There's Something About Al : Gore Emerging as Top 2008 Candidate

There's Something About Al : Gore Emerging as Top
2008 Candidate
There's something about Al Gore, the 45th US Vice
President, that we can't seem to let go of. Maybe it's
because he was right on just about everything in the
2000 Presidential campaign. Maybe it's because he
was the first Democratic leader to publicly speak out
against the Iraq War. Maybe it's because of his
persistent wisdom on global warming and the
environment. Maybe it's because we love a risk-taker
and a visionary.....

Or maybe it's because we can relate to his
imperfections...his sometimes-goofy, self-deprecating
humor, his Saturday Night Live-spoofed staidness, his
endearing affection for Tipper. We definitely admire
his tenacity in taking a tough punch and yet moving
on.

And maybe we're righteously angry that he got
cheated in the 2000 election. And even more, that the
United States got horribly cheated.

Reported the New York Post yesterday. "As Sen.
Hillary Clinton ratchets up her attacks on President
Bush, some Democrats think they smell an
explanation: the threat of a 2008 Al Gore presidential
bid that could come at her from the left on Iraq. The
former vice president is suddenly re-emerging as a
vocal and visible Bush-basher -- he's slated to star at a
Democratic National Committee fund-raiser for big
donors in Washington next Tuesday."

In a DailyKos straw poll this week for the Democratic
candidate in 2008, the results were: "Given these
2008 choices, I would vote for:

Edwards 8%, Clark 24%, Gore 48%, Clinton 4%,
Feingold 8%, Other 2%, No Freakin' Clue 2% (Votes:
7432) "

On September 9, Al Gore was accorded a long-lasting
standing ovation when he delivered an extraordinary
speech to the annual Sierra Club convention in San
Francisco. (Here is a link to his speech text.)

In it, he beseeched, "It is time now for us to recover our
moral health in America and stand again to rise for
freedom, demand accountability for poor decisions,
missed judgments, lack of planning, lack of
preparation, and willful denial of the obvious truth
about serious and imminent threats that are facing
the American people....

I would urge you to make global warming your
priority. I would urge you to focus on a unified theme.
I would urge you to work with other groups in ways
that have not been done in the past, even though
there have been Herculean efforts on your part and
the part of others. I would urge you to make this a
moral moment. To make this a moral cause. "

An oft quoted part of this landmark speech by Mr.
Gore is, "The Bible in which I believe, in my own faith
tradition, says, 'Where there is no vision, the people
perish.' "

And in the early days after Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans, while George Bush remained
on vacation, Donald Rumsfeld attended a San Diego
Padres baseball game, Dick Cheney relaxed at his
Wyoming estate, Karl Rove hobnobbed with the rich
in Aspen, and Condoleezza Rice shopped for shoes and
enjoyed a Broadway show.....

Al Gore quietly funded and facilitated a harrowing
mercy mission in New Orleans to airlift 270 medical
patients and evacuees from the New Orleans airport
to hospitals and shelters in Knoxville and
Chattanooga, Tennessee. Said Dr. Anderson Spickard,
Gore's personal physician who accompanied him on
the flights, said: 'Gore told me he wanted to do this
because like all of us he wanted to seize the
opportunity to do what one guy can do, given the
assets that he has.' ...." (Read here about this mission
of compassion.)

Yes, there's something about Al Gore that we can't get
out of our minds and hearts....his wisdom and
humanity, his visionary leadership and especially,
his personal grace.

Al Gore in 2008? It has a nice ring to it. [more]

http://www.runalgore.com

•  We've got to get over Al

  and move on to someone who brings fresh ideas...less baggage.

  by jillian on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:28:17 PM PDT

  •  No one in the current crop

    has ideas as fresh as Al's.

    And most of us wouldn't mind the baggage of the Clinton/Gore years, in contrast to what followed them.

    by peacemonger on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:32:48 PM PDT

    •  I will respectfully disagree with you

      We need someone new. New visions.

      by jillian on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:43:20 PM PDT

      •  Like what?

        Carter's energy plan and Truman's health care plan are new visions. They've never been tried. As for foreign policy I think the American people have had a bit much of the new Bush Doctrine. New is overrated.

        by joejoejoe on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:34:47 PM PDT

      •  Not the WHO but the WHAT ...

        We need someone with balls and principles, a la Gavin Newsom or Paul Hackett, who will not take any crap and will also point out the toadyism of the MSM – something that Gore may well have realized in hindsight.

        by Grok Your World on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:34:57 PM PDT

        •  Gavin Newsom managed to deliver the White House

          for Bush in 2004.
          Idiot. Gay marriage? Who cares about that when people are dying in Iraq faster than one can follow?
          He and the Mass Supreme Court did more damage for the Dems than anyone else.

          As for Hackett, he sure could have the balls AFTER Bush screwed it up in Iraq. But where was he BEFORE it was too late? He went to do the dirty job in Iraq. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

          And in the district where he had no chance to win
          it was not a difficult thing to be though.
          Try that on the national level, call Bush an asshole and see the result.

          by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:18:09 AM PDT

          •  Sorry, that's an unprovable urban legend

            Gay marriage did NOTHING to deliver the White House to us, unless you count the GOTV efforts of the Christian right.

            If you can't beat a GOTV effort because your candidate is running an awful campaign, what does that mean?

            Let's lay the blame at the feet of the Kerry campaign where it belongs.

            by MikeHickerson on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:08:40 AM PDT

            •  You bet I count the GOTV effort by fundies

              Why shouldn't I? GOTV efforts are essential to win elections.
              The fundies were scared to death watching those pictures of men kissing in SF and NY and Mass and Rove and the RNC exploited those feelings.

              No gay marriage madness and Kerry would have won Ohio and maybe even the popular vote and there wouldn't be Bush second term.

              John Kerry did what he could. He won the debates, he went againt the post 9/11 Bush  juggernaut  but he was portrayed as the Mass liberal, pro-gay pro-abortion and that was it. It's true however that on Iraq he couldn't help but flip-flop since he voted for the IWR.

              But Newsom and those idiots selfish gays screw it up for the Dems. Gay marriage amedments shouldn't have been on the ballots in 11 states in 2004. But they were because of what Newsom and his gay buddies and the Mass SC did.

              by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:55:42 AM PDT

      •  It'll be organic whatever it is.

        We live in days that demand a leader, and we'll see one arise. You shouldn't put demands on that - that he be someone we know and trust, or that he be someone new with fresh ideas (as if someone we don't know is even an iota more likely to have fresh ideas - they aren't. See Obama Barrack for the proof of that), that he be a he or a she.

        Let it happen organically and see who rises to the challenge. It can't be faked y'know. We got into trouble in 04 because people voted not for the candidate that best represented them, but for the candidate they thought could win.

        You're encouraging us to repeat that mistake. Suppose Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton or John Kerry (god help us) is the candidate that inspires the most visceral response from the Democratic base - that's who we need to elect. And if it's some guy we've never heard of, then that's who it should be. What we should refrain from doing is putting arbitrary and meaningless requirements on the nominee.

        All we want is the guy that best represents the majority of Democrats. Maybe he's been around for thirty years, or maybe some unknown will toss his hat into the ring and captivate everyone - like Howard Dean did. Doesn't matter. It just matters that whoever it is fires most of us up. End of story.

        It's like saying you only want to fall in love with guys who are over 6'2" - as if love is any less wonderful with a guy who's 5'7".

        by lorelynn on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:35:16 PM PDT

        •  Dean actually didn't captivate everyone

          as the election results prove that

          by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:25:44 AM PDT

          •  Howard Dean DID captivate everyone

            They just never got a chance to VOTE for him.
            Him running the DNC would seem to indicate that upon consideration, people got waht he was saying.

            Albeit too late for the election.

            And he still needs to get through to YOU, it seems.

            by MikeHickerson on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:11:37 AM PDT

            •  Everyone? Was Dean leading in the polls by 100%?

              by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:58:15 AM PDT

              •  What is your point?

                Dean captivated people in fairly substantial way, and I'm not saying that because I'm a Deaniac.  I'm saying that because he came out of nowhere and spent quite a few months in the number one slot - he was the man to beat, and someone did.

                In contrast, Kerry never provoked a visceral response in people. He had some hard core supporters but most people voted for him, as I recall, because they thought he could beat Bush. That's what I'm advising against - trying to be clever like that.

                This time, we should all go out and vote for whom we really want to be president and not try and game the system. That's my whole point. I have no idea what you think pointing out that not 100% of people supported Dean brings to the discussion.

                by lorelynn on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:59:35 PM PDT

                •  My point is that the statement that

                  Dean captivated everyone is a wild exaggeration. He captivated a minority within the Dem party. Even when he was leading in the polls he was never above 50%.

                  by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 02:15:16 PM PDT

                  •  So you have nothing of substance to add.

                    You're just looking to bitch about something. Nice.

                    by lorelynn on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:57:44 AM PDT

      •  I agree - new visions

        I would not vote for Kerry again

        I would not vote for Gore again

        by sara seattle on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:53:24 PM PDT

        •  I agree -- untried vision

          I would vote for Al Gore again.

          by Hounds on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 02:54:10 AM PDT

        •  There is no one more visionary than Gore

          if that is what you are looking for.

          by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 04:29:01 AM PDT

      •  as a foreigner ..

        ... I would observe that perhaps you have someone new.

        The new Al Gore.

        The Al Gore we have seen in the last 6-12 months is not the Al Gore the media showed in 2000.

        I think his testes descended further or something.

        by icerat on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 03:08:13 AM PDT

        •  Gore has not changed. The world has.

          Don't tell me that 2000 was anything like it is today.

          No 9/11
          No record deficit
          No Iraq invasion
          No Katrina debacle
          No abuse of power by the executive
          No increased poverty
          No fundamentalist rule
          No Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
          No Patriot Act
          No Total Information Awareness

          What was in 2000? Peace, boom, blowjob, and the luxury to deal with highly important subjects such as who sighs and who smirks

          by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:29:54 AM PDT

  •  excuse me, gore has fresh ideas.

    he always did. get over it.

    by stodghie on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:48:12 AM PDT

  •  after thinking about the 2008 elections

    It's clear to me that our candidates in 2008 will be pretending to be Al Gore (leadership qualitires on energy independence, global warming, environment, fully anti-Iraq war, micro managing government finances  - all things Gore has laid the foudnation for for 15 years).

    So why even bother running pretenders?

    by Gallatin on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:15:25 AM PDT

  •  If anyone has fresh ideas that is Al Gore

    He has always been about the future more than any other pol you can think of.

    by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:13:25 AM PDT

•  Al Gore is my favorite

  I hope he does decide to run.

  He IS full of fresh ideas and always has been.

  Even before he ran as Vice Pres he was strong on the Envirionment.

  • He's honest

  • He's now passionate

  • He's been against the Oil Wars

  • He's not in the Senate or House

  • He has no real baggage at this point to speak of

  • He has a progressive and creative mind

  • He thinks AND he reads

  Many who voted for the drunken/drugged-up Chimp in 2000 and 2004 can right those wrongs
  (in their minds)by turning back the clock and electing Gore.

  He's the best choice   - the best person.

  He can win.

  Who's better? Who's smarter?

  by ZappoDave on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:36:05 PM PDT

•  In hindsight...

  I surely cared a lot more for Gore than Kerry.

  Here is a funny but absolutely true Gore story.

  On the Saturday after the election in 2000, I was at a movie theater in Bethesda, Maryland.

  I arrived too early for the film, so I wandered into a nearby store to kill some time. I was standing near the front window looking at some pottery and heard a bunch of people get really excited and start laughing.

  I looked up to find myself face-to-face with Al Gore, who was standing on the other side of the window looking deliberately nonchalant, pretending to be looking at the same pottery as me.

  It was hysterically funny--even though the joke was on me.

  Turns out, he and Tipper were attending a film in the same cineplex.

  Today on the Muse:
  "Second Verse, Same as the First"
  

  by The Eyewitness Muse on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:37:46 PM PDT

  •  Another story

    I'm an engineer who was in one of the control rooms shortly before the Mars Exploration Rovers landed.  I was trying to get to my workstation and had to jump through a lot more hoops than normal.  Turns out that we were expecting "special guests."  When they arrived, the most noticable one there was Arnold Schwarzenegger.  All the attention was an the Gropinator, and he was hamming it up like mad, backslapping the engineers, posing for the cameras, making large waving gestures, and making the most self-aggradizing distraction possible.  While this was going on, nobody noticed, without looking hard, that Al Gore also walked in, and was now having a normal conversation with another of the engineers.

    Some of my conservative-leaning co-workers would recount this story with glee; for them it symbolizes total victory.  Gore diminished to complete irrelevance.  For me, it's more of a melancholy tale about the good man who, but for a butterfly ballot, would have saved thousands of lives and made this country a better place than the one it has turned into.  His very normalcy, though, is a big liablity for someone trying to be president.  Contrast the nails-on-the-chalkboard creepyness of the up-close and personal look into the Gore household (which was uncomfortable, I'm sure, only because it's so damn unnatural to have national TV cameras on in your living room) with the Laura and Dumbya's comfortable presence in the equivalent situation and you begin to appreciate the problem.

    Gore will have a hell of a hard time trying to convert his image from an insignificant whiner to a larger-than-life leader if he tries it.  I think he would make a good (not great) president, but I just can't imagine how he gets there.

    by power model on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:27:35 PM PDT

    •  Whiner???

      When did he whine?
      He is not someone who is afraid of his own shadow. And never was.

      by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:56:36 AM PDT

      •  not Gore's fault

        But almost anything a candidate says after an election defeat will be viewed as whining and/or armchair quarterbacking, at least at first.  I give him credit for recognizing this by keeping a low profile and not running in '04.  Politicians can bounce back (i.e. Clinton in Arkansas) but it takes a while for the loser stigma to fade enough for most people to really listen to him

        by power model on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:51:29 AM PDT

•  I like Al

  I do. And, i would love to see a groundswell of support for him. And, would love to see it if it were a genuine and spontaneous.

  But, he was an awful candidate in 2000 for much of the time. And, he was a lousy debater against Bush, despite the hype about his smarts. He was actually awful in his debate againt Quayle and whats-his-name.

  I wonder if the attraction that I feel for him is due to the fact that his candidacy would channel the same kind of anger that led me to supporting Dean in 2004. He spoke out forcefully against the war, like Dean. Gore was wronged in 2000 and bowed out gracefully, didn't make it personal with Bush in '04, although, I wonder if he might have done better than Kerry.

  It it was very interesting that he did well in Kos poll, but we know that Kos isn't the same as the rest of the Democratic Party.

  by Exclamation Point Brian on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:39:50 PM PDT

  •  And awful candidate cannot eliminate 20 points

    deficit during the campaign. And that's exactly what Gore did. He started as the ultimate underdog and at the end managed to beat Bush not just nationally but also in Florida, as far as the number of voters was concerned.

    And according to most polls Gore won every debate with Bush. If you can call them debates at all.
    You can't even ask questions, what kind of "debate "is that?

    Anyway, what he lost was the post-debate spin, for which you can blame the media which just couldn't stand Gore and picked on everything he did or said while giving a free ride to Bush.

    As for the debate with Quayle, he defeated Potatoe Dan big time, and back then since the media did not hate him there was no post-debate spin. So winning a debate is awful in your world.

    by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:47:58 AM PDT

•  Gore has been to hell and back

  and isn't the same person he was in 2000. He isn't afraid of the same things. He speaks truth. He's not going to worry about what the pundits think of him, what the DLC tells him to do, what the consultants insist will alienate swing voters. They can't hurt him any more. He's brilliant, principled, and furious.

  I think he deserves a fresh look.

  by Alna Dem on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:47:25 PM PDT

•  Well, when you have Donna

  Brazile as your campaign manager, what would you expect?

  I would think that this time tired beltway hacks like her would not be part of the team.

  Al Gore unleashed.  I think that scares the pseudo cons and the bushco freaks and the DLCers too.

  I'd vote for him in a heartbeat!

  by Duckman GR on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:48:57 PM PDT

  •  Didn't Gore approve the hiring of Brazile? -- n/t

    by sara seattle on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:05:46 PM PDT

    •  I'd Include That

      In the lessons learned catagory.

      by vetman on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:25:37 AM PDT

    •  He did. But how could he have known that Brazile

      would not care at the end?

      by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:59:33 AM PDT

  •  that is the key, gore unleashed.

    without the so called advisors. they have advised dems out of victory too many times.

    by stodghie on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:50:05 AM PDT

    •  Would you name those so-called advisors?

      And then would you prove that Gore did or said anything just because those advisors told him to do and say those things?

      This "Gore was handled by beltway advisors" thing seems to be just another urban legend about that campaign.

      Any evidence that Gore actually listened to those guys and took their advise?

      by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:02:59 AM PDT

  •  Agree on Brazile. She didn't care. That was it.

    by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:52:13 AM PDT

•  If only Al Gore would say something about

  energy independence and not just global warming...If only John Edwards would say something about the middle class and not just the poor...If ony Hillary Clinton would say something, anything...

  by thebluenomad on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:49:48 PM PDT

  •  Gore in a landslide Victory

      I will pull harder for Al Gore than any other potential candidate.  I think the guy is great, plain and simple.  Not perfect, but he's by far the best I can see.  
      He'll crush anyone.
     

    by hermitcrab on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:01:17 PM PDT

    •  Are you serious?

      What makes you think Al Gore has the ability to crush anyone he faces?  McCain would wipe the floor with him.  

      by jbou on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:11:13 PM PDT

      •  Iraq and McCain

        McCain scares me as a candidate but I don't see how he gets around his position on Iraq. Unless HRC is the candidate - then it's a wash because it's the same position. Gore has the advantage of being correct about Iraq - no small thing. Can't Gore just say to McCain "Your judgement on the war was dead wrong. America can't afford that judgement in the future." and be done with him? Do you see Iraq getting more popular over time or less? Iraq will be lucky to be a single country in 2007. McCain is going to have to dance to defend giving Iran an new ally in Shia Iraq with 60% of the oil wealth and 100% of the ports.

        by joejoejoe on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:44:02 PM PDT

        •  If you think that...

          presidential campaigns come down to who is right or wrong on the issues then you need to look at history. People vote for who they like and Al Gore is just not likable, the press doesn't, like him, the middle of the road swing voters don't like him, and republicans don't like him. In 2000 he got the votes of the Democratic party loyalists, and that was about it.  

          Al Gore does not have the skills to fix his image, and I honestly think his personality just rubs people the wrong way, and there is nothing he can do about that.  

          If you folks out here are serious about this Gore thing you are really losing your way along the reallity based highway.

          by jbou on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:53:39 PM PDT

          •  Is that why Gore won in 2000?

            by Renaldo Migaldi on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:24:01 AM PDT

          •  Gore got more votes than Bush

            Is McCain going to be likeable in the midwest with his economic policies and support of the Iraq War? McCain wants to institute national service as a kind of pseudo-draft. If we're still taking live fire in Iraq in 2007 then I don't see McCain looking as likeable. And narratives get played out. McCain got his free ride in 2000 (and ever since). Maybe the act will be a bit tired in '08.

            My take on history is that voters seek a strong contrast to the previous President. To me Gore presents the strongest contrast. I'm also guessing that Gore makes a pretty credible spokesman on fighting terrorism and could paint a now unpopular Bush as dropping the ball in the Summer of 2001.

            Is Gore truly disliked? I think Gore is plenty likeable. It's the media that didn't like him (or Clinton) in 2000 - serious journalists don't like being forced to cover blowjobs like they are all Geraldo and they turned there resentment on Gore like spoiled children. I think after Bush for 8 years Gore will look like a cool drink of water. People like comebacks.

            by joejoejoe on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:33:20 AM PDT

          •  so that's why

            more people voted for him in 2000?

            by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 04:39:51 AM PDT

          •  Gore is a lot more likable...

            ...than he was.  He's gotten a lot more real, since 2000.  A lot stronger inside himself.

            And it's interesting to see how positive people still are - all the stories in this thread are personal, and warm.

            I can't think of another candidate who could unite the party more effectively, bring closure to a terrible period in our history with more grace, or be more likely to win.

            A Gore/Dean ticket would be electrifying.

            JF

            by Jaime Frontero on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 05:27:42 AM PDT

          •  Sorry but there are no 51 million Democratic party

            loyalists in America. Facts are stubborn things.

            Gore had higher favorable ratings in 2000 than Clinton who is supposedly so damn likable. (Matter of taste.)

            And people vote for candidates they don't like if there is a major crisis. See: Nixon. Twice!
            Or if the other candidate is perceived as an left-wing or right/wing extermist. Was Bush Sr more likable than Dukakis? Gimme a  break.

            And based on your logic, Bush was not likable in 2000, either. He lost to Gore by 500,000 votes.

            by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:13:44 AM PDT

        •  He's got me convinced.

          He's got the urban vote, he's got the environmental angle, the war vote...  He's genuine, like Mccain, is.  People might percieve Mccain as more personable.
             However, the biggie is listening to them talk about diverse topics...  Gore's just better rounded, IMHO.  But, I am one of those urban types, and my favorite thing about him is that he pays attention to us.  While other environmentalists are running off to save the four winds, Gore is doing Green cities.  That's big for me.  Our cities need help, and I trust we'd get some from him.

          by hermitcrab on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:01:19 AM PDT

        •  Whoever The GOP Candidate

          Is in 2008, they will not have the emotional connection Bush had via 911.  For many, at least those who support him, that event cemented their relationship and practically made him the Teflon Moron.

          The next guy will not have that protection, and, in short, will have to 'answer for Sonny' to the public about the war, taxes, govt corruption, etc.  McCain will probably not make it out of his party, and I think you can expect Allen from VA to emerge with their nomination.

          Gore would beat Allen like a sick govt mule.

          by vetman on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:29:55 AM PDT

      •  i think it is mccain you will see on the floor.

        he has no respect from the independents, dems or right wing.

        by stodghie on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:50:52 AM PDT

      •  Pfft. McCain is done.

        Hillary Clinton's sainted aunt could wipe the floor with him, and not miss tea.

        Any anti-McCain campaign consists of but a single component:  "The Picture:"  plastered everywhere in the country.

        My cat could beat McCain.

        JF

        by Jaime Frontero on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 05:20:36 AM PDT

      •  McCain is a loser. I mean he really lost

        unlike Gore.

        by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:07:50 AM PDT

  •  He did

    He talks about energy independence all the time, in fact I remember him talking about that and renewable energy in his convention address in 2000. It's one of the reasons the DLC blamed him for losing when he really won.

    by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 04:38:08 AM PDT

  •  Gore said many things about energy independence

    Among other things he said on Letterman that he would have "used" the unity after 9/11 to make the country independent from foreign oil.

    But that was just one of many occasions.

    by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:05:18 AM PDT

•  My dream ticket is

  Gore/Clark

  Al already got elected once.  

  by Myrrander on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:56:37 PM PDT

  •  a 4 for saying he won once nt

    by OrangeClouds115 on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:33:35 PM PDT

  •  Gore/Clark!!!!!

    That is a ticket I would get behind.  Strength and experience, and "a return to normalcy".

    We've got to get back to normal, like in the 90s, where things were looking up, the world was peaceful, we had budget surpluses!

    by pacified on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:35:45 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    That would be my dream as well.

    by TracieLynn on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:42:25 AM PDT

    •  But how would Gore explain why he endorsed

      Dean and how would Clark explain why he said what he said about Gore after that endorsement?

      We know that Gore endorsed Dean because he thought Dean was the only major Dem candidate who was against the invasion from the beginning.

      Clark says that he too was against it, even though the record of his statements indicate that he just couldn't make up his mind about the resolution.

      If Iraq is the a big issue in 2008 the press would
      pressure both of them to explain what they said back in 2002.

      by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:32:50 AM PDT

•  Gore is my #1 choice

  I love how he has grown since 2000.  When you have a candidate who won the popular vote, you don't need to rush back to the drawing board.  And unless Bush produces a miracle to regain his popularity, the idea of a "do-over" of the 2000 election is going to appeal to a lot of people.  Lord knows it appeals to me.

  by Steve M on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:02:01 PM PDT

•  Gore would not win in 2008

  He might have a lead here at Kos -- but it'll be the only place where he'll come in first.

  He did not win his home state in 2000 - he did not close the deal.  He had lots of opportunities in 2000 to take Bush out - and he couldn't.

  Do we really want someone to run for President again that could not win over Bush in the first place,

  I would say - no.

  by sara seattle on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:03:28 PM PDT

  •  He was just nice to Bush in 2000

    Yeah, Gore did not exactly know what he was against, and what he had to prevent. But if he would have known and told that, he would have looked insane.

    The main lesson Gore learned in 2000 is to be himself, not to rely on advisors, managers and media kindness. American voters had to learn more lessons since then.

    What we have to understand is that right-wing think-tanks, the corporate media, and even DNC were playing dirty against Gore. Hardly anyone would have withstood that shit. And at the end, Gore lost just because of criminal voter disfranchisement by Katherina Harris, and pseudo-democratic service of Madam Butterfly.

    Gore can win this thing in 2008. Trashing him will not be so easy as in 2000.
    

    by das monde on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:25:31 PM PDT

    •  I really think that there is some selective

      memory going on here.

      Don't you remember the debates - Gore vs Bush - for sure Gore did not win even one of the debates - scariest things I have ever watched.

      Losing a debate with Bush?? - and that is a good thing? - that gives you hope?

      If he could not win against Bush in a Debate - then forget about it.

      by sara seattle on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:40:50 PM PDT

      •  Selective memories?!

        You mean, I have to remember his sighings in the first debate? Guess what, in real time no pundit noticed that. It took a couple of days till GOP or the media corps produced the spin. Just like with "inventing internet"...

        Gore lost the debate spin, not the debates themselves.

        Gore did not act that obviously annoying in the first debate. Just look at the first reactions and actual transcript objectively. It was a very delicate organised work of selecting the soundbits and ramming them through all MSM channels for whole weeks that formed those "debate memories". Perhaps the diligent activists were surprised themselves by the success.

        And you know what? In 2004 Bush learned a lot from Gore. He learned to sigh when he could not really answer (pretending that the remarks are ridiculous, whereas Gore was reacting to really ridiculous talk). His "character" was different in each of the three debates. And he got everything both ways! Is there anyone else who can be that lucky?

        Then there was the myth created that substance does not matter in presidential debates. Yeah, substance is irrelevant when outright lies of one candidate are kindly ignored, but trivial lapses of the other candidate (with whom he visited the Texas flood, how cramped are Florida school classes) are cruelly exaggerated. After all, it was Bush's math that was  fuzzy, but "fair and balanced" media corps decided otherwise!

        Gore played seriously in the debate game run by clowns. Even the moderator was concerned to support the Bushie moderator. And let's not forget, the third debate started with a backhanded "apology" to Gore.

        So yeah, the spin was memorably lost. But how much is this Gore's fault, and how much is this smallmindedness of scribes who were supposed to guide the debates objectively?
        

        by das monde on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:52:30 AM PDT

        •  In the penultimate paragraph, I meant

          "Even the moderator was concerned to support the Bushie spin". Sorry

          by das monde on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:00:10 AM PDT

        •  brilliant comment

          well done. it must have taken you an hour to compile those links. I hope you dont mind me quoting you verbatim (with attribution, natch) at DN.

          by azizhp on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:35:30 AM PDT

          •  Fine!

            Thank you! You may also correct the mistake in the  penultimate paragraph.

            by das monde on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 03:39:28 PM PDT

        •  You go das monde!

          I'm amazed how even liberals, who says Reps are stupid, buy the media spin and remember only what they could hear from them.

          So Gore lost the debates to Bush?

          Except that he didn't. He lost the second but won the other two, or scored a tie.

          October 3, 2000 debate

          ABC News Poll. Oct. 3, 2000.

          Gore    42%   
          Bush    39%
          Tie    13%

          Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll. Oct. 3, 2000.

          Gore    48%
          Bush    41%

          October 11, 2000 debate

          Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll. Oct. 11, 2000.
          Bush    49%
          Gore    36%
          Tie           13%

          ABC News Poll. Oct. 11, 2000.
          Bush    46%
          Gore    30%   
          Tie    18%   

          October 17, 2000

          Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll. Oct. 17, 2000

          Gore    46%                   
          Bush    44%                   
          Tie    10%

          ABC News Poll. Oct. 17, 2000
          Gore    41%
          Bush    41%
          Tie    14%

          http://www.pollingreport.com/white.htm

          Do you think Clinton did better in 1992? No he didn't.

          Debate #1
          Perot beat Clinton and Bush

          A poll conducted by CNN/USA TODAY on Oct. 11, 1992 found that of those watching, 47 percent rated Perot the winner, 30 percent voted Clinton and 16 percent voted Bush.

          Debate #2
          Clinton beat Bush and Perot.

          A CNN/USA TODAY poll conducted Oct. 16-18, showed 58 percent calling Clinton the winner, 16 percent said Bush won and 15 percent said Perot.

          Debate #3
          Perot beat Clinton and Bush.

          A CNN/USA TODAY news poll taken after the third debate found that viewers thought Perot had won. Opinions, however, were tied between Clinton's and Bush's performances; 28 percent thought Clinton had done the best job, 28 percent Bush, and 37 percent said Perot.

          http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/history.story/1992.html#debate1

          Now you could ask, how could Perot beat Clinton? The same Perot who was destroyed by Al Gore a year later?
          

          by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:47:55 AM PDT

  •  That was before

    they saw him take a plane to NOLA.

    by solliges on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:45:09 PM PDT

  •  True, he didn't win his home state

    But look at what his home state is:  TN.

    Polling right after the election attributed the TN loss to "values," IOW, to Gore's support for fags, n**gers, and Jews.  Good for Gore that he lost TN.  I've been to TN several times and I dread the thought of ever going back there.  It makes MI rednecks look housebroken in comparison.

    by Subterranean on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:24:25 AM PDT

    •  I think you mean MS, not MI

      Mississippi, not Michigan...right?

      by Renaldo Migaldi on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:26:51 AM PDT

      •  Michigan

        We have rednecks here, too, but they're usually more housebroken than the ogres down south.

        by Subterranean on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:18:53 PM PDT

    •  more than that --

      "Conventional wisdom" was reporting that Gore lost Tennessee because he stood up to the powerful tobacco lobbyists.

      Tennessee depends in part, economically, on nicotine addiction.

      Gore put the national health interest ahead of his home state's interest.  

      by Torta on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 03:44:27 AM PDT

    •  I'm glad someone gets it.

      I know TN. No way a pro-choice pro-civil union
      pro-science cosmopolitan candidate can win it -- unless something horrific happens on Bush's watch. I mean really horrific that not even the fundies can blame on liberals.

      Homestate or not homestate Tennessee is no longer a sane state. Gore shouldn't have wasted a single cent for those idiots in 2000.

      by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:03:31 AM PDT

  •  Home state? Tennessee is one of the most fundy

    states in the Union. Tell me how could a Dem win it today? Kerry lost it big time. Clinton would have lost it in 2000 big time, based on the polls taken back then.

    In 2000 TN had a Rep governor and two Rep Senators. Like Utah or Wyoming. But I guess you think Gore should have won Utah and Wyoming, too.

    TN is lost. It has changed a lot since 1996 when Clinton -- barely -- could win it.

    Gore no longer goes to church in TN because they have been taken over by the fundies. That must tell you something.

    Noone who is pro-choice and pro-science and a cosmopolitan like Gore can win that state unless something really dramatic happens.

    by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:38:33 AM PDT

•  Al Gore is still a giant bore

  I don't care how many sweaty speeches he gives to the checkbook liberals at moveon he is still the same guy the gang of 500 thinks is a boring liar, and now he's added raving sweaty liberal to the list.

  I want Brian Schweitzer, gov Montana, to run in 08.  We really need a gov, and he is a Western gov that has crossover appeal, and he isn't afraid to mix things up and he has a great political team around him.  

  We need to derail the Hillary train but Gore isn't the way I'd like to go.  

  by jbou on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:09:26 PM PDT

  •  Is there anything exciting about Bush or Kerry?

    They are much more predictable than Gore.

    And at the end, if likability is still the central issue in 2008, I really do not understand this world.

    by das monde on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:29:40 PM PDT

  •  LOVE SCHWEITZER nt

    by OrangeClouds115 on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:32:59 PM PDT

  •  Maybe Gore

    is just one of those people you have to get to know first. I could never understand why christians didn't vote for him, because he is all the things they say they're looking for. He loves his family. He has real faith, went to divinity school. I lived in Tennessee when he was senator. Really great guy.

    by solliges on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:48:31 PM PDT

    •  In a presidential campaign...

      there is no time to go door to door and have a cup of coffee with each voter.  Gore is horrible at public speaking, and he turns people off.

      by jbou on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:55:51 PM PDT

  •  bullshit!

    by stodghie on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:51:55 AM PDT

    •  I second that.

      by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:10:18 AM PDT

  •  Schweitzer?

    Booooooooooooooring.

    by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:08:29 AM PDT

•  I think it'd be a hard sell.

  When it comes down to it, I'm not sure that Edwards is a viable candidate for President now, of course partly due to his relative political inexperience, but also because he isn't holding office, and has retreated somewhat from the public eye. It's the whole "What Have You Done For Me Lately?" question.

  As for Gore, he's 10x worse on that front! Sure, he has more experience, and good name recognition; I have no idea how he'd poll in mainstream America, but I doubt it'd be that impressive at the moment. And assuming he'd even want the job, if he were to become a viable candidate, he'd still have to make sure America knows who Al Gore is now, and what he's been doing for all this time. (of course, actually having rescued people in New Orleans on his own initiative and his own dime can't hurt, but I don't think he wants to turn that into a political football)

  Now I wasn't a Gore fan in 2000, and something about his personality, his voice, his manner of speaking just annoyed me on a visceral level. But I have to admit, he was 100% right about Iraq, about Bush, and about the direction we needed to take as a country. And it's a tragedy that we didn't have him as President then to keep America going strong and on the right course. He was definitely the right President in 2000, but that doesn't mean he will be the right President in 2008. Still, America could do a lot worse, as we have in 2000 and 2004.

  by pb on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:15:31 PM PDT

  •  Re:I think it'd be a hard sell.

    Now I wasn't a Gore fan in 2000, and something about his personality, his voice, his manner of speaking just annoyed me on a visceral level.

    You know that's the kind of juveline thinking in America which leads to
    preventable disasters like 9/11 and the flooding of NOLA.

    It's about governance. Not about your entertainment.
    Most of the time you don't see or hear the president. But you sure pay the price for the decisions he makes in the hidden world of Washington.

    But if you really want to behave like a 5 years old compare Gore's voice to Bush's...well...

    by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:19:34 AM PDT

•  Geez, wasn't winning once enough? Greedy bastard

  In all seriousness though, I'd vote for a Gore/Clinton ticket. I don't think Hillary is ready to be president just yet, but with a solid 8 years of Vice President under her belt she might have what it takes.

  by Not Clever At All on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:19:00 PM PDT

•  Gore won once; he can win again

  One thing to keep in mind is that Nixon lost to Kennedy and everybody thought he was history.  Gore didn't lose.  It's easy to see him as a loser, but we have to understand that the media was fed a lot of crap by Rove.  They kept repeating it and people believed it and repeated it too.  I do think Gore made two terrible mistakes:  He didn't let Bill Clinton help his campaign and, worse, he chose Judas Lieberman.  Terrible.

  But if Gore had been president there probably wouldn't have been a terrorist attack on 9/11; if it had happened before Gore put his airline safety ideas into effect, he certainly would have caught Bin Laden.  Iraq would not be in ruins, 2000 Americans would not have died in vain, New Orleans would not be destroyed because the levees would have been strengthened, we would not have whatever the deficit is now, California would not have been raped by Enron et al and so the "dot com" bubble might not have burst so badly........and I'm sure you can think of other catastrophes that would have been averted.  

  I like Clark, but he never was able to campaign at all.  Frankly, I'd like to see a Gore/Obama ticket.

  And I'd like to see Hillary stay in the senate.

  by hg on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:25:56 PM PDT

  •  Those two "mistakes" were the best

    decisions he made.

    Read the debate between me a lando here and see the evidence for yourself:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/25/19349/8314

    Clinton wouldn't have helped Gore but sure he hurt him a lot. Can you imagine that Bush would have become president without the Clinton scandals?
    Clinton himself was losing to Bush in 2000 because of those scandals.
    What do you think honor and dignity was all about?
    Why do you think the media called Gore a liar all the time?

    by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:25:32 AM PDT

    •  Right

      "Clinton wouldn't have helped Gore but sure he hurt him a lot. Can you imagine that Bush would have become president without the Clinton scandals?
      Clinton himself was losing to Bush in 2000 because of those scandals."

      I've tried to make this same point on this site for some three years, often to no avail.  The Clinton scandal probably cost Gore 3% to 5% of the vote.

      by Paleo on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:25:16 PM PDT

•  you know? i did like him

  And I really enjoy using the internet that he invented.  Of course, Bush talks about internet*s* so maybe there are a few more that Al didn't invent and only Repugs got access to.  Elitist bastards.

  by OrangeClouds115 on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:29:33 PM PDT

  •  Gore never said he invented the Internet

    And anyone with some understanding of the Internet's history would not say such an utter nonsense.

    The Internet was developed over many decades by many people into what it is today but it was not "invented" as  for example Laszlo Josef Biro invented the modern ballpoint pen.

    It's not even a single technology but a combination of verious technologies developed in different and independent circles.

    For example, the Internet itself would not be enough for you to post here on this board. For that you need the World Wide Web with which DARPA had nothing to do with and which Vint Cerf or Jon Postel did not envision when they were developing the TCP/IP or the DNS. WWW was developed at CERN in Europe.

    Digital personal computers, fiber optics, graphical browers etc. were all developed by different people and all of them were necessary to make the Internet what it is today.

    So who invented it, after all?

    by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:42:17 AM PDT

    •  take a fucking joke!

      I lived through the 90's in a town that makes Texas look liberal.  You have no idea how many hours were devoted to making fun of poor Al when he really never said anything stupid at all.  And he did, in part, facilitate the Internet we are all using today.

      by OrangeClouds115 on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:50:13 AM PDT

      •  Then set those idiots straight, damn it.

        They know nothing about the Net but they are quick to ridicule the man who wanted to empower them with it.

        I don't know why Gore still believes in the people. They are unfair, ignorant and just pure evil. He wanted nothing but to do good by expanding the Net outside of the Pentagon and a handful of universities so that the average Joe could use it and what did he get for it from the average Joe? Ridicule and slander because he dared in one interview to take credit for what he really did.

        To hell with them.

        I hope you'll kick their collective ass.

        by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:57:50 AM PDT

        •  i moved. my city now went 2-to-1 to Kerry n/t

          by OrangeClouds115 on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 02:09:49 PM PDT

•  90's Nostalgia(TM) by Al Gore

  Anyone else nostalgic for the 90s?  I never felt about Al like I did about Howard Dean or Gov. Schweitzer or Russ Feingold... BUT... damn am I nostalgic.  I want the Clinton years back.

  I'm always giving hostile fingers to the DLC, but I think the overwhelming sense of nostalgia (without the stench of Monica) can carry Gore along.  I don't even care what he says at the debates, to be honest.  He could open his mouth and belch and it would be better than George Bush.

  by OrangeClouds115 on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:32:22 PM PDT

  •  i just said the same thing

    "the clinton years", or "the 90s" (maybe that's better).

    Oh, when times were good, budgets were balanced, kids were not in Iraq, and Texas GOP croynism didn't rule Washington.

    by pacified on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:33:35 PM PDT

•  if Gore is in the primary

  i'd seriously think about voting for him.  I could vote with my head and my heart and cast my ballot for Gore.

  By 2008, perhaps "remember the Clinton Years" will be what everyone is craving.  Comeptent government run by people who care about governing.

  Lord knows, I miss it.

  by pacified on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:32:28 PM PDT

  •  Do remember however

    how fast Gore tried to run away from the "Clinton Years" - and did not want to have anything to do with the accomplishments of the Clinton years.

    Don't think that helped him at all.

    Irregardless that Clinton acted unbelievably stupid - Gore's behaviour vs Clinton did not help him in 2000.

    by sara seattle on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:52:00 PM PDT

    •  nope

      Actually that did not happen.  It's a DLC lie and I am sorry you still believe it.  

      I saw Gore several time and he never ran from Clinton.  Maybe he should have because I know several people who voted for bush to punish Clinton.

      by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 04:47:05 AM PDT

    •  Bullshit. Were were you in 2000?

      Gore didn't want to do much with Clinton himself, because he was a liar impeached adulterer who was losing to Bush in the hypothetical polls in 2000,
      but he did run on the record.

      The problem was that few people were willing to give credit to Gore for that record because he was just vice president.

      Frankly, how much credit did Nixon get for the Eisenhower record? Or how much did Bush Sr get for the Reagan record? Not much. If not for Willie Horton and the death penalty issue Dukakis would have beaten him.

      by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:52:07 AM PDT

•  Gore is OK

  Gore is a link to the "good times".  A time when Democrats were powerful and made important decisions.  

  Democrats of today are labeled as "spineless", ineffective leaders.  Look at the options.  Yawn.  Gore actually ruled this country once and I think that a majority of Americans would want what happened in 2000 reversed.  

  Who among the current crop is a visionary?  A leader?  I'm waiting, but for now Gore is viable in my world.  I'm not saying he is "the man" but I wouldn't write him off.  

  Just compare the Gore "of today" to Kerry...

  by TheGeneral on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:33:36 PM PDT

  •  We should get Zogby to Poll that

    "Give current world events, who do you wish won the 2000 Presidential Election?"

    by pacified on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:36:58 PM PDT

•  The most honest and virtuous politicion I've ever

  even heard of.  the opposite of Bush.  Really, I think what drives a lot of us is that we (or at least I) didn't really know much about the man when he ran for president.  After he lost (with a good degree of his own actions to blame), I did some research.  From conversations I've had with other liberals, I wasn't the only one.  The more that i  read about him, the more i discovered some chilling facts:
  

  1.  He actually told the truth when he spoke (I wish I could say the same about Clinton)
     
  2. His only special interest was America.  Whether or not I agreed with everything he and his wife stood for, he always fought for the American people, and not one of it's many companies.
     
  3.  He actually knew what he was talking about, and had some idea about the intricacies of the American system (not that Bill didn't, but after reading the transcripts of the early hearings concerning global warming, and about the true origin of the internet, it's hard to discount the sheer force of this man's intelligence).
     
  4.  He was a terrible politicion.  But then, so was Nixon, and he won the second time around...

  by gloriousbastard on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:43:54 PM PDT

  •  If someone is a terrible politician in the current

    political culture that is actually a good point.

    FDR, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt would be considered terrible politicians in these soundbites-driven idiotic sentimental theaters we now call campaigns.

    Who is considered a good politician nowadays?

    1.Someone who thinks and acts like Karl Rove (I have to vomit)

    2.Someone who enter a room and says "Hello, you are my best friend. What's your name anyway?"

    How childish is that? And they call it "connecting with the people".

    by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:04:51 PM PDT

•  America isn't good enough for Gore.

  Gore is my first choice because of his dedication to environmental causes, because of his intellect, and primarily because of his belief in radical enlightenment era ideas such as reason and justice.  Gore is one of the few modern politicians I can think of who would fit in comfortably with American politicians circa 1775.  He is the sort of man who, if as president, called the nation to bear arms against a foe, I would be honored and obliged to serve.  Not that I would let him think for me, but if there was any room for doubt, it would be in his benefit.

  Unfortunately, Al Gore is too good for America.  When faced with the man who took the initiative to submit and pass legislation establishing the precursor to the Internet (and later The Matrix), Americans snickered and laughed at how funny it was that Al Gore "invented the internet".  Look how awkward that geek is in front of the camera!  Ha ha ha ahahahaha !!!  Oh my gawd, he's wearing Earth tones to try and enlightenment us into thinking he's not a nerd, hahahahahahahhaha!!!!   He rolls his eyes at the spoiled idiot son of a president!  OMFG, how shockingly ungentlemanly!  

  Yeah, fuck America.  If Gore runs again, the media will simply pull out their old notebooks and CD-Rs from 2000 and hit the campaign with a fully-written playbook.  And the citizens will follow along, knuckles dragging.

  by Subterranean on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:14:52 AM PDT

  •  I don't think so. America 2008

    will not be at all the careless, prosperous nation that it was in 2000.

    Americans thought an election didn't make any real difference. Government was automatic. From now on, things were always going to be this good, forever. It didn't matter who was the leader, really. You didn't need to care about policies, or competence. Personal "character" divined from trivialities was way more interesting to think about than political integrity. You could afford to spend a week going tsk-tsk over a brown suit, and decide your vote based on who you'd like to have a beer with.

    The rest of the world was screaming at Americans to wake up and pay attention to the things that really mattered, but America insisted on sleepwalking its way into disaster.

    The public mood -- and media norms -- are going to be very different in 2008. Katrina blew away the notion that competence isn't important. That lesson is going to be hammered home in the next three years by one bad consequence after another, again and again and again.

    There will be a crescendo of buyers' remorse. I predict that if the Dem candidate is Gore, it will be Gore in a landslide.

    by Canadian Reader on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:10:28 AM PDT

•  I like the 2000 Gore

  but I like the 2005 Gore better.  He's grown more comfortable in his own skin.  You can see it.  I really dislike when people talk about how they voted for someone once but they wouldn't do it again. Well, why not?  If you liked him before then what has changed?  

  I look at Al Gore and wonder...has he developed in the last five years? Yes.  Has he become more forceful? Yes.  Does he have the ideals that I want in a President? Yes.  Has he learned to use his power better?  Yes.

  Should he run I'll be voting Al Gore.

  by LisaDawn82 on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 03:09:17 AM PDT

•  The reason why

  Is because Al Gore is not afraid now. He's played, like McCain, for the last roll of the dice. Been there, done that. Nothing left to lose. Sorta frees you to say what you're thinking. The minute he announces his 2008 intentions, betcha it'll take some shine off and put a crimp on his style.

  by inetresearch on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 03:31:51 AM PDT

•  Yes, his personal grace

  Very well stated.  Recommend

  by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 04:26:47 AM PDT

•  If Al Gore runs in '08 his back drop should be the

  Phoenix.  It would symbolize his political rise from the ashes and it would represent America after Democrats (hopefully) end a shameful decade and a half of Republican rule.

  It would be Al Gore's Phoenix vs. Edwards' Two Americas.

  That sounds like a great Democratic Primary.

  (-6.75, -3.85)

  by mapKY on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 05:37:23 AM PDT

•  To be fair...

  The airlifts that Gore financed and participated in did not take place until Sep. 3 and 4.  Indeed, he wasn't involved in preparations for it until Sep. 1.  Not simultaneous with Rice's shoe-shopping or Bush's vacation.

  by DaveOinSF on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:20:15 AM PDT

•  Man I never thought Gore has this many supporters

  Man I never thought Gore has this many supporters. Al Gore for President in 2008

  http://www.runalgore.com

  by Progdem22 on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:32:15 AM PDT

  •  Please make the website better

    sorry, but the image quality (including the title ) is crappy quality

    you could make it super amazing

    by patrioticliberal on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:40:01 AM PDT

    •  If you know how to make a Good one

      Then make it and send it to [e-mail].. I will have a Look at it . Make it as a .jpg file

      by Progdem22 on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 09:31:49 AM PDT

•  Al Gore is a prince

  I believe I speak as just a sort of rank and file Democrat. One of the plebes who is waiting for a leader. I am not a political activist. I follow politics, but it is not my life. (I hope to become more active in the future, BTW).

  Al Gore has always impressed me. We need him now. This country needs him. He has the background, wisdom and intellectual heft necessary to be a great president.

  I was disappointed in his campaign in 2000.(Although in hindsight, it was an adequate campaign if you don't factor in that the other guy cheated.) He suffered from mealy-mouth disease. That is a condition which afflicts those who have been in the Senate (or in his case, the Senate and the administration) too long. They lose the ability to make a statement without qualifying it out the yin yang rendering it almost meaningless. I think he has recovered from that complex. He is no longer Al Bore. He is Al, the interesting, multi-faceted strong leader.

  by zenbot on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:11:11 AM PDT

•  To put it in simple terms

  He won before. He can win again.

  People now have a good idea of what happened because he was not allowed to assume the presidency.

  Turns out there WAS a difference.

  I really regret the nine years lost towards energy efficiency and independence from petroleum. Those nine years will never come back to us, and might have been the tipping point in the ecological handcar to hell we are currently riding in.

  It appears pandering to Big Oil does not create a "peace dividend" or help the environment in any noticable way.

  by MikeHickerson on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:21:31 AM PDT

•  the Reps got nothin'

  new on Gore.  They wheeled it all out against Gore, and he won anyway.  He will win by even more this time around.

  by hermitcrab on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 04:07:33 PM PDT

•  A truth for America

  America 90% of the Gore supporters (from algoresupportcenter.com, algore-08.com, Patriotsforgore.com) are conservative and Racist , for Instance TeresaInPa is one of them also memebers from the PatriotsforGore.com , including someone id name starts with with "patriots for gore", "EarthMother" from a web site called algoresupportcenter.com  and few from algore-08.com are conservatives and Racist. Since I was born in other country they try to descriminate me because I am not the same race as they are, although I was the only Gore supporter who supports Al Gore since 2003. I am the only one who started campaigning for Vice President Gore for Election 2008  since 2003 and  I don't collect any money from anyone to support my web site and I pay from my own Pocket for everything. I wanted America to know this truth and let other Good Democrats to know the Facts about my web site , which is http://www.electgore2008.com.
  Thank you  and you can view their comments and find out the rest America.

  by Progdem22 on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 03:15:18 AM PDT