iraq war candidate and will not vote for that candidate in 2008.

  •  Puh-lease Markos! (none)
    First of all, Mr. Gore had his chance and let the race become close enough to be stolen from him despite the immense peace and prosperity of the Clinton administration. I like Mr. Gore, I admire Mr. Gore, I don't see why he should be the nominee a second time.

    Markos, as for your comment about Gore getting you excited for 2008, I think that's lame. There are so many other great possibilities, why do you need Gore to get excited about 2008? Feingold, Biden, Clinton, Obama, Clark and more...There are many great people in the party who would make excellent presidents. I think it demeans the party to say that you need Al Gore to get excited about the 2008 presidential race.

    "Hook me up a new revolution/Cause this one is a lie." - Foo Fighters

    by coryisaac on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:56:39 PM PDT

    •  Yes, that's it! (none)
      Why should we be excitied about Al Gore?

      Gore is the only Democrat in recent memory to run to the right of his primary opponents (he did it in 88 against Jesse Jackson and Mike Dukakis, and then in 2000 against Bill Bradley).

      Heck, even Bill Clinton took on self-described deficit hawk and tax cutter Paul Tsongas.

      I'm thrilled to hear Gore's not running.

    •  Biden? (none)
      Ugh.

      And, please, stop with Obama stuff. The guy has been a freshman Senator for about 10 minutes. He's not ready for prime time yet.

      Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

      by saucy monkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:32:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gore 'Unplugged' has been great, (4.00)
    only, and specifically b/c he has nothing to lose; have him run again, and it's back to 'Gore the Bore.'  

    <shoot me, but you know I'm right ;)>

    ...Tengo una remera del Che y no sé por qué...

    by PhillyGal on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:57:01 PM PDT

    •  BANG! (none)
      <and yes, I know you're right>

      you WISH I was female

      by AnnArborBlue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:01:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bang Bang Bang... (none)
      Made sure I didn't miss.  Can't trust these virtual bullets.

      :-)

      I'll take Gore the Bore over Rudy "Two-Timer" Guiliani, John "Crazy Man" McCain, or Hillary "Insert RW Smear Here" Clinton.  He beat the media story then and he'll do it again.  

      From here the Clinton scandal(s) baggage seems quaint.  Contrast and compare using the wrong telephone to fundraise with blatant money laundering and propagandizing the country into a ruinous war.  I think it's doable.

      IOKIYAR! They believe markets and competition solve everything AND that the universe is centrally planned.

      by No One No Where on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:16:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  completely agreed (none)
      i think we get so obsessed with electoral politics we tend to completely overlook the potential for substantive political change that doesn't involve presidential candidates. the same is also true of edwards, clark and dean. gore has done far more good as an ex-candidate than he ever did as a candidate to push the country in the right (left?) direction, if less than he was able to accomplish as veep (which was impressive).

      better cabinet material than candidate IMO. tons of respect for the post-2000 gore, but i fear the campaign-mode gore rising from the dead like some wooden zombie. don't chain the man down.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:32:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bummer! (none)
    I wish he would reconsider.  We need Gore!  I really don't care for the current crop of Dem hopefuls.
  •  Let's see (none)
    How many candidates can I think of who intitially said that they weren't running? Did even W assert that he didn't want to run in 2000? Wish he'd stuck by that.

    Al Gore is too good to not be president. We just have to help him change his mind.

    We have the power.

    •  Hey! (2.00)
      Maybe Gore can be the most conservative candidate in the 2008 primary, just like he was in 1988 and 2000.

      Is that what you want?

      •  oh sure (none)
        he's more consevative than

        Biden, Bahy,Warner ?

        When I hear the phrase "culture of life" I want to reach for my gun.

        by PoliMorf on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:23:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (none)
          Gore is pro-death penalty, voted for the Persian Gulf war (most Senate Democrats , including Biden, did not) and voted repeatedly against abortion funding for poor women.

          In every primary Gore has run, he was the furthest to the right. Period. End of story.

          •  dude (none)
            dude the fiirst persian gulf war is what I would call a REAL "justified war"

            secondly you should know better to post without linking evidence.

            When I hear the phrase "culture of life" I want to reach for my gun.

            by PoliMorf on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:38:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  From the The 2% Solution (none)
        I like Gore, really, but this is snip from Matthew Miller's The 2% Solution:

        The most vivid illustration of today's lack of seriousness concerns health coverage, where our ambitions regarding the uninsured have shrunk dramatically in the last decade, even as the country grew wealthier and the problem got worse. To see what I mean, go back for a moment to the 2000 Democratic primary campaign, when Al Gore faced a challenge from Bill Bradley. Bradley, to his credit, offered a serious $50-billion-a year plan to expand health coverage to just about all of the 40 million uninsured Americans. Gore's plan was to insure only the 10 million or so uninsured children. Gore blasted Bradley's plan as fiscally irresponsible, and the press dutifully cast the debate as a showdown between Bradley's pricey liberal dream and Gore's more modest, centrist approach. But here's what the press never figured out: Bradley's "liberal" plan to cover uninsured Americans was a slightly cheaper version of the proposal offered by President George Bush in 1992.

        ...at a time of $250 billion deficits, Bush put out a $50-billion-a-year plan (three times bigger than what Gore would offer in 2000) only to have Democrats bash it as "too little, too lat." Fast forward eight years, and Bradley's plan, offered at a time of equally outsized surpluses, was damned as  a liberal fantasy and trashed by Gore's team as evidence of a "reckless spending mentality (4-5)."

        Democratic timidity largely comes down to this fear. "They're convinced people wouldn't buy what we believe the country really needs," said Bill Bradley. "So we have to say what we want them to hear--that we're with them," but without offering policies equal to their problems...This pattern of what Bradley calls "the big rhetoric and the little mouse" was a winning formula for Clinton after 1994--or, more precisely, a sufficient formula for political survival..."This incremental bullshit is not gong to get us where we've got to go," said Jim McDermott, a seven-term congressman from Seattle (23).

        IOW, Gore offered less money for healthcare in 2000 than GHWB put up in 1992. Of course he did that for political reasons, but if he decides to run again, I hope that honest rather than political advantage, guides his thinking.

  •  Very sad. Ok . . . (none)
    So who's in?  As a big Gore supporter, I take one half second to mourn.  Now its time to move on.

    My President fought a war on terror and all New Orleans got was this lousy levee. - me.

    by dbratl on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:58:54 PM PDT

  •  I would have supported him (none)
    I'm currently back and forth between Clark and Feingold, but I'd have dropped them both to support Gore.

    Why?

    Well, there is the I told ya' so factor. "Look what Republicans have done for 8 years, we said the middle class would get squeezed by Republican policies, etc..."

    Also, there is Gore's newly discovered progressive voice.

    In addition I think Gore reminds people of a better time in America.

    And I think we'll be ready for a smart guy in 2008.

    So why, then, wouldn't I support Kerry?  The authenticity just isn't there, for one.  Plus, Gore took part in making things good in America under the Clinton administration.

    Frankly, I'm disappointed that Gore says he won't run.

    When you consider something sacred, you will never pollute it.

    by Dmitri in San Diego on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:58:54 PM PDT

    •  If I may be so bold (none)
      You wrote, "Also, there is Gore's newly discovered progressive voice."

      Rather than newly discovered, it's simply been recovered after having fallen silent for a bit.

    •  I'm for Gore (4.00)
      (I posted this in the other thread)

      Why?  First, because I think he can win.  Second, I think he is the one person out there who has the knowledge, skills, and personality to start fixing all that has been broken by the current administration.  

      I expect three things out of the Democratic nominee:

         1. Run a fighting campaign and win.
         2. Get us on a track where we can see 2000 again.  (It will be nothing but grunt policy work and close votes for the first few years of a Dem administration.  If we just get back to even with 2000 by 2012 I'll be happy.)
         3. Work to build a strong Dem base in the country.

      Because of the job the next Dem President must do, Al's the only real choice in my book.  Of course, because of that job, I can certainly see why he wouldn't run... it'll be years of hard work and the payoff is not at all certain... this administration may have put us in such a hole that we can't recover and some of that blame would probably fall on whoever is in office.  Still, if a groundswell started, Gore is the kind of guy that would step up and put country before self.

      Regardless of who the Dem nominee is, the easy part is getting to the inaugeration.  Our hard work as Americans starts the second the oath is finished and will not let up until all the crap is cleaned up and these bastards are discredited for generations.

  •  While we are lamenting this, (4.00)
    take a look at today's The Daily Howler for a reminder of the culpability of the mainstream press in the defeat of Al Gore in 2000.  Not the wingnut slime mongers, but the so-called liberal voices on the tube.  

    I do firmly believe that if Gore were to run in '08, the press wouldn't dare spend its time criticizing his earth tones and his "stiffness."  I dare to think that they wouldn't find it "fun" to gang up on Gore, as Margaret Carlson so famously admitted.

    Count me in as a Gore '08 enthusiast.

    "Pro-life" really means "pro-criminalization"

    by Radiowalla on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 01:59:33 PM PDT

  •  Gore (none)
    left himself an "out".  He can sit back and wait until mid- or late 2007, if he so chooses, and announce that he's in.  If Fritz Mondale could run for Senate in the 21st century, Al Gore could do whatever he wants.
  •  Good (4.00)
    Gore is doing fine at what he's doing.  Dean too.

    Edwards is the man.

  •  DRAFT AL GORE! (none)
    It happened with Wesley Clark.

    Why not a Zogby Poll on Gore for 2008

    Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

    by timber on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:01:59 PM PDT

  •  Dean/Gore Co-Presidency (none)
    How could it lose? Passion and intelligence. Practical real world experience and decades of public service at the highest levels. Fund-raising expertise and expertise in winnning national campaigns. The heritage and the future of the party all on one ticket. No namby-pamby catering to the centrists, an all out assault  on the Repubs using the key platform planks of the neo-Democrats: pro-green, pro-choice, pro-minority, pro-technology, pro-union, pro-border integrity, pro-peace, pro-ally. Please don't tell me egos would keep this ticket from happening, the issues and resolutions are bigger than that.  If these guys can't get the base out, then there is no Democratic candidate that can.
  •  anyone but hillary (none)
    hmm - someone as ambitious and concerned as he?   i have to believe his mind is still very much in the game and we are just hearing the same refusals we have heard from so many other eventual candidates.

    in any event, smart money bets (intrade.com) for an 'al gore 2008 dem nominee' are up almost 20 percent since august.

  •  If he changes his mind, I'd forgive him. (4.00)
    Al Gore is, in my opinion, the person who has the tools to be the best president in a long, long time. And he did in 2000 as well, "boring" or not.

    Once he finally became comfortable with his own voice -- after the campaign was over -- I think he began to demonstrate the vision and honesty that always made up the man.

    I'm not one for giving people second chances at political runs, but I'd make an exception for him. I like him a lot better than I like Clinton, Kerry, or even Dean; I only hope that if he does decide never to run, he makes good on his efforts to create a progressive infrastructure, and is successful at armtwisting prominent Dems in order to finance it.

    Hint hint, Al. You've got people here willing to work for you on a shoestring, if you can use them.

  •  This actually makes me cry (4.00)
    Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000 election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.

    I think that is the understatement of the year, no, wait, it is the understatement of the century.

    •  Yes, it would be a different country (4.00)

      This Modern World nailed it completely.

      Sigh....

      "Pro-life" really means "pro-criminalization"

      by Radiowalla on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:11:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  can we remember (none)
        that Gore ran as THE DLC candidate in 1988.

        Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

        by philgoblue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:16:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  can we remember (4.00)
          that the DLC of 1988 is not the DLC of 2005 ?

          When I hear the phrase "culture of life" I want to reach for my gun.

          by PoliMorf on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:25:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Delphi (none)
            Please, the DLC of 1988 was for the "free corporate trade" policy that brought us NAFTA and led directly to the gutting of American manufacturing, outsourcing (you know there doing it even for lawyers now), and companies like Delphi telling their employees to take 50-66% paycuts or watch their jobs go to Mexico.

            You cannot be pro-middle class working families if you're pro-NAFTA.  You cannot be for the people if your for "free trade."   The rest is all hot air.

            Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

            by philgoblue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:23:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure you can (none)
              be in favour of NAFTA and still be "pro middle-class working families"; you can be for "free trade" and still for "people".  I favour some NAFTA reform, but mainly because of sovereignty issues.  NAFTA didn't hollow out American industry -- those were long-term trends -- and it hasn't even been driving jobs away from the US for several years; China and India are much bigger sticks for corporations to wield than Mexico.  The biggest problems with NAFTA from my perspective is how unfairly it was applied to the Mexicans -- avocadoes, tomatoes, brooms -- mainly to the benefit of US workers.

              I'm sure you'll vorociously disagree.  But different people are going to have different ideas about what what the best "progressive politics" is.  That's just how it is.  Anyway, you're tagline is former DLC Chairman Clinton swearing to the talents of a guy who was assumed to be a died-in-the-wool southern conservative as little as three years ago.  Edwards opposes NAFTA -- but so did uber-Clintonite Erskine Bowles when he ran for Edwards' seat.  It's an electoral thing -- and I'm leaning Edwards for '08 myself so long as he doesn't go too protectionist. :-)

              I do agree with you that, policy-wise, the DLC in '88 is pretty much the DLC in '05, but back then it had more of an electoral point; certain strands of liberal politics were alienating back then to voters and funders, whereas now the base is almost too moderate (imo), policy-wise.  Also, their '88 endorsement went jointly to Gephardt, who by then was the union guy, and Gore.  Both Gore and Gep have bucked the DLC line for years on all sorts of issues -- even the Clintonites' trade policies (Jordan, Cambodia) were more union- and ILO-friendly toward the end than the DLC supported, except for China PNTR.  And the unions, even the industrial ones, picked Gore over Bradley in 1999.  And Bradley was the "liberal".  I think he "cared about people" too.  As did Clinton, and as does Edwards.

              The grass is always greener when it bursts up through concrete -- XTC

              by tlaura on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:03:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Guess you don't have (none)
                to feed your family of your wages at Electrolux in Greenville, MI or from Delphi in Saginaw.  I wonder if you somehow grew a sense of patriotism or if you had your job outsourced if your tune would change.

                Progressive politics is about AMERICANS having a fair shot at the American Dream.  If it's not about that, count me out.

                WE determine the type of globalism we get, not some Force of Nature.  We can insist on labor, wage, environmental minimums WITHIN these agreements.

                An economy in which we make nothing, but only sue each other and sell cellphone minutes to each other is unheard of in the history of the species.

                Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                by philgoblue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:45:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Quit mau-mauing. (none)
                  You have no idea who I am and it's not the point anyway.  The point is that support for NAFTA is not the "make-or-break" issue for a lot of liberals, and that doesn't make those people illiberal or mean they don't care about working people.  I have my own ideas about how trade agreements should be written and what they should do.  There is almost no possibility that any country is going to "stop making anything", but likewise no country is going to make everything for itself.  Most studies I've read show pretty unequivicably that the hollowing out of the industrial base was not the result of free trade agreements, certainly not ones with Mexico.

                  Of course, liberals support greater equality of opportunity, human rights etc. -- the American dream.  Edwards for instance has some terrific ideas on these issues that have nothing to do with trade.  The question here is whether NAFTA is the antithesis of all that and anyone who supports it doesn't get it and doesn't care about people.  If it looks that way to you, that's fine.  You're obviously knowledgable on the subject.  But it has never looked that way to me.

                  The grass is always greener when it bursts up through concrete -- XTC

                  by tlaura on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:12:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you! (none)
          Yes, I love Gore, too, but the fact of the matter is that he is as much a part of the old guard that Joe-mentum and MBNA Biden have been a part of.  Hillary won't do it, Edwards is a thing of the past, Dean has a job to do and is doing it well (though I dream of a Dean presidency still).  The fight will be against stronger opponents than we've ever fought before.  McCain or Giuliani are going to be it, and anyone that says differently should share their stash with me.  Who beats these guys?  WHO???
          •  Marist Poll: Edwards Best Choice for Dems in 2008 (none)
            According to a 6 May 2005 Marist College Poll of (http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/PZ050506.htm) 1000+ Americans (3.5% margin of error):

            The three most popular Democrats vs. the two poll-leading gopers

            McCain: 51, Kerry: 41
            McCain: 50, Hillary: 42
            McCain: 46, Edwards 43

            Wow! Edwards is doing by far the best and within margin of error.  Plus, look how Edwards takes down McCain's numbers (probably key swinging independents willing to give JRE a listen).

            Giuliani: 48, Kerry: 46
            Giuliani: 47, Hillary: 46
            Giuliani: 45, Edwards 48

            So, ONLY Edwards could beat Giuliani.

            As Marist concludes, "For the Democrats, it's John Edwards, not ... Kerry or Clinton who runs strongest against the top Republicans."

            PS: Damn, should have named the post above as
            "The Oracle at Delphi" -- now that would have been clever.

            Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

            by philgoblue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:26:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  statistics (none)
              The margin of error is 3.5%, but the Democratic candidates are separated by 1-2%. Looks like a three way tie to me.
              •  Statistics Part II (none)
                The three most popular Democrats vs. the two poll-leading gopers

                McCain: 51, Kerry: 41:  Thus, Kerry -10
                McCain: 50, Hillary: 42  Thus, HRC -8
                McCain: 46, Edwards 43  Thus, Edwards -3
                  Thus, Edwards is 5 points better than HRC and 7 points better than Kerry

                Giuliani: 48, Kerry: 46  Thus, Kerry -2
                Giuliani: 47, Hillary: 46  Thus, HRC -1
                Giuliani: 45, Edwards 48  Thus, Edwards +3
                    Thus, Edwards is 4 points better than HRC and 5 points better than Kerry

                Other polls show similar results.

                Thus, not a tie but a clear statistical trend.

                Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                by philgoblue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:37:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  These polls mean shit. Joementum was leading (none)
                  in almost every Dem poll in 2002. So what?

                  Kerry was beating Bush in polls after the Iowa causus. So what?

                  Bush was beating Clinton in every hypothetical poll in 2000, expect one in Oct which was within the margin or error. So what?

                  Bush was beating Gore by 20 points in most polls back in 1999. So what?

                  Dukakis was beating Bush Sr in polls in early 1988. So what?

                  Edwards is not up to the presidency. He knows virtually nothing about domestic or foreign policy, he voted for the war. He is just not presidential material. Period.

            •  i hate to be a party pooper here, but those (none)
              polls don't really mean much. mostly name recognition.
          •  I don't think the Rethugs will nominate those guys (none)
            they will nominate George Allen of Virgina and he will kick the shit out of us if we don't get our act together. Why, cause he everything Bush isn't and better at doing it, even better skills for TV and connecting with the yahoos.

            If Gore does not run we are cooked. There is no way a Hillary/Bill combo would work by 08. If we don't have Gore running we have 4 more years of exile waiting for us after the next 3 of Bushco....Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!

            "These guys are biggest bunch of lying crooks I have ever seen" John Kerry

            by alnc on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:53:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Dude, (none)
          That is so 80s.

          What is this?  VH1?

          "The Buddhist was pissed... and it wasn't the first time."

          by The Angry Buddhist on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:42:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And what does that mean? The DLC of 1988 was not (none)
          the DLC of 2000.

          The DLC turned his back on Gore because they went to the right way too much in the 90s and hated Gore's populist campaign.

          They did not realize like Gore did that the boom had a serious side effect: it exploded finally in their face when Enron collapsed.

          And then the DLC played nice so much that Rush Limbaugh in his unguarded moment said the Democrats blew it by not exploiting the corporate scandals for their own advantage.

          With groups like the DLC of course they had no credibility anymore.

      •  Vice President Gore on NAFTA (4.00)
        Vice President Gore on NAFTA
        "It's a choice between pessism and optimism. It's a choice between the status quo, leave things as they are, enact new tariffs on Mexico and I don't know who else or move forward into the future with confidence. We're not scared. We're not a nation of quitters. We're not a nation that is afraid to compete in the world marketplace."

        and it's a force of habit/ if it moves then you fuck it / if it doesn't move you stab it -- MacManus

        by BiminiCat on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:30:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I know someone (none)
        who is by no means an admirer of Bush, who still thinks, in late 2005, that Gore would have turned out to be a worse choice for the country than Bush has been, based on his 1992 book Earth in the Balance. The man was clearly a dangerous ultra-left-wing Deep Green radical! (who mysteriously failed to cause any damage to America during eight years in government)

        I'm not a big believer in "both sides are attacking me, so I must be right", but when Gore's diverse critics can't get their stories straight even to the point of seming to come from the same universe, it suggests to me that at least one, and probably both, sets of them have misunderestimated him.

        •  That is so sad (4.00)
          In 2000, I lived in DC and did not vote in that election.

          At the time I was a registered Republican but really wasn't excited by either party.

          Oooh, what a mistake that was.  One of the only good things to come out of it was that I woke up politically and joined dKos.

      •  The Nader Gore Perspective (none)

        and it's a force of habit/ if it moves then you fuck it / if it doesn't move you stab it -- MacManus

        by BiminiCat on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:33:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think Tom is being (none)
        sardonic here?  You're right.  He nailed it completely.  Just not in the way you thought.

        "I'm an insect who dreamed he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over..." - Charles E. Pogue, "The Fly".

        by edsdet on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:59:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, because it wouldn't have been like that (none)
          Gore would just have muddled along like Clinton, producing four to eight years of dull peace and prosperity while fending off right wing attack dogs.

          How awful that would have been!

  •  I'd just like to say... (none)
    For those who were excited at the prospect of Gore running in 2008...

    ...just imagine how great it will be with Kerry running in 2012!

    :)

  •  I'm 50/50 on the "won't run" promises (none)
    As long as Gore and Dean and the rest keep up their pitbull Give 'Em the Truth (and they'll think it's hell) speeches then I'm ok (disappointed, but ok) with them not running.

    The left needs pitbulls too. Odd, that.

  •  The next president ... (4.00)
    ... will have to try to fix the worst consequences of the Bush mistakes. Bush's bad judgement will be punishing us for years to come, with the worst yet to come. I can't blame Gore or anyone else for not wanting to take on the ills of a foolish nation which, for eight years, has chosen to avoid reality with Bush.
  •  Why the hell would Gore run? (4.00)
    He HATES campaigning.  And for those of you wearing the rose-colored glasses, remember that his 2000 campaign was AWFUL.  Worse than Kerry in 2004. The MSM hated him (still does, probably), and he LOST at least one debate to Bush (radio transmitter and all).  And, when he's not attacking the President, he can be boring.  Overall, he is wise to stay out.

    What the Democratic Party needs in 2008 is someone who is NOT a senator (sorry Hillary fans), because there is just too much baggage with the inside the beltway stuff.  A governor is good, even great.  A former general would work just fine.  I'm not sure on former senators.  But the Dem has to be someone who can be seen as being out in the weeds over the past 8 years.  There's just too much disgust with D.C. right now.  Gore would be perfect, but for the above problems.

    One last point: to all those close to Senator Barrack, DO NOT LET HIM STAY IN THE SENATE!!!  He represents all that the Democratic Party could be, but a long stay in the Senate could be deadly to his presidential chances.  The Senate makes icons, like Ted Kennedy, not presidents.  So, after one or two terms, drag Mr. Barrack from the Senate and into the Governor's seat.  Governors make presidents.  But that's just my opinion (and the historical record). . .

    •  Thank You (4.00)
      His campaign was atrocious.

      He's a good man, but his campaign was wretched top to bottom.

      •  Why did the media hate him? (none)
        Why would the media hate someone so badly so to invent numerous fat stories against?

        Perhaps Gore was just a man in a wrong place at a wrong time. He was standing on the way of blind corporate and fundamentalist interests. Those interests could not afford to loose. The man had to be taken down. The mean Bushie cowboys came against him.

        Gore would have run the same campaign in the 1990's, or against Dole or McCain, and it would have looked great.

    •  That's crazy talk (none)
      Where could Obama go? Governor of illinois?

      Yeah, that would be a good move.

      Obama is fine right where he is.

      Besides, I like the guy, but what exactly makes him presidential material? I mean besides the fact that he's a "peron of color" and attractive?

      Supporting Obama for president is like eating sushi, driving a Volvo and being an atheist - it's becoming a benchmark to gauge white liberals' committment to progressive causes.

      Let Obama serve a term or two, then we can start talking about a White House run.

  •  Plans and expectations (4.00)
    Gore said he has

    "absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again"

    This is not the same as "I will not run, ever," or as once famously stated by General William T. Sherman, "If nominated I will not run and if elected I will not serve."

    That said, Gore need not run for us to have some great, and viable candidates.  We still have Feingold, Clark, and others, and let's not forget that Clinton came from nowhere in '92.  Who had heard of, let alone figured on, him three years before?

    Gore's been great these last few years and a true guiding voice for the party, maybe partly because his runs for elective office were apparantly over.  Besides, he can still serve in many ways, as a Secretary of State, or the Interior,  for instance.

    '08 is a ways away, we need to concentrate on '06 now. Yeah, and stop Hillary, of course.

    A liberal is a man so broadminded he wouldn't take his own side in an argument........Robert Frost

    by mjshep on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:10:11 PM PDT

  •  So, if President Pelosi is not in the primaries, (4.00)
    will Gore run in '08?  (After all, he did say the country is ready for a woman president.  Better Pelosi in '06 than Clinton in '08).

    No one escapes the Pledge Week of NPR. Amongst its weaponry are guilt, persistence, the fanatical devotion of its listeners ...

    by Rusty Pipes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:10:27 PM PDT

    •  what people don't get (none)
      is that an incumbent will run for election in '08...hopefully it will be Mrs. Speaker, not Mr. Speaker!

      I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man

      by TheGryphon on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:47:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What I want to know is ... (none)
        when Bush and Cheney are impeached and Pelosi is sworn in as President, if she nominates Al Gore as Vice-President and then resigns, can she return to her position as Speaker of the House immediately, or must she be re-elected first?  That's the only way I can imagine Al Gore becoming president without campaigning again.

        No one escapes the Pledge Week of NPR. Amongst its weaponry are guilt, persistence, the fanatical devotion of its listeners ...

        by Rusty Pipes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:32:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  she would have to be appointed (none)
          or run in a special election for her seat, depending on the rules in her home state....'scuse me while I Google...
          looks like Cali has a special election process, not a governor appointment, so Ahnold won't get to pick some nuckle-dragger, but I don't think Nancy would give Al the driver's seat like that.

          I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man

          by TheGryphon on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:33:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunate, but 2008 should be great anyway! (none)
    The fact that Al Gore got screwed out of the Presidency in 2000 was not simply outrageous but also disasterous, and I'm sorry he won't be running in 2008--it would go a long way to rectifying the injustice that was done to him personally; unfortunately, it's far too late to rectify the injustice done to this country.

    In any case--and this refers to the discussion of John Kerry in '08 as well--I think that the Democratic party should take a page from the GOP playbook and get enthusiastic about anyone who runs, with none of this "I hate Rodham Clinton/Kerry/Clark/Whomever" infighting.  

    I mean, haven't we looked into the abyss long enough?  Haven't we figured out that there IS a big difference between the Bushes and Gores of this world?  Let's embrace Kerry or Clinton or Edwards or Clark or whomever decides to run....have a good, clean primary based on a debate of ideas with no nasty infighting....and then support the nominee 150% no matter what!  

    It worked for the GOP--they managed to get behind a soulless chimpanzee (a unity we see not-so-tragically collapsing before our very eyes, thank God), so surely we can do the same for a decent candidate even if we don't wholly agree with that candidate's position.    

  •  Yeah, yeah, yeah (4.00)
    And you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore, either.

    I'll believe it after the convention.

  •  That's a shame (none)
    I really think he could win.  And what could the media and their allies in the Republican party bring against him this time?   The same tired old attacks (most of which weren't true to begin with)?  Those could easily be dismissed as "tired old attacks."

    Of course Joe Lieberman, sore for not being endorsed by Gore in '04, and fuming because Gore would've trounced him in the '08 primaries would've given an excellent Zell Miller-type speech at the Republican National Convention.
    I'm kinda sorry we'll miss that too.

    •  Source? (none)
      Of course Joe Lieberman, sore for not being endorsed by Gore in '04, and fuming because Gore would've trounced him in the '08 primaries would've given an excellent Zell Miller-type speech at the Republican National Convention.
      I'm kinda sorry we'll miss that too.

      Source?  Or is this in your own universe that this would happen?

  •  a likely campaign slogan? (none)
    Time for adult swim - kids out of the pool!
  •  Conscripted Presidency (none)
    There should be some way to FORCE the man into running for president...
  •  His lips say, No, no.... (none)
    but his eyes say.......

    maybe...

  •  Sucks (none)
    I'm one of those who believe Gore had to get rolled by the Supremes and the Mayberry Mafia before he could be transformed into a potentially great president. Having gone through that and come out a very changed man, I suspect he'd make one of the greatest and most transformative presidents in U.S. history, because he now knows the stakes, he knows not to take any shit and he's reconnected with the values that drove him to seek elected office in the first place.

    It's a terrible conundrum. He had to fall to bust out of his Washington cocoon and become a truly great man. Having achieved that, he could probably never attain that one higher office. He's just too human now. If the Heathers hated him then, they'd positively spew venom now.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

    by Septic Tank on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:17:01 PM PDT

  •  son of a (4.00)
    that's very unfortunate
  •  Well we need somebody to beat Hagel (none)
    and I believe it will be Hagel and not McCain, or Jeb, or anyone else.
    Shit, Nebraskan Hagel's gonna win the Iowa caucus (that danged Iowa again) and anywhere they got ES & S voting machines.
  •  Come On! Don't sell us short. (4.00)
    Kos, why are you so quick to accept this? You, more than anyone else knows the power that we on the net have. A groundswell of support of a Gore run will change his mind. I have no dobt of that. He is the best candidate. Until he says that under no circumsances will he run I am not buying it.

    Gore in '08!

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

    by Better Days on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:21:37 PM PDT

  •  I think everyone here is nuts... (4.00)
    Gore ran the worse campaign I have ever seen. Earth tones, swapping spit with his wife at the convention, getting in Bush's face during the debate, etc. He was awful. Have all of your memories of Gore's dismal 2000 campaign been wiped clean by the traumas that have followed? He was the worse campaigner to top a major political party's ticket in modern history.

    But when he announces he isn't going to run again, people here act like it's the apocalypse or something. Give me a break. If Gore is the best we can do, then we are freakin' screwed anyway.

    And the same people getting apoplectic over this waste no words in trashing John Kerry, who unlike Gore has actually been a reliable progressive his whole life, even if he was only a marginally better campaigner.

    Don't get me wrong, I like Al Gore (mostly). I know he won the election in 2000 (though it would never have even been close enough for Bush to steal if he ran even a half-decent campaign). But the guy is never going to be President, so take a deep breath and move on.

    •  If this post... (none)
      ...Were a diary entry, it should have been promoted to the front page.

      Excellent!

    •  Hold on a second... (4.00)
      He was the worse campaigner to top a major political party's ticket in modern history.

      I'm Bob Dole and Bob Dole believes that Bob Dole was the worst campaigner to top a major political party's ticket in modern history.

      Triangulation is not a guiding principle. It's a tactic.

      by Bob Johnson on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:44:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  visit bobdole.com! (none)
        I will never, ever forget the debate when the moderator asked Dole whether he could relate to the youth of America, and all Dole could say was "visit www.bobdole.com!"

        Give Gore some credit here--he may have grown a beard, but at least he's stayed focused on issues and hasn't whored himself out to Viagra like Dole did (TMI, there, Bob, but thanks!)...then again, given the passionate kiss he gave to Tipper, he obviously doesn't need it!! (Just joking, of course--I think that dwelling on that kiss is asinine--in what bizarre-o alternate universe is kissing one's spouse worthy of criticism?)  

        I think Gore would be a better campaigner this time around--his complacency, like that of the Nader voters--has been irretrievably shaken up, and rightly so.  His recent speeches have been far more compelling than his campaign speeches.

        Really, though, it's a sad commentary on our society that we judge our candidates on how well they campaign instead of how well they will govern.  The President doesn't need to be exciting, or folksy, or nice to have a beer with.  S/he needs to be a thoughtful, intelligent leader--I think we've soundly established that since 2000!

        •  S/he... (none)
          needs to win before s/he can govern. Gore was a terrible campaigner, so he never got the chance to govern as President.

          I would judge his performance as VP as mixed at best. His signature issue was global warming, and he did little to advance the cause of reducing greenhouse emissions. He and Clinton were so hot to be seen as "business friendly Dems" that the issue of global warming was mostly put on the backburner for eight years, despite the fact the Gore knew better than anyone just how important the issue was.

          It was a real missed opportunity to move the U.S. closer to a green economy. I had a lot of hope that we would make real progress in that direction when he and Clinton were elected in 1992, but it didn't happen, and for me it was the biggest disappointment of the Clinton era and still is.

      •  Touche... (none)
        but Dole never had a shot in hell of winning anyway, and his piss poor campaign didn't effect the outcome of the race. He was the party's sacrificial lamb and fell on his sword (or tongue) the way he was supposed to.
    •  I was thinking... (none)
      I was thinking that all this griping about Gore's terrible debate performances are kinda ironic, since Bush's terrible debate performances, which even his supporters acknowledge to have been atrocious, still didn't prevent him from winning. I still think that the major reason for Gore's loss was his DLC-style campaign that mislead people into thinking that he was no different from Bush. The only difference Gore's campaign empasized was a smaller taxcut than Bush's and more federal money saved for Social Security.
    •  Agreed (none)
      Exactly.  The 2000 election should not have been a photo finish, period.  We were in the middle of the longest boom in our country's history, and Gore ran away from that record, implying there was something shameful about it.  

      He said 2000 was about "the people versus the powerful," but just who was in power for the past eight years?  He needed to take some credit for Clinton's accomplishments.

  •  hope he reconsiders (none)
    think of how much better off this country would be with a Gore presidency . . .  makes you want to cry.
  •  Notice (4.00)
    that he did not say, "I shall not seek, nor will I accept the nomination of the Democratic party for the the office of President of the United States."  He's playing "hard-to-get" folks.  We'll have to draft him.  Maybe a protest at his office in TN would do?  A big mass protest to DRAFT GORE.
    •  Completely agreed (4.00)
      Just imagine for a moment that his answer had been "why, yes, I AM thinking about running for president in 2008." It would have been front page news everywhere, and everyone EVERYONE would be out to get him. He'd be the first announced candidate of '08 (am I wrong? has anyone else announced? It's all presumption).

      Look, I'm a wee bit psychic, and I am telling you that not only is Al Gore running, he's going to be inaugurated as President of the USA in January of 2009. Is that clear?!?

      Bush is the Disaster President: Iraq--He Lied & People Died; Katrina--He Clowned Around While People Drowned

      by el ganador on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:34:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No one (4.00)
    half serious about running, and winning, is going to tell the world now.  

    The spin here is incredible.  Just incredible.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire

    by poemless on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:26:44 PM PDT

  •  Gore will be in Ann Arbor, MI (none)
    at the Power Center on the UM campus at 5:30PM.  Any ideas?
  •  Forgot date (none)
    October 24th at 5;30PM.
  •  Damn, that's some psychic power you've got (none)
    Quick, what are the numbers for the 240 million Powerball jackpot tonight?

    Just sayin'.  You may be right, but it's quite a thing to make a blanket statement this far early...Gore could always change his mind, you know?

    "It's time to come home, America"--Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), September 13, 2005

    by Raybin on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:29:22 PM PDT

    •  Hopefully (none)
      whatever numbers I have <g>.  Then I can quit my worthwhile-but-dull job & drive the eight miles to Gore's place & start badgering him to run.

      Okay, maybe it wouldn't happen that way, but it sounds cool to me.

      Compromise is something you do behind the scenes. Stop doing it in public. -Atrios

      by latts on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:49:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Isn't that standard Politician-speak (4.00)
    Meaning he might, but as long as he doesn't say he is NOW?

    Does anyone have a list of politicians who in the past said they wouldn't run then did?

    I don't think this means anything. I think he might be gearing up.

    "Part of the facts is understanding we have a problem, and part of the facts is what you're going to do about it."-- G.W. Bush, April 15, 2005

    by flashlass on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:31:09 PM PDT

  •  One word: (none)
    LOCKBOX

    "Never give up, never surrender"

    by wonkydonkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:33:24 PM PDT

  •  The only possible candidate (none)
    that Repubs, Independents and Dems would vote for is Gore. This is by the wee little poll I've held in my own town. I've asked just about everyone around here that I know and then some: "Al Gore".

    Seriously. The tone of the answers are just about the same: with a tinge of "remember the good ol' days...." And most agree that Gore did in fact, win in 2000. No one ever argues with this fact. Heh, 'cept for my boyfriend up until recently when I showed him the proof that Gore won.

    I can't think of a better gift for all of 2007, but Al Gore announcing his run for 2008. There's absolutely no one else I'd rather vote for. No one. I would work tirelessly around the clock for a Gore campaign. Oh yeah.

    "Im not afraid of storms, for I'm learning to sail my ship." - Louisa May Alcott

    by smugbug on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:36:42 PM PDT

  •  Clinton Gore (none)
    What if Hillary is the nominee and she pick Gore for VP. Another Clinton Gore ticket? Entirely possible.
  •  Excitement for 2008? (none)
    Well that would be a great change from the excitement Gore generated in 2000... er, I mean the apathy.

    Honestly, I think it would probably be a good matchup... as we ponder through 8 years of a failed Presidency people would look back with nostalgia.

    (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

    by Steve4Clark on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:39:28 PM PDT

  •  please, can we give up the fantasies? (none)
    Al Gore is not going to be president. He had his chance, he fucked up. Big time. He really fucked up Florida. If he'd just won Tennessee, Florida would have been irrelevant.

    His campaign sucked. It was his chance, but he blew it, and now we're paying bigtime for it with the screw ups in charge now.

    John Kerry is not going to be president. He had his chance too. He found a new way to totally fuck up, and say stupid shit like being for the war before being against it. He's a lousy candidate, and while I woulda rather had him than W as prez, I'm actually scared to think how bad we'd be off with wafflin' John in charge of Hurricane Katrina and a hostile GOP congress.

    Al Gore = great human being, shoulda been prez, not going to be, move on.

    John Kerry = less than adequate candidate, terrible campaign, not going to be president either, move on!

    ____ http://www.schadelmann.com http://www.dewar.us

    by schadelmannII on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:41:19 PM PDT

  •  I do know one thing (none)
    Gore is definitely NOT DLC now.  There is no way I will vote for a DLC Democrat in '08.  I'll vote Green instead. A Gore/Feingold ticket would be a Rethug killer.
  •  I have (none)
    nothing but respect for this guy, but he's smart not to run again. In fact, Kerry should be taking notes. Neither one would be smart candidates here.

    If we're looking to win, we have to come in with a candidate that has less to lose, so to speak. Both Gore and Kerry have been dragged through the mud, and in the public's mind--even if it is not so--there's something wrong with them...which is why they weren't elected.

    That's not to say that the other Dems who ultimately lost the primaries shouldn't try again (except for Joe-mentum); but Gore and Kerry are a  "known quantity," even if that knowledge is from Swiftboat veterans.

    In the interest of being brief, I hope that my post is also coherent.

    :-)

    It is not the bullet that kills, it is the hard heart! Harden your hearts!! - Gunnery Sergeant Hartman | Full Metal Jacket

    by E Man on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:49:26 PM PDT

  •  Still An Open Question (none)
    Candidates often say that this far out.  It means nothing.

    Gore would be a great candidate.  The series of speeches he has given during the Bush years ought to go down in history among the great (if ignored) speeches in American history.

  •  I have (none)
    nothing but respect for this guy, but he's smart not to run again. In fact, Kerry should be taking notes. Neither one would be smart candidates here.

    If we're looking to win, we have to come in with a candidate that has less to lose, so to speak. Both Gore and Kerry have been dragged through the mud, and in the public's mind--even if it is not so--there's something wrong with them...which is why they weren't elected.

    That's not to say that the other Dems who ultimately lost the primaries shouldn't try again (except for Joe-mentum); but Gore and Kerry are a  "known quantity," even if that knowledge is from Swiftboat veterans.

    In the interest of being brief, I hope that my post is also coherent.

    :-)

    It is not the bullet that kills, it is the hard heart! Harden your hearts!! - Gunnery Sergeant Hartman | Full Metal Jacket

    by E Man on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:49:42 PM PDT

    •  Sorry for the (none)
      Double double post.

      It is not the bullet that kills, it is the hard heart! Harden your hearts!! - Gunnery Sergeant Hartman | Full Metal Jacket

      by E Man on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:50:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Poor reasoning (none)
      "If we're looking to win, we have to come in with a candidate that has less to lose, so to speak. Both Gore and Kerry have been dragged through the mud,"

      This makes no sense.

      ANY Democrat running will be dragged through the mud by the GOP and the Big Media. This is a given.

      So to argue that Gore or Kerry shouldn't run because they will be dragged through the mud is silly. Dean was dragged through the mud. If she runs Hillary will be dragged through the mud. Clinton was dragged through the mud both in 92 and 96.

      So stop looking for a Messiah candidate who will not be dragged through the mud. He doesn't exist.

      •  But.. (none)
        There's the issue of oversaturation in our entertainment-minded media. Making fun of Gore in 2000 was hip but if they do it in 2004, it would be lame and almost like a re-run (seen that, yawn.) It just wouldn't carry water. That's not to say that Gore would win.. but i don't think he would get as much of a drubbing... Although, maybe I am wrong. I think in the 2004 campaign, they re-ran "He's boring, wooden, and stiff" theme on Kerry, as if Kerry were Gore... Hmm..
      •  President Ben-Joseph? (none)
        "So stop looking for a Messiah candidate who will not be dragged through the mud. He doesn't exist."

        Quite right.  If Jesus of Nazareth, a single Jewish, darkish-skinned itinerant rabbi, were to run, the FoxBeast would chew him the heck up, while dragging him through the mud.  

        I don't think we need supermen or messiahs, just straight-talking leaders of courage.  Gore could be it. Kerry could.  Clark could.  Feingold certainly.    Will any of them be, in the end, it?  Who knows?  I, alas, am short on the psychic genes........

        "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson

        by penncove on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:08:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  known quantities (none)
      are harder to Swift Boat, because they aren't blank slates any more. Most of Gore's skeletons came out in the 2000 campaign, so he's inoculated against surprise revelations in a way that a new candidate might not be. Also, most of the barbs that drew blood in 2000 (sighs, earth tones) seem pretty vacuous post-9/11. That's why the Bush AWOL meme never caught on in 2004: once the novelty wears off, it was just trivia that everyone kinda believed but didn't really care about.

      (OTOH, the rap against Kerry spoke directly against his national security credibility. That's harder to come back from.)

  •  I Expected More From This Community (4.00)
    Get a grip, people.

    It's October 12, 2005. We have roughly 37 months between now and Election Day, 2008.

    What else do you expect him to say at this point? Even if he's totally committed to running (and I still it's very likely), he would never say as much this far out.

    Please stop with the gloom and doom. This is standard political playbook stuff and nothing more. Everyone chill!

    I think he's in one hell of a good position to run as the "buyer's remorse" candidate in 2008, reminding people that we met a fork in the road in 2000 and clearly "chose" the wrong fork.

    Let's remember that he could have had the nomination in a walk last year had he wanted it. He didn't. He's a patient man who understands you have to pick and choose your spots.

    I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn -- Ron Burgundy

    by IndyScott on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:50:38 PM PDT

    •  Good point (none)
      I think he's in one hell of a good position to run as the "buyer's remorse" candidate in 2008, reminding people that we met a fork in the road in 2000 and clearly "chose" the wrong fork.

      This is actually a pretty strong point in favor of Gore, but even more so in favor of Clinton.

  •  Terrible politician (none)
    Gore is a decent guy but unfortunately a terrible politician. I mean picking Lieberman for VP was just plain dumb. It cost him the youth vote. If he had picked Bob Graham he would have easily won Florida. Even with Jeb and Harris.

    Personally I think John Kerry did well in 2004. He did not have the advantages Gore had in 2000. He was challenging an incumbent at time of war. It is very difficult to defeat an incombent president at time of war even if the war is unpopular as it was with Vietnam in 72. Considering all that Kerry did well.

    I wish people would give up the fantasy of Dean running for president. It is not going to happen. Dean is chairman of DNC. He has a full time job. He can't run for president. It is also not likely that Gore will jump in late in the game, say in 2007. If takes years to put together a team and raise money. If Gore runs the latest is 2006 for him to decide.

    I think it is still a possibility that the nominee will pick Gore as VP simply because Gore would be a safe choice. He's already vetted and he has the experience. Picking a VP choice is often a huge problem because of the unknown factors. Gore was already VP so he is fully investigated.

    •  Source? (none)
      Gore is a decent guy but unfortunately a terrible politician. I mean picking Lieberman for VP was just plain dumb. It cost him the youth vote. If he had picked Bob Graham he would have easily won Florida. Even with Jeb and Harris.

      Source?  Or is this something you would like to believe would be true.  After all, when Graham was running in 2004, Lieberman was slightly beating him in the Florida primaries at that time.

      Also, remember, on SNL - the day before Gore made his announcement that he would not run in 2004 - Gore said picking Joe Lieberman as his running mate was the best thing he ever did.  He received a round of applause.

      Please do not confuse your fantasy world with what really happened.

      •  Asking for a source is stupid (none)
        Some things you just see with your eyes and 2000 was enough for most people.

        Moving on.

        Go home as well Kerry.

        As for Hillary.  No more Clintons or Bushes need to be elected in 2008 or ever again.  They've owned the White House and the media for the past 20 years.  Enough...of...them!

        It's time for someone new.  I'm hoping I can get some prominent group with campaign ad money online with that for 2008.  If Americans hear that they will support it.  Sorry Hillary.  Change your name to Hillary Rodham and let's see if you have a chance.  It's time for a new family in the White House.  This is not a dual monarchy!

        "Make the truth your litmus test."

        by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:14:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good point! (none)
          I do hear a lot of people saying, No More Clintons or Bush family in the White House.
          I really do think the electorate is longing for a new voice and someone other than a Clinton or a Bush. And remember Senators do not have a good track record winning the Presidency either.
          That is unless both parties field a Senator and I have my doubts if the Republicans will do that.
          They are too aware of the Senator stigma. They will probably go for a Governor like Romney or another GOP governor that is not even being talked about now..or a former mayor like Rudy.

          Tom Coburn: There is No crying in Baseball or SCOTUS Hearings. Your brain has been recalled.

          by wishingwell on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:10:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Guliani does not have a chance (none)
            No way a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican will win the GOP nomination unless it's Diebolded.  If Romney gets it, and the Democrats nominate someone like John Edwards, Romney will lose at least 10 southern and midwestern states and get blown out of the water.

            I don't think the GOP is stupid enough to nominate either one of those two.  They'll only be serious about nominating Romney if Democrats are stupid enough to give them Hillary Clinton or John Kerry again.

            I can see the GOP plan though.  If it's Romney versus Edwards, they'll post some BS polls showing Romney very close to Edwards in New York and MA, and maybe even California, telling the lie that he is appealing in those states because he's a different kind of Republican, coming from a "blue state."  Then if they Diebold those states, they'll claim that Romney was appealing there.  Smart people know better.

            "Make the truth your litmus test."

            by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:33:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Romney (none)
              Forget it. GOP will not nominate a mormon for president. Evangelicals don't even consider them christians.

              Forget Guiliani. GOP will not nominate a pro choice, pro gay marriage, 3 times married, multiple adulterous relationships candidate for president.

              Forget Rice. GOP will not nominate a black closet lesbian for president.

              The media likes talking about these candidates. It is not going to happen.

              McCain is a possibility. It might happen. He would be the strongest GOP candidate mainly because he is the darling of Big Media. But remember Big Media could not win him the nomination last time.

              On the Dem side stop whining about Dem candidates like Gore or Kerry as "damaged goods". As I said before ANY Democrat nominated will be feathered and tarred by the GOP and the Big Media. Personally I would prefer a candidate with lots of experience with how the GOP operates, their modus operandi of dirty tricks, sleazy tactics. This means I would prefer either Kerry, Gore or Hillary over anyone who has had no experience with presidential campaigns. Gore, Kerry, Hillary would know what to expect. Whereas a Warner or Bayh would be Babe in the Woods, totally unprepared for the GOP Attack Machine.

              •  McCain is a fossil (none)
                They will see the light and nominate Chuck Hagel, as soon as he wins Iowa.

                "Make the truth your litmus test."

                by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:41:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah the Mormon thing (none)
                Is something that will turn off the right wing Evangelicals..I should not even call them Evangelical as my mother was a liberal Evangelical and a Christian in the truest sense.
                I should say the right wing religious nuts think Mormons are a cult. In fact, someone gave my dad a book about groups that are not Christian but cults and Mormons are listed. Even though many Mormons are quite conservative, the right wingers do not consider them Christians. A Conservative Catholic has a better chance with them and that is even pushing it.

                Tom Coburn: There is No crying in Baseball or SCOTUS Hearings. Your brain has been recalled.

                by wishingwell on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 03:20:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  well, guiliani would make sure the (none)
              religeous right would stay home. there is always a silver lining.
        •  huh? (none)
          Asking for a source is stupid

          No it's not.  What's stupid is when people project their own opinions as fact and others let them slide.

          Some things you just see with your eyes and 2000 was enough for most people.

          To what are you even referring?  And who are these most people?

          Also, I don't think it's up to you to decide if we've had enough of the Clintons (or the Bush's).  Let anyone who wants to run - run.  If Hillary wins the primary (and then the election), well then, people have obviously not had enough of the Clintons.  Frankly, after eight years of Bush, I'd love to go back to the Clinton years, although I know Hillary will be her own president (and she'd be a great one.)O

          •  Well... (none)
            You have to "see something" to believe it.  You may make a good "analyst", but you'd make a terrible strategist, because they have to think ahead, as I do.

            People don't want Gore or Kerry to run again, only a fringe minority that may be a majority here and on the DU, but other than that, "most, most, most" don't want either of them to run, and they are split on whether Hillary Clinton should run.  Since you need to see something before you believe it, maybe you should go to pollingreport and look at the polls about whether Kerry, Gore, or Hillary should run again, and no, I'm not going to post a link.

            "Make the truth your litmus test."

            by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:45:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Enough of Clintons and Bushes (none)
            Present that to the American people, and they will agree once they hear it.  Whoever wants to run can run, but if you want to live in a monarchy, then go to Europe.  

            This is not a dual monarchy.  Clintons and Bushes have been in the Oval Office since 1988.  They don't need to be there beyond January 20, 2009, period.  If you disagree, that's your opinion, but it's a simpleminded one.

            "Make the truth your litmus test."

            by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:47:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  simple minded opinions (none)
              Now this is a post that I do not agree with.

              Whoever wants to run can run, but if you want to live in a monarchy, then go to Europe.  

              You do know that if there's a monarchy, then there has been no event that has required people to "run" -- right?  You do know that no European nation has a monarchy that is more than figurative -- right?

              As I said before, let them run.  If Democrats want her as their nominee, they will vote for her.  If people want Mrs. Clinton as their president, then she was democratically elected.  You seem to be saying that if they vote for a Clinton, they are annointing a monarch -- huh?  Last time I checked, that's called an election, not a monarchy.  When one individual says "your opinions are simpleminded and shouldn't count and certain people should not be president even if the majority votes for them" then you're getting a little closer to your monarchy idea.  I think you've got the simpleminded ideas, bub.

              •  Enough of Clintons and Bushes (none)
                if people want Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or any other Bush then they need to move in with them.

                Just a rotation of family names if a joke.  If we are going to have Bushes and Clintons for 36 straight years, then I could care less about an "event", this is a monarchy ruled by dueling families and this country is a joke.

                No more Clintons or Bushes, period.  If you lay that before the people, they will not choose a Clinton or a Bush, because as the minds of a strategist will tell you, they really believe it, they just don't yet know that they do.

                "Make the truth your litmus test."

                by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:26:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  wow (none)
                  You really are for a monarchy!  A monarchy where they have made you king!  Doesn't matter what the people think or want - it's what you want that matters.  Boy, you are scaaaaaaaary!  And, wow - these visions that somehow your my way or the highway ideology is justified by a strategist?  Dude, you've rejected democracy.  That's not strategic.  That's just being a jerk.
                  •  Well then, call me King Genius (none)
                    Enough of Clintons and Bushes.

                    The American people feel the same way, they just don't know it yet.  If they hear it, they will say, "you know what, it is time to move on."

                    "Make the truth your litmus test."

                    by independentchristian on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 02:49:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You are King Fool (none)
                      Enough of the Bushes.  Hillary 2008.

                      The American people feel the same way, they just don't know it yet.  If they hear it, they will say, "you know what, it is time to move on.  Hillary can help us."

                      Wow, you are right.  It is fun to have the delusion that what you think is what everyone else thinks.  

                      I have faith in the American people that they want to pee on you and your anti-democracy, pro-facist ideas. They just don't know it yet.

                      •  King Genius (none)
                        If you want a Dual Monarchy, then that's you.

                        Most sane Americans know that it's time to move on, and they acknowledge it when they hear it.

                        Moving on...

                        "Make the truth your litmus test."

                        by independentchristian on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:25:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Dual Monarchy (none)
                          If people vote for and elect their president, it's not a dual monarchy.  Did you skip Civics 101?

                          Most sane Americans know that it's time to move on, and they acknowledge it when they hear it.

                          Source?  Or is this one of those times that you are saying something and assume that this is enough to deem it true?  Remember, reality and your wishful thoughts are not one in the same.

                          Now we can move on...

          •  if she is nominated, i'll work hard for her. (none)
            i think she would do a good job.
  •  What kind of a stupid headline is this? (none)
    Kennedy backs Kerry in 2008 -- even if Hillary runs

    Hillary Clinton isn't "ENTITLED" to anything you fools!!!!!

    No more Bushes and Clintons!  End the dual monarchy!  They have been in the White House and all over the news since 1988!  No more!  It's time for some new blood in the White House!

    "Make the truth your litmus test."

    by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:03:07 PM PDT

  •  Anything is possible (none)
    If we were to shower an outpouring of heartfelt support on Gore, perhaps he would change his mind. I know he was hurt by the 2000 election, but I see him as the best possible choice for 2008.
    •  If he doesn't run what do you do... (none)
      ...move on or go to the other "former nominee"?

      Hopefully some of the people who dwell on the past don't say, "well, our 2008 candidate isn't running again so let's go with our 2004 candidate."  I doubt that will happen as most don't even want Kerry to run, and a pretty good chunk don't run "THE OTHER CLINTON" to run, either.

      Enough of Clintons and Bushes!  They have dominated this country for too long!  It's time for some new blood in 2008, and forever more!  No more Bushes or Clintons at all!

      "Make the truth your litmus test."

      by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:09:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder if any other potential 2008 candidate has (none)
    ever said they have no "plans" or "intentions" on running in 2008.

    Well, lookie here

    Granted, she is not "officially" running- yet. But the point is he never said he was definitely not running.

    Keep hope alive, Gore '08 supporters!

    •  All of them have said it, but... (none)
      ...Gore seems serious, and the others never did when they said it.  You already knew better because most of them had "staff" or "plans."

      If Gore runs I'll be shocked, and I rarely am because I usually know.

      "Make the truth your litmus test."

      by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:06:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Poor Al Gore (none)
    I think this helps John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

    No more Clintons or Bushes in 2008!  Enough with them already!

    "Make the truth your litmus test."

    by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:04:56 PM PDT

    •  No more Clintons? (none)
      You don't like peace and prosperity?
      •  I think he means (none)
        he does not like grabby politicos who think only of themselves, and to hell with the country.
      •  So, you can only have prosperity with a Clinton? (none)
        That's not the case as any rational person knows.

        I'm sick of having Clintons and Bushes dominating the political scene in this country, as they have "SINCE 1988"!

        It's time for a change.  

        No DLC Democrats and no Clintons or Bushes in 2008!

        "Make the truth your litmus test."

        by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:24:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  who the f*k is (none)
          making crappy slams at Clinton?

          He worked his ass off and left the country in solid shape.
          His wife came in with a plan to reform healthcare.

          The Repugs went in like a maggot stampede.

          There has not been a president like Clinton since Kennedy.

          Listening to little nobodys bash this guy makes me want
          turn the cockroach spray on my computer monitor and
          put you little sleazeballs twitching your legs toward the ceiling.

  •  I'd vote for Gore (none)
    He would make a seriously wonderful president.  He's too nice to be an effective candidate though.
  •  Of all the candidates and wannabe candidates.... (none)
    during the past 20 years in America, Gore most deserves to be president!   Too bad he's not running...

    "Americans' failure to appreciate the power and cunning of the business lobby is the single biggest cause of the erosion of our standard of living."

    by vegasobserver on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:13:28 PM PDT

  •  Kos and Gore (none)
    It seems that, for whatever reason, Kos does not want Gore.  He's refused to include him in polls, when he does he snickers that it's a "fantasy poll".  And now Gore has said he has no "intention" of running and leaves a ton of wiggle room, and Kos takes it as a definitive refusal.  Somehow, if HRC was to say the same, I think his reaction would be quite different.
  •  Good. Gore Is The Poster Boy DLCer. (none)
    It's tremendously inconsistent to fail to see that. Yes he has been extremely candid in his criticism of Bush and yes I think he is a good, even great man.

    No, he is not the right way to go forward. A candidate for president... A leader for the party... Who is a clear champion of good progressive ideals is. Luckily there is one guy who has a lot of experience being exactly that, and he is to all appearances running. His name is Russ Feingold.

    You can say what you want about the Roberts vote. Do you think Gore would have voted against a conservative SCOTUS nominee on a knee-jerk basis? Well, let's see, did he? Gore, just like Lieberman, voted for Scalia in 1986. (The vote was 98-0). Unlike Roberts, Scalia had very public conservative positions. Gore almost voted to confirm Clarence Thomas, but a crack from Thomas referring to some members of congress as "petty despots" swung his vote. How could a vote be swayed by a petty crack, when it would not be swayed by rock-hard conservatism? Why, when a thin skin and pursed-lip church-lady sensibility are more important to the voter than progressive principles.

    Anyone who beats up on Kerry and thinks Gore is the cat's meow either hasn't thought it through or has, actually, a very different set of concerns than rhetorically suggested. How can you, Kos, gripe about Feingold's Roberts vote while saying Gore would excite you for 2008?

    How about a candidate who voted against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, IWR, is the first senator to set a date for withdrawal from Iraq, is a straight talker and knows how to make nice with red states? How about a twice-divorced individual who is not going to be the kind of prude you say is unwelcome on your site? How do you think Tipper and Al would feel about ye olde pie ad? Feingold is not only right, he is cool. And not in a stagy BS kind of way.

    Yes the Roberts vote irked me, but to declare it fatal, and give Gore a pass for his SCOTUS deliberations? Can't see that.

    9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

    by NewDirection on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:16:00 PM PDT

    •  different times (none)
      Gore, just like Lieberman, voted for Scalia in 1986. (The vote was 98-0).

      Gore, just like Kennedy, voted for Scalia in 1986. (The vote was 98-0).

      •  Yeah I Noted That Margin... (none)
        ...It is important. But more telling is the grounds on which (actually, I didn't double-source it) Gore declined to vote for Thomas.

        In any case I don't despise Scalia the way I do the new, somehow plastic breed of corporatists that the politicians who themselves generally lack that slickness, are putting into power.

        But my real point is that dismissing Feingold while lauding Gore is just plain inconsistent... Unless the reality is that Gore is okay because he is a hawkish moderate in favor of the death penalty and with a history of social conservatism. And that Feingold, consistently against evil things, is too liberal, not too liberal to win but too liberal for certain tastes here. That's not something I am trying to assert, it is merely a question that announced itself to me unbidden, which I want to sort out.

        By the way on Roberts, a look at how the other side of the fence views him and Miers is worthwhile:
        http://www.americandaily.com/article/9669

        9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

        by NewDirection on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:17:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why Dems lose (none)
          not too liberal to win but too liberal for certain tastes here.

          So your theory is that while a candidate might not be liked by all Kossacks because he is too liberal the general public, those people who don't pay attention, worry only about themselves, and get what little news they DO get from Entertainment Tonight WILL vote for your "too liberal for Koss" candidate?

          No wonder we keep losing!

          •  The Point Is.... (none)
            ...That the more politically aware progressives are, the more bad strategy they inherit from past failed Democratic (but often not progressive) campaigning and framing.

            The number one problem is that progressives think there is such a thing as "too liberal." Of course people in polls say that there is such a thing as "too liberal," because they have been convinced that "liberal" means "graverobbing transsexual kicker of puppies."

            But I am using liberal to mean fiscally responsible, personal-liberty, personal-freedom, rational progressivism. I maintain that there is no such thing as too much of that. Not for the broader public.

            It all comes down to whether you accept that liberalism is right, and therefore appealing when not misunderstood. Too many people in politics do not accept that, are afraid of that. It requires bravery to believe that, to have faith in it, but to reject it is failure, and is indeed the reason "we" keep losing.

            9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

            by NewDirection on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:59:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah, "rational" progressivism! (none)
              That must be why people stopped buying SUVs years ago and McDonalds and the other fast food chains went belly up!

              Most of America doesn't buy into progressive ideas, at least not enough to VOTE for them.  I live in an urban area so I can walk to work, walk to a nearby farmer's market so I can buy organic what I don't raise myself, compost what I don't eat, etc.  So, I can claim a bit of "left field" for myself but the population as a whole does NOT embrace those values.

              If they did, we would have a green party governor or even mayor somewhere, perhaps some highly progressive mayors outside of San Francisco, a place that considers ITS mayor a "moderate"!

              If you believe the reason we are losing is because we havent embraces a "liberal" enough candidate, then try your strategy on a local campaign were it won't do as much damage.  Strategies like yours got us Nader and Bush.

              I DO agree that America will buy SOME liberal ideas if told them by someone who has the balls to stand behind them and the leadership to convince them they are right.  However, I haven't seen the far left produce anyone like that.  

              •  That's It Right There (none)
                That must be why people stopped buying SUVs years ago and McDonalds and the other fast food chains went belly up!

                I hate those things but I include personal (and marketplace) libertarianism in what I define as progressive. I understand that some people see it differently and want to regulate the hell out of everything to sculpt society. Not me. Not people who vote against their own (other) interests to vote repub.

                9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

                by NewDirection on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:42:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  huh? (none)
                  Who's talking regulating anything?

                  You were talking about how we need candidates who are super progressive to win and then you start tacking on anything and everything to what "progressive" means.

                  I would love to see "progressives" embrace the 2nd amendment and while I believe owning guns SHOULD be a progressive value, it isn't at least not yet.

                  Many many progressives are perfectly happy regulating anything and everything.  That is why they want a progressive president, so he can force America to be more "green" rather than doing the much harder work to show America that "green" IS good so they can CHOOSE to vote that way.

                  I support progressive ideas but not progressive candidates because the LOSE.  We can argue over the "why" for their losing but it would be a much more interesting debate if it was over why they were winning at the local and state levels.  Till they can do that, risking the end of the world on their dreams is too risky to me.  Nader can go jump off a cliff, or even better, DRIVE off one in a Corvair for all I care.

                  •  Well The Term Progressive (none)
                    Has meant many things to many people since at least as early as the Bull Moose Party, and then the weird anti-WWII Progressive Party, with it's Nazi-style Double-X banners.

                    Liberal is almost as bastardized philosophically.

                    I say "progressive" rather than liberal when talking about broad appeal, because progressive is botha  non-partisan word, and because unlike liberal it is less properly associated with overblown societal micromanagement.

                    As to why I brought up regulating things, well, you got started by countering my contention that people would vote progressive, by saying no, look at how many big macs and MPG of gas they consume. To which I answer, there's nothing about voting progressive that should impinge upon your lifestyle. And the perceived threat of exactly that keeps people away from liberalism. It's neo-liberalism that they are afraid of... But again, semantics.

                    9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

                    by NewDirection on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 12:36:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  kdldlla (none)
                      I made the sarcastic comment about SUVs and McDonalds to point out most people don't give a rat's ass about "progressive" ideas REGARDLESS of how you define them, unless you bastardize the meaning compleately.

                      People my like warm fuzzy ideas but they don't want to pay for them and they don't want to sacrafice for them.  They want to save wetlands unless it prevents them from buying a house built on cheap land, or if it prevents a new Walmart (maybe in the bay area but not in the heartland), or if a new freeway would save them 10 minutes on their commute in their before mentioned SUV.

                      This little thread started with you claiming there are progressive candidates who are "not too liberal to win but too liberal for certain tastes here"

                      I was merely pointing out ludicrious that statement is.

                      •  I Don't Agree (none)
                        I just flat out don't agree that the country and its people are worth as much as rainwater at the bottom of a convenience store garbage can. Certainly conservatism, whichever party it originates in, has the effect of bringing us closer to that.

                        Believing that and at the same time running a blustery campaign full of odes to American Exceptionalism is foul... The truth is somewhere in the middle and we need to start from the truth and then explain where we want to get.

                        I don't think you have poked some kind of fatal hole in my logic but, if it is a little ray of sunshine for you to believe so, then be my guest.

                        9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

                        by NewDirection on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 03:14:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  One big difference between Gore and the DLC (none)
      Gore has been outspoken against the war in Iraq since Day 1. The DLC and the vast majority of dems can not say that, and that puts the DLC and most dems on the wrong side of the fence, IMO.
      •  With Gore on the right side of the fence. (none)
        •  yes and listen to what he's been sayin-right on (none)
          he's a much stronger candidate now...anyone who hasn't heard his speech from a few days ago really needs to hear it--and don't just read the transcript, listen. it's incredible. peace, now.
      •  Yes. (none)
        But turn back the clock to the Gulf War. There was much more division among the Democrats over that one, much more debate. In fact I watched them... All... On C-Span at the time. I remember Gore's statements vividly... They swayed me to support the war until I saw the aftermath (not firsthand). And then of course, brutal sanctions, always affecting the Iraqi people but not Saddam's power within his borders, through the Clinton years.

        Hardly a humanitarian record toward Iraqis, if that matters at all.

        Oh.. Kerry voted against that one. It is the right vote in my mind. It would have prevented both the Iraq War and quite likely Al Qaeda too, as that is their frequent cited reason to exist, had we dealt with the Kuwait annexation diplomatically.
        Four points about that:

        1. Iraq asked our ambassador if they could invade, she said fine, and Bush only had a problem with it after the fact. That's an important point, not a weird little footnote.
        2. Kuwait was drilling diagonally under their border with Iraq, extracting Iraqi oil. Kuwait was also in the habit of importing Indonesian workers and confiscating their passports to turn them into slaves. Furthermore, Kuwait was a former province of Iraq that had been separated from it by the British.
        3. The story about the invading Iraqis taking babies out of incubators in order to take the incubators back to Iraq has been proven to be a complete fabrication, sneaky propaganda likely originating in true Bush fashion in a think-tank.
        4. Nevertheless, the annexation of Kuwait was wrong, but pales in comparison to many other such events by, for example, China. The whole argument "yes but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing when the powers that be say it's okay" is tripe. We can't do the right thing, it doesn't work. It's not working now, is it? It got the fat cats back into Kuwait, but, you know, was it worth untold thousands of dead Iraqis? Worth September 11th? And all the mess that has followed? I don't think so.

        9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

        by NewDirection on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:31:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Gore WAS a DLCer... (none)
      but unlike most DLCers he completely wised up.  

      "Americans' failure to appreciate the power and cunning of the business lobby is the single biggest cause of the erosion of our standard of living."

      by vegasobserver on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:14:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Have no fear! (none)
    We've got JoeMentum™!
  •  Gore won't run because..... (none)
    his family was threatened after 2000, which led him to not contest the election. I think his statement above reflects his position that he won't consider running as long as "the powers that be" are still a threat to the welfare of his family.
    •  Rightwing Thugs (none)
      Threw a rock through the window of the Kerry's house, nearly hitting his infant daughter in her crib. He perservered in politics, even though he could have lived a comfortable life of ease or private law practice, while she divorced him.

      Worth remembering on Kerry-bashing DailyKos.

      9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

      by NewDirection on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:33:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dems need a junkyard dog. (4.00)
    When you consider the fates of Al Gore and John Kerry, it only confirms the GOP's ability to fight dirty and win. Remember how high Bill Clinton's approval rating was before Ken Starr stumbled onto Monica and her blue dress? Take away Starr's multi-million-dollar witch hunt (dutifully trumpeted by sycophants in the media) and Gore would have won by a landslide in 2000.

    But Kerry dug his own grave when he wimped out on the Iraq war. Let's face it: Bush used 9/11 to herd the Democrats into line like cattle. We've all seen endless clips of Kerry saying "I voted for the war and then I voted against the war." That's what Bush hammered him with during the 2004 campaign.

    In the end, though, both Gore and Kerry pulled their punches. Neither of those elections should have been close enough to steal. The Dems aren't going to win again until they start ripping the GOP a new one. When you're in a street fight, civility can be fatal.

  •  Moving on, then (none)
    We need someone with experience running something as our candidate. A governor or a mayor, somebody who can point to their own experience running a state or big city and say: Look, I turned this place around, I can turn america around.

    That's who we need, and then they should make Gore Head of the EPA where he can kick some serious ass, Clinton SecY of State where he can start undoing Bush's carnage, and we can get to work rebuilding this country.

    I liked Gore's last speech, but honestly, we need somebody with executive experience, not a Senator.

  •  No Gore (none)
    I realize that Mr. Gore is popular on this site because of his endorsement of Dean in 2003.  I also have no doubt he would have been a fine president, if not a Clintonian one, and that our country would be in a far better state today with Mr. Gore as president and Mr. Lieberman as vice-president.

    Nonetheless, in spite of the undeniable "we wuz robbed" appeal, I would oppose a Gore candidacy in 2008, for several reasons.

    One is that his personality is fundamentally suited to the Senate, not the Oval Office.  There is much consternation here when other Democratic senators suggest a run for the White House; why should Gore be an exception?

    Another is that, after the Dean endorsement, I truly don't know what Gore stands for.  I can tell you why Wes Clark wanted to be president: George W. Bush is destroying his army.  I can tell you why John Edwards wants to be president: the two Americas.  But why Gore?  If it's "we wuz robbed," why didn't he run in 2004?  I mean, here we have someone who, earlier in his career, was anti-choice.  He also voted for the first Gulf War, which I view as a plus.  Then he became a Clintonian centrist, only to repudiate Clintonism during the 2000 campaign.  He picks Joe Lieberman for his vice president, then endorses Dean.  Why?

    I believe that Wes Clark or Hillary Clinton would be a much stronger candidate.

    •  Standing for stuff. (none)
      Well, I supported Dean from the summer of '03 until about five days before the Iowa primary, because I saw him as the sort of practical, moderate, hawkish Tsongas-like Dem who symbolically stood against the Dems' disgraceful lack of opposition to or even comment on the war in Iraq.  I never supported him because I thought he was a flaming "progressive" (and I gave up on one when he started acting that way near the end).  He was pro-capital punishment, pro-military (also supported the Persian Gulf War and ground troops in the Balkans, when most other Dems didn't), pro-trade, pro-federalism... if anything a bit too conservative for my tastes.  But I think the US only moves in a progressive direction with a conservative leader so he was my logical choice.

      Point is, he seemed like the logical candidate for Gore -- also a moderate, hawkish Dem who disliked the war in Iraq -- to support.  I didn't see the contradiction (though I did think Gore and the Dean campaign botched the endorsement pretty badly -- one of his few post-2000 missteps.)

      In 2000, I thought Gore stood for a progressivism that respected traditional values and the cultural fear of modernity (not to mention disgust with Clinton's personal behaviour) while embracing pluralism (Lieberman talked endlessly about pluralism) but also promised something to liberals beyond just the "third way".  But he also stood for getting himself elected in a conservative country.  Lieberman made Florida close.  If it had been just a little closer, things would be very different.

      Gore would be a lousy nominee in 2008 (imo), but not because he doesn't "stand for things" consistently, but because he has terrible national negatives, the press hates him, he'd inspire too much "passion" (much of it negative), bring out the wingnut vote even for McCain, and the "intrigue" of his running against Hillary Clinton would send the press corps' bad-taste-o-meter to 11.  He knows all this I think.  But it still makes me sad that it's so impossible (but it is).

      The grass is always greener when it bursts up through concrete -- XTC

      by tlaura on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:49:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  gore or no gore (none)
    Brian Williams just talked new horrendous poll numbers for bush. One of the most striking- only 2% of African Americans think the country is going in the right direction...regardless of who is at the top of the ticket in '08, this looks promising for '06 congressional races- could it be that people are finally paying attention???
    •  One word... (none)
      ..."Diebold."

      Just ask Saxby Chambliss what a good electronic voting machine can do for you.  You can go to bed one night 10 points behind Max Clelland in the polls and go to bed the next night the newly elected Senator from Georgia.

      Stuff like that makes me want to hurt someone, seriously.

      "Make the truth your litmus test."

      by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:43:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  and didn't I read where Kerry is STILL losing (none)
      to Bush in a mythical head-to-head race today?

      Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

      by philgoblue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:33:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  don't believe those poll numbers. (none)
        i don't trust most so called pollsters. i think bush has been in deep shit for longer than the suckups are saying. i think it is sooooooooooo bad now that they have to admit something.
    •  Too bad... (none)
      ...that the black vote is irrelevant in 90% of the congressional races.  Most house seats are rural, and the ones that aren't are mostly democratic.  Now the senate is a different story!

      Thanks,

      Mike

  •  *Wrong* (4.00)
    He said that he had no "plans" or "expectations" of running.  As has been noted on several other threads, that is hardly a Shermanesque statement, taking yourself out of the race.  And frankly Kos, you should have more political sophistication than to post such a misleading diary.

    No more Melissa Beans!

    by Paleo on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:57:08 PM PDT

  •  kos (none)
    do you know something we don't or are you just disagreeing with all of our hopeful (and possibly naive) speculation so we can get mentioned on the cnn.com politics front page and first read on msnbc?  speaking of, those...you reporters need to be finding your own stories...moreover, "dailykos says" is not exactly the same as, say, posting a diary and asking for input.

    you can rearrange my face but you can't rearrange my mind -6.63,-4.67

    by mediaprisoner on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:01:08 PM PDT

  •  so he's going to run? (4.00)
    somehow, that's how this struck me.
  •  Run, Al! Run like the wind! (none)
    Al Gore is still relatively young.  Never say never.  There is plenty of time to still persuade him that he may in fact be needed to save our country. Remember that Hillary also said she has no plans to run and who believes her..... yes it's hard to believe Mr. Gore could be as coy as Hillary, but it might take another 2 years for him to heal from 2000 and we should probably grant him the time.  I think there is still a remote chance he can be persuaded.

    That's based on nothing but my optimism and refusal to believe this country is going to be ruled by Neocons forever.

  •  Did You Ever Have the Feeling...? (none)
    That you wanted to go?
    And then you had the feeling that you wanted to stay?

    Thus sang Jimmy Durante in the 1920s and so sings Al Gore today.

    This only convinces me that Al Gore IS running.

    And that only makes my heart sing because the 2000 election experience transformed him and if you've heard him speak since, or listened to what he's had to say then you know the new 21st Century Al is ready to lead, ready to rip the GOP a new one, and has the smarts and ideas we need to move progressively forward.

    All of you who quibble with Al for various reasons cannot deny that we would not be in a sinkhole war in Iraq if he had been elected.
    We would not have given the budget busting tax cut to the rich if he had been President.
    And we would not have a government full of inept crooks.

    Al Gore has my vote... again.

    "The Buddhist was pissed... and it wasn't the first time."

    by The Angry Buddhist on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:25:46 PM PDT

  •  How about a cabinet appointment? (none)
    Secretary of State, anyone?

    "Dear Buddha, I'd like a pony and a plastic rocket"
    --Malcolm Reynolds

    by drobnox on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:29:14 PM PDT

    •  Would you say that a Sec of State... (none)
      ...in a Democratic Administration is more powerful than a Vice-President?  I would.  Gore would be a great Secretary of State, as would Joe Biden, but anyone who wants to put Gore on a ticket as a running mate as I have seen some people do (Clark-Gore or Edwards-Gore), those people need to go someone and educate themselves, seriously.  

      "Make the truth your litmus test."

      by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:40:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  gore is right (none)
    he had his chance and blew it,now if he can only get kerry to say the same thing!
    •  He (none)
      had his chance and he won the popular vote. And according to Pres. Carter, he won Florida too, and hence the presidency (link)

      and hence he was robbed of his chance.

      thanks.

      •  Yeah, he was robbed, but it's over... (none)
        ...for him and Kerry.  At least Gore is smart enough to realize it.

        "Make the truth your litmus test."

        by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:37:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not necessarily (4.00)
          true. Nixon won after losing a election. Besides, "new" candidates may not be "better" candidates. Gore seems to have found his own voice and he is much better bet than Edwards, Clark or even Clinton. Because of these factors:

          • Name Recognition. Gore is second to none in terms of name recognition after Clintons. And he is associated with some pretty good memories..ummm..the Nineties which after all these Bush Years can be nostalgic solace to a lot of people.

          • Guilt/Apology factor. I think a lot of people, both in Media and in general population feel that they owe Gore a sincere apology the way (a)Media treated him compared to how they treated Bush and (b)Supreme court awarded victory to Bush which rightfully belonged to him.

          • African American/Minority Turnout: I think black (and others) voters turn-out would be sigficantly higher with Gore (with Hillary too) than with Clark or Edwards because they associate him with Clinton era and they too very strongly feel Gore was wronged by Bush people.

          • Genuine Liberal. Gore has moved quite far away from him DLC days and liberal democrats (I for one) are more comfortable with him than they are with Kerry or Clinton. Environment is his biggest legacy.

          • Clark or Edwards (no offence) are no match for Mccain and/or Giuliani. Feingold is Jewish/Divorced. Sorry, American electorate hasn't evolved that far to accept him as of yet. Only Gore is strong enough to beat Mccain or Giuliani. Hillary has simply too many baggage. She probably won't get a single male Republican vote come 2008 given their hatred for her.

          My Two cents..what the heck..
      •  well (none)
        and hence he was robbed of his victory, and hence effectively of his chance too. Therefore, he deserves another shot, and believe that he will be our 44th president :)
    •  I'll give it a 3 just because of the Kerry part... (none)
      ...but the fact of the matter is Gore and Kerry both actually won.  It's hard to walk away from that, but Kerry needs to reach within himself and find the same "whatever" that led him to bow out on November 3rd and walk away now.  C'mon Kerry.  That same "quit" must still be in you somewhere.

      "Make the truth your litmus test."

      by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:37:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gore did not elaborate (4.00)
    ``We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us,'' he said, referring to Iraq. ``We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families.''
    ``We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people,'' Gore said. ``We would be a different country.''
    Gore did not elaborate.

    Does he need to?

  •  perhaps he likes private life? (none)
    His comments seem a little bit ambiguous to me, but for now, I'll take him at his word.

    If true, it's a shame. Gore would have been a terrific president. But I get the impression that he really may enjoy being a private citizen who can speak his mind and do what he wants without having to constantly worry about possible political ramifications. And as his airlift during the Hurricane Katrina disaster showed, he's willing to put his personal fortune and political clout to good use in the world.

    There were some rumors back in the second term of the Clinton administration that Gore was not entirely sure about a run in '00, but decided to declare his candidacy out of a sense of party loyalty. That would at least partially explain why he was such a clumsy campaigner that year. 9/11/2001 raised the stakes considerably, and he decided to come out of political hibernation at least partially.

    I remember thinking back in 2000 that Gore wasn't a particularly strong candidate. But as the events of the past five years have shown, he was undoubtedly the right choice. I will be proud to tell my children and grandchildren one day that I voted for him instead of the bozo cowboy who occupies the oval office now.

    •  Seriously: can you imagine that Gore would enjoy (none)
      anything more than being president?

      For goodness sake he trained himself for the job since he was 6 years old!

      There is no job on Earth which he would like to have more than the presidency.

      So it's not whether he wants to be president. Sure he wants.
      But whether he wants to campaign. Sure he doesn't want -- he hates the whole thing.
      And the final question is: whether he wants to be president so badly that he will be willing to campaign for it even if he has to vomit every day?

      With these statements he certainly didn't rule it out. And at this point of time noone can demand more from him.
      As far as I know no Dem said that 'I will run for president in 2008'
      It's way too early.

  •  Hogging the top spot... (none)
    ...with this post for over three hours during prime time seems kind of a waste. Surely there are more important things for folks to learn about tonight than speculation about whether or not Gore will run in 2008. We all stipulate as fact that Gore's not running next time 'round. Let's move on.
  •  Too bad Keith Olbermann didn't mention... (none)
    ...this in his compelation.

    "Make the truth your litmus test."

    by independentchristian on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:39:13 PM PDT

  •  Then Draft Al Gore (none)
    Gore will be the president.  America needs him.  The world needs him.  But it was smart for Gore to say now that he has no intention to run for president.  It's too early.
  •  Shame on you Kos (none)
    For not updating your diary to reflect the truth, that he didn't say he would never run. That he is leaving possibilities open.

    Which means we can beg him. Once again you choose to sit it out and not fight.

  •  Oh Pleeze-- Get Real (none)
    If given suppot, he will run.

    To convict these men would be a crime.... to haunt each of you ... until the day you die. -- Paths of Glory

    by Daxman on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:17:07 PM PDT

  •  HEY MAN! YOUR TITLE LIES! (none)
    Gore did not say he won't run.
    Stop putting words to his mouth.
    He said he has no plans now but he does not rule it out.
    Can you understand the difference?

    Correct your fucking misleading title and stop lying about Gore.

  •  HEY MAN! YOUR TITLE LIES! (none)
    Gore did not say he won't run.
    Stop putting words to his mouth.
    He said he has no plans now but he does not rule it out.
    Can you understand the difference?

    Correct your fucking misleading title and stop lying about Gore.

  •  Senator Gore? (none)
    Hubert Humphrey was VP, ran for the Presidency and lost, and then went back and was reelected to his old job -US Senator from Minnesota. I doubt he'd do it, but we could sure use a winner in TN next year!
  •  Now I'm Convinced (none)
    Would Gore be a great addition to the race? Undoubtedly.

    totally wrong.

    the fact that you and numerous others are STILL hanging on to the pipe dream, the totally wrong candidate for the dem party-- proves just how much trouble the dem party is in.

    prepare to lose again unless you intend to figure out political reality.

    •  I totally agree (none)
       While I am about as far left as they come & I love Gore but there's no chance in hell he would win.  I understand that we (the hard core left) are in love with him but he wouldn't win 1 state in the primaries.  Especially since it's Iowa & New Hampshire there's to many moderate's & not enough liberals to allow him to do that.  Hillary is the nominee & there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.  I don't understand why you all turned your backs on her.  You know she's only moving to the center so she can get elected president & once she's in there she'll promote our ideals & policies.  I love her to death & already have a "Hillary in 08" bumper sticker on my car.  But I'm just curious WHEN she's chosen as the nominee are you all going to support her & do everything possible to maker sure she wins or are you just gonna sit at home because your pissed your guy didn't win.  There are to many people here that I've heard say there just not going to vote why?  Any Democrat is better than a Republican right?
      •  Another Pipe Dream (none)
        You know she's only moving to the center so she can get elected president & once she's in there she'll promote our ideals & policies.

        I hope you're kidding with this.

        right?

      •  Gore is not far-left and he is not a liberal. (4.00)
        So forget your theories.

        He is for smaller and more effective government,
        more military spending, middle-class tax cuts, welfare reform, he is against gay marriage but most of all he is a technocart who is obsessed with issues that cannot be put into any ideological issue.

        He is not a dove and he is not a big spender and
        he is as moral as it gets. Is that your typical liberal?
        You seem to fall for the MSM and RW spin, who with all their increible insight, condluded that because Gore opposed the war in Iraq he moved to the left. Nevermind that former Bush administration officials and lifelong Republicans like Scott Ritter or Antony Zinni also opposed the war.

        Gore wouldn't have problems with the primaries.
        He would win Iowa by a landslide. The Iowa causus is very liberal by the way and most Dems over there are very anti-war. Noone could compete with Gore on that.

        He would have problems in the general election.
        But any Dem will.

        •  No you don't understand what I'm saying (3.50)
           Maybe I said it wrong or something I understand that at heart he's a moderate & for the most part publicaly is 1 to.  But when the right wing get's a hold of all those speache's he made they'll eat him alive.  Since when is the Iowa caucus liberal?  That's why Bush won Iowa in 04 & almost in 00, that's why for gov in 06 both candidates are tied, & so on.  Gore would have made an excellent president & so would Kerry but there time is over with.  Also why do you have such little faith in our party nationaly.  After about 45year's of republican rule & the great evangelical movement (except for Clinton & Carter) people are ready for a new movement a liberal movement.  I understand that the new movements already underway & I really think we'll win back at least 1 of the house's hopefully both.  But I don't think that we can have a liberal candidate in 08 maybe in 2012 but not 08.  That's why Hillary is moving to the center & yes I am serious about my previous statement.  Just explain to me why you all have lost faith in her.  She used to be the darling of the left what happened.  There's a great saying that Pat Buchanan says all the time "Bill Clinton was a moderate & a liberal when he had to be Hillary is a liberal & a moderate when she has to be".  She's only doing this to get elected how much more obvious can she make it.  I guess she hoped that the left would know that & she could fool the rest of the country into thinking she was a moderate but the left doesn't understand that anymore.  Anyway let me make my self clear this time though I understand that Gore is not a liberal but Nixion is the only person to do what you want Gore to do & I don't think he can do that.  I promise you the most damaging line someone can say to him is "he couldn't do it in 2000 so why can he do it now".  Not to mention a lot of the independents who voted for him would never vote for him again because it pissed a lot of them off that he contested the election.  Last thing then I'm done & I know this is going to sound really corny but why can't we all just get a long, the country is so ready for a liberal movement.  But where to busy fighting over which way to temporarily move our party rather than uniting in time to win in 08.
        •  Uhhh, Must I (none)
          "...he is as moral as it gets. Is that your typical liberal?"

          moral, eh? <sigh>

          then I wonder WHY he sided with the drug companies fighting to keep inexpensive AIDS drugs from South Africans who desperately needed them?

          hundreds of thousands died while Mr. Morality haggled with the various groups involved.

          weak, very weak. that is about as immoral as it gets.

        •  Also (none)
          it's not about whether Gore passed the "liberal litmus_ exam.

          it's about whether he was truly the right candidate at the right time.

          the answer is clearly NO.

          yet clearly many of you are still clinging to the desperate hope he is the right candidate.

      •  I don't know if this is true (none)
        I love Gore but there's no chance in hell he would win.

        I don't know if this is altogether a true assumption. There is a good chance that Gore could win in 2008 if he was the nominee depending on how he nominated for VP and who his opponent is. Don't forget that no matter who the Democrat is, they are pretty much going to win the states they win all the time.
        In 2000, Gore won 266 EC votes. Kerry won 251, less due to redistricting and losing both Iowa and New Mexico, states Gore won.
        Looking at the map, it is pretty clear that almost all the states Kerry won are safe Democrat states. Kucinich would have won those states. Sharpton or Nader, had he been the Democratic nominee, probably would have won those states. Kerry was an incredibly flawed candidate running against a despised incumbent president who got the nation into a fraudulent and needless war, and yet he still lost.
        The same won't be the same in 2008.
        In 2008, almost any nominee starts with what Kerry won. Period. Look at the map. Unless the Dems nominate an Evan Bayh or another corporate whore and a very popular leftwing candidate challenges the Dems as an indie. In other words, highly doubtful for them to lose those blue states.
        So, where do they win in the red states? Well, who is the nominee? Is the nominee a free trader or a populist who truly fights for working families? Is the nominee a Dick Gephardt Democrat or a Robert Rubin Democrat? If it is a Robert Rubin Democrat, well, those chances are going to be kinda slim. If it is a Dick Gephardt Democrat, well, you there is a good chance you get Iowa back, along with Ohio, Missouri, and maybe even Louisiana.
        Would Gore continue his populist kick he is on right now or would he sulk back into his old ways if he was the nominee? That is the key to Gore winning. If he goes back to his Clinton ways, he would be doomed for sure.

    •  That "totally wrong" candidate (3.50)
      has been right just about everything over the last 6 years not the least about Iraq.

      Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Clark all screw it up with the resolution. Gore didn't.

      Yeah it would be sooooo stupid to nominate someone for the presidency who actually can make reasonable decisions that are based on facts not on paranoia or political calculation.
      You're right. That would be totally wrong.

      The Dem party is in the toilet because if idiots like you who cave in to the RW and MSM spin.

      •  What's wrong with you (none)
        I understand that you disagree with me but that's no reason to get all pissed off & call me an idiot.  I'm not giving in to the right wing I just understand that while he would be our dream candidate (not mine I love Hillary) he wouldn't win the primaries because of where there held.  Maybe if it was in New York or Illinois he might win but not in Iowa.  But it's nice to know that you can't talk to anyone who doesn't feel just like you do.  Shows how united our party realy is.  

        Now I'm gonna get yelled at some more 4 saying that last line right?

        •  Someone who says idiotic things is an idiot. (none)
          I'm a big fan of moral clarity.

          No wonder that you are a Hillary fan. She, too, is an idiot.

          Did you listen to her in Baghdad a few months ago? She sounded like Dick Cheney. And, of course, as always she was dead wrong.

          You are wrong, too. The Iowa Dems are actually more liberal than you portray them. Hello they voted for John Kerry who is much more liberal than Gore) But most of all they are anti-war.
          And as Bill Clinton proved you don't have to win NH to win the primaries. But again, Gore almost lost NH to Bradley in 2000 who was more liberal than Gore.
          Iowa voted overwhelmingly for Gore over Bradley.

          Moreover Hillary is not perceived as a moderate thanks to her insane health care debacle and other things. Do you think that people are so stupid they will forget her record just because she is not posing with Newt Gringrich and voted for the war for pure political reasons?

          If Gore ran he would win the primaries easily.
          The general election would be tricky. But hell it would be tricky for Hillary, too.

          And no I will not rally behind your Hillary. She is a shame, a joke and an idiot and I've had enough of those qualities in the White House under Bush.
          She should be sent to Iraq and pay the price
          that others whom she wants to keep there are paying very day.

          •  I give up (none)
             I've always been proud to call myself a liberal & one of you but after reading all this shit I don't know how to feel.  It really scars me that just because someone disagree's with all of you you all go crazy & name call.  No one will ever vote for us if we talk like that & call the voter's ediots because there not as liberal as we are.  I've always felt at home at Daily Kos that I found a place where people feel just like I do but I guess I was wrong.  I thought I would never say this but the right wing is finally right about something.  It's people like you who hold this party back from becoming the majority again.  All of you would rather wait a thousand years for your dream candidate than nominate someone whoe's still one of us but not as liberal as us.  By the way your are right about 1 thing.  The right will never forget that about her, but many independents can & will along with a ton of democrats.  They'll understand that people can make mistakes & go about things the wrong way for chirsts sake were human we all make mistakes.  But keep on believing that bc so many people thought that when she ran for senate & she proved u all wrong then.  Everyone said Bill will hurt her, she's to liberal, & mentioned her health care plan & none of it worked she won and most importantly she won in upstate New York.  Her whole life she's taken critism & she's always come out on top so why should this time be any different & in 08 I guess she'll have to prove you all wrong again.
            •  Oh, my goodness. (none)
              The entire blog community didn't call you names.  Yes, the debate gets fierce here, and sometimes someone is offended, but remember the larger picture.  

              I disagree vehemently with you about Hillary.  Her health care plan was the corporate plan; she never made a move without consulting with the monster health "care" industry CEOs.  It was better than nothing, but it was hardly the tax-supported solution that a real liberal would get behind.

              But I agree with you just as vehemently that we have to get behind the nominee in 2008.  I got behind Kerry in 2004 as most Democrats did, although I was a Dean supporter, and Iowa left a very, very foul taste in my mouth.

            •  I didn't call you an idiot (none)
              because you are a liberal.
              And I didn't call Hillary an idiot because she is not a liberal.
              In fact I am not a liberal myself.

              But when someone says and does idiotic things like you or Hillary to me that's a clear-cut case regardless of ideology.

      •  What A Load (none)
        yeah, sure. Gore is such a great liberal. please give me a break. I suppose THIS is a good example of Gorf doing the right thing:

        Since 1994, Al Gore has been co-chairman of the U.S./South Africa Binational Commission, a body that discusses trade issues of mutual concern. On at least two occasions -- in 1998 and again in early 1999 -- Gore made the Medicines Act amendment the focus of his talks with Thabo Mbeki, now South Africa's president. According to Gore spokesman Tom Rosshirt, Gore was attempting to mediate between the two governments "because the governments were not able to resolve [the issue] at the cabinet level." Gore's position, Rosshirt says, was that South Africa should assure the United States that it would not violate international law.

        It was predictable that Gore would weigh in on the issue. It was far less predictable that he would take the side of the drug industry. But the explanation may lie in the connections that the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group, discovered between the pharmaceutical industry and several people close to the vice president.

        Anthony Podesta, who is the brother of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta and is reportedly close to Gore, was a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical giant Genentech. In 1997-98, his lobbying firm received $360,000 from Genentech and another $220,000 from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the industry's principal trade organization. For his work for PhRMA, Podesta listed one of his specialties as "Copyright/Patent/Trademark." As recently as 1998, David Beier, now Gore's chief domestic-policy adviser, had been Genentech's in-house lobbyist, with copyright and patent issues also among his specialties.

        check the link.

        http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/power_plays/2000/01/AIDS_drugs.html

        •  Agree, Gore is not a liberal. But sure I don't (none)
          trust anything written about him in the press.
        •  First I heard of this... (none)
          there are a couple of things that don't make sense in the article, I am alittle familar with drug companies. It does not say who developed the aids drug. Did Genetech develop it or was it licenced to Genetech. BTW...No one can force the pharmacueticals to do anything...
          If this is the only thing going against Gore...he still has my vote.

          If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger

          by mattes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:38:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ok..... (none)
          Among the first drugs South Africa tried to manufacture was Taxol, a cancer fighter also sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) to treat the AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma.
          snip
           "Compulsory licensing and parallel imports expropriate our patent rights," David Warr, associate director of tax and trade policy at BMS, told one newspaper.

          But in fact, the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, supervised by the World Trade Organization, allows both parallel importing and compulsory licensing by countries faced with a national emergency. Such a country must simply pay a reasonable royalty to the holder of the patent or marketing rights. And South Africa's health minister had said repeatedly that South Africa would abide by international law.
          snip
          I support South Africa's efforts to provide AIDS drugs" through parallel importation and compulsory licensing "so long as they are carried out in a way that is consistent with international agreements." Overlooked in Gore's statement was the fact that South Africa had given repeated assurances that it would do just that.

          And then a curious sequence of events ensued. On September 9, drug industry leaders suddenly announced they had suspended their suit against South Africa. "We acknowledge that there is a procedure for compulsory licensing," says Jeff Trewhitt, a spokesman for PhRMA. Eight days later, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky announced that all was now well between the United States and South Africa because Pretoria had agreed to abide by international law.

          From the little this article says, I am assuming that is the first time the american pharmacuetical companies bought into the  Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. The bottom line is that it came after two years...but came it did. A BIG step for them, believe me.

          If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger

          by mattes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:03:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  A DRAFT For One Person In America, Al Gore (4.00)
    I want to save my breath.  It's a tragedy if he does not end up running. I'm in favor of a DRAFT. A DRAFT FOR AL GORE. Nobody out there has the depth and the experience.  He would need to cut himself loose from the creepy consultants who have screwed us with their mindless campaigns.

    We need a politician with the depth to use the political judgment acquired over a career and speak from their soul.  Show the public real passion.

    Having voted for the first Gulf War and done other important things (opposing this insane war,of course, which currently rolls on in a growing political vacuum), he has a great record on national security.  He has the kind of record that could appeal to both centrists and progressives.

    I'm not really sure who needs him more, the Party or the country.  Honestly, this is not about Gore. This is about America.  We need a (wise)leader.  Thats the way the system works.

  •  All Gore..just a little ahead of his time.. (none)
    now that I take a look back.
  •  not Gore (none)
    Al Gore is an intelligent, thoughtful and rational gentleman.  Absolutely the wrong person for the democrats.  Think Richard Daley Sr. tough, but JFK smart, articulate and hope inspiring.  Anybody come to mind?
  •  gore not running (none)
    If Gore doesn't run, I'm leaving the country.
    Wait a minute, that won't help as the WORLD WILL BE DESTROYED BY GLOBAL WARMING.
    What can we do?
    Oh, the Dems have an answer, TALK MORE. Maybe if I move to Kyoto or...
    Regards
    Bohica
  •  Would he be a good president? (none)
    We do not know whether or not he will run.  The headline is misleading.  Much of this discussion is about what kind of candidate he will be.  There is very little discussion about what kind of president he will be.  Let's sort that out and then decide whether or not we can get him elected.
    •  Agree. (none)
      He would be a great president.
      •  I think so to. (none)
        He actually likes government and believes it can be run in a manner that serves the needs of our citizens.  He has had experience at the executive level and the legislative. He is willing to get input from experts. He champions technological advancement and is developing an insider view of the fifth estate.  He is a moral man.  He believes in civil rights for all races, genders and sexual orientations. Of course, he would make a great president.    
  •  Drafted (none)
    Gore is going to do a Nixon, he will wait until 2007 and then be drafted into the race by the anti-Hillary forces. I for one will support him.
  •  Gore is not Running (none)
    I agree with those who are sad that Gore is apparently not running, although it would seem that his refusal is not absolute.

    Although there are some other candidates out there who appeal to me (personally find Feingold very interesting), I think there are very strong reasons to support either of the two candidates who most recently ran, Gore or Kerry.  I probably would support Gore over Kerry based on his governing experience and the fact that he defeated Bush in the popular vote in 2000, although he was running as a de facto incumbent with peace and prosperity.

    However, I would like to raise questions about where this idea has come from that it is now clearly very widespread that a nominated candidate who loses must be therefore not be nominated again, "because he is a loser."  Clearly a lot of people have gotten over that regarding Gore by now, but many have not regarding Kerry.  One does not find such attitudes in other countries where many leaders ran many times previously before coming to power eventually.

    I would fully grant that Kerry has many things about him that can be criticized, as does Gore also.  However, I would also say that no Dem was going to get elected in 2004, and that Kerry probably did as well as any of them could have, although others presumably would not have had the Swift Boat liars after them.  Kerry did far better in the debates than anyone expected and came from behind to nearly win, at least in the electoral college.  Heck, on the morning of the election many thought he would win.

    The majority of Americans voted for Bush because a majority of them (and 64% of Bush supporters) thought that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.  I can fully understand why someone believing this wild fantasy would vote for Bush as of last fall.  Why Bush won the electoral college (Ohio in particular) was because the gay marriage issue came up, ironically enough in the Massachusetts Supreme Court (and then in San Francisco).  If all that had waited a year, I think John Kerry would be president today and doing one hell of a lot better job than either Bush or most of his Democratic opponents.

    The real question is how did we as a country, including obviously so many on this list, came to this ridiculous conclusiong that a nominee who loses is therefore a "loser" who must get lost.  This was not the view for most of US history.  And I see this nonsense that somehow losing for the nomination "builds a candidate up," whereas losing the main election apparently tears one down.  This is completely illogical, although the reality is that because so many people believe this nonsense, probably Kerry has very little chance of becoming the nominee.  We should support people who can actually govern, like Gore, and not just pretty new faces.

  •  Gore made me Ralph! (none)
    The first democrat that I didn't vote for was Gore. I heard him say on national TV that evolutions should not be taught in bilogy classes and the only time he came here to speak was to say that the Cuban child, Elian Gonzoles, should be kept here rather than returned to his family.

    I voted for Nader because I couldn't vote for Gore. Then, in true democrat fashion, he didn't even have the spine to defend his electoral victory.

    If he runs again, I'll stay home.

    •  You say that Gore is not enough left-wing for you? (none)
      Thank God!

      And he fought for 36 days. Alone.
      That was far more than you, the left-wing wimp, would have been able to.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site