Al Gore has not "completely ruled out the possibility" of running in 2008

I was watching the 8 pm news on the French TV channel France2 tonight on the web.  The anchor, David Pujadas, was interviewing Al Gore about Gore's visit to 200 members of the French parliment today where he discussed global warming and screened "An Inconvenient Truth."   (We'll leave that incredibly significant event aside for now, though I can't resist asking whether such an event would be remotely possible in Gore's home country.)

At the very end of the interview, Pujadas dropped a bombshell (apologies for my on-the-fly translation):

One last question about the controversial election that took place in 2000.  You say, in the film, that it was a tough blow. Do you exclude [the possibility] of being a candidate in 2008 or is this a thought that you still entertain?

Gore's response on the flip.  (No translation required - he was speaking audible English.)

Heh heh, well, I don't plan to be a candidate for president again.

I haven't completely ruled out the possibility, but I don't expect to do it again.  I am involved in a campaign, it's not for myself or for a candidacy, it's a campaign for this cause, to change people's minds on the climate crisis.

As you can see, HE SAID IT.

'Nuff said by me.

The video is available at http://jt.france2.fr/...

The quote is in the last 3-5 minutes of the interview.

What's it going to take to convince Al to run?

•  Tips?

  I can't believe I'm not in bed!  I'm sick!

  by benthos on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:38:11 PM PDT

•  It's his stock answer

  He gives that exact same answer, every interview.

  by Zackpunk on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:39:34 PM PDT

  •  My apologies

    I haven't followed the Gore story very closely.

    You are right.  I found the same quote on his website...

    Oh well, the discussion was fun.  Well, for you all.  I was asleep.

    by benthos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:23:39 AM PDT

•  Give it up

  He won't run, end of story.

  He doesn't even LIKE being a politician! give the guy a break.

  by Mikesco on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:43:10 PM PDT

  •  No way

    His country needs him. If he doesn't like being a politician, tough shit. It's what he's done for most of his adult life.

    I want him to run and if he does he'll win hands down.

    by Mark H on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:00:05 PM PDT

    •  His country needs him,

      but his country doesn't deserve him.

      by LindaR on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:13:31 PM PDT

      •  Half his country

        does deserve him.  And the other half fear him.

        by YetiMonk on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:34:39 PM PDT

        •  Fear him?

          Al Gore is a lot of things but scary isn't one of them.

          by jbou on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:52:50 PM PDT

          •  He's a nam vet

            and a Democrat.

            Try talking to blue fundies about Gore.  I do often.  I see fear in their eyes.  They know he won once already and they know it'll be the end of their reign and influence if he does again.  They hate Hillary but they fear Gore.

            And I guarantee you McCain is afraid of him.

            by YetiMonk on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:00:26 PM PDT

            •  uh...make that red fundies...lol

              by YetiMonk on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:02:09 PM PDT

            •  Really?

              Gore was a reporter in Nam, that doesn't really put the fear of God into someone. Gore barely won in 2000, and he should have won in a landslide, he ran a horrible campaign, and he didn't fight hard enough and we ended up with Bush.

              To be honest, I think McCain fears a true economic populist with a strong consistant record and a no nonsense approach, and Gore doesn't fit that bill, McCain would beat Gore, not in a landslide but I think Gore would lose the midwest and west to McCain, McCain runs strong in both ares and we need someone to challenge him where he is strong. I think Feingold or Schweitzer have the best chance of beating McCain, Feingold because he has a reputation as a maverick, has a consistant stand on issues, and he is an economic populist, Schweitzer because he is a gov, he is a populist, and a maverick.

              We need to start challenging the republicans where they are strong, and Gore just can't do that. Gore appeals to the checkbook liberal crowd but his reach doesn't go any further than that.

              by jbou on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:09:40 PM PDT

              •  Really.

                Gore can and will challenge republicans where they are strong.  What does that mean anyway?  I think you aren't noticing that he is different than he was in 2000.  He is no longer an insider.  The way I see it, he runs populist or there's no run.  He was instrumental in giving us the internet and has been paying close attention to how Dean has used it.  I'm trying to find my links to the populist cable, radio and internet stuff he's been involved in recently but I'm coming up dry for the moment.

                If you think I'm going to bash Feingold or Schweitzer you're wrong.  But Gore actually won in 2000 and I think it's a tough case to make that he can't do it again.  Simply, he's a proven winner.  He did exactly what Nixon did when he had an election stolen from him and played nice.  Nobody knew it was different this time except Bush et al.  And like I said earlier, I don't think he's the same person he was then.

                There are several candidates that I would be more than happy with.  Gore is at the top of my list and he won once already and everybody knows it.  

                by YetiMonk on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:58:10 PM PDT

                •  He didn't win...

                  because he isn't the president. Yes, he got the votes to win, but like I said he should have won in a landslide, and like you said things have changed and so has Gore, and if you think the speeches at the Moveon events have helped him then you are sorely mistaken. Those speeches were not populist speeches they were sweaty rants about Bush and some pretty good policy stuff on the environment.

                  To be truly honest Gore has failed. Al should have started a tv network to rival Fox News instead we have a glorified cable access network, have you seen it? it is sad. Gor went to work for google, what he could have done was built a liberal/progressive infrastructure to rival the right wing one, the man had the power and influence to do it but he squandered it, instead he made the occasional speech, wrote a book and went on tour, but he didn't do the grunt work the liberal/progressive movement needed done. Gore could have been the ex player turned coach, he could have been the leader the left has been lacking, the coach, the person in charge, the person to pull it all together, and finally start selling a liberal/progressive/populist agenda.

                  Dean jumped at the chance to run the DNC, and that is what former players should do, they should look to coach, look to lead, look to grow and develop the team. Dean did it right, but Gore went into the private sector and made millions, Dean flys business class Gore flys first class, Dean speaks to Democratic party activists in Alaska, Gore goes to book signings in San Fran, Dean visits Mississippi and rallies the Democratic folks down there, Gore preaches to the choir at Move On events, do you see where I am going with this?

                  Gore has failed, end of story.

                  by jbou on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:15:51 AM PDT

  •  He doesn't like it

    I agree. It's been a footnote to profiles of Gore predating the 2000 election.

    One reason he's so eloquent and admired now may be that he's actually doing something he enjoys.

    by Demi Moaned on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:08:34 PM PDT

    •  He does not, but he feels a deep responsibility

      to his father's legacy, and to the knowledge that he can do good; that he is better qualified to lead than others. He might not like it, but he feels, in a way, that it is up to him.

      I think right now he is weighing options for the role in which he can do the most good for the world and the future--as president (if he were to win) or pushing for change outside the political arena.

      by Xapulin on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:16:55 PM PDT

•  back in 2004....

  ...I was against Gore running for president- why re-hash all that trouble from 2000? Now I've changed my mind.If he were to run in 2008, I would vote for him. It's a much different world.

  by justalittlebitcrazy on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:44:43 PM PDT

  •  I would vote for him too

    The reason I said "his country doesn't deserve him" is because he was obviously the best candidate in 2000 and it should not even have been close.

    by LindaR on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:14:49 PM PDT

  •  It is not only circumstance that have changed,

    but also how those circumstances have changed us--enabled us to see Gore better, (even as I do not dispute that Gore has changed, for the better.)

    I think one thing about Gore that the country completely failed to understand was the reason for his seriousness--he seems almost to have been born an adult, and expected that of us, for all of us to be adults too. But (nearly) half the country took that attitude for arrogance, and chose to deride what they did not understand. (Nor does much of the country understand Gore better now.)

    And here we are.

    by Xapulin on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:26:06 PM PDT

•  If he runs

  he would win in a landslide.

  he's the best person for the job in 08. Let's hope that the chips fall that way.

  by offgrid on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:46:06 PM PDT

  •  Really?

    What makes you think he'd win in a landslide? I think Gore is still a polarizing figure who lacks some real bonafides when it comes to middle america. Gore has taken up shop in San Fran, he works for Gooogle and owns a tv network, the man does good work on the enviro stuff but I think the Democratic party needs to go economic populist in the next election, and Gore just doesn't fit the bill. Gore reminds me of the type of liberal I least like, the upper crust checkbook liberal type, they shop at Whole Foods, drive a hybrid and can afford solar panels, and they pay lip service to economic issues but their priorities lie elsewhere.

    by jbou on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:58:23 PM PDT

    •  You speak of the old Gore

      The DLC Gore that ran in 2000. He's changed a lot in the last 6 years. And if he stays away from the DLC consultants, he would be that populist you want.

      His run would give the country a chance to right a terrible wrong done in 2000.

      Yes, he's an "upper crust liberal". But I've got news for you - everyone needs to drive a hybrid car and put solar panels on their roof. This is right up Gore's alley. As President, he can start the "Apollo Project" to get us off the oil teet. This in itself would drive a lot of the economic priorities, by restarting our manufacturing base.

      http://www.apolloalliance.org

      Maybe "middle America" is not shopping in Whole Foods (Whole Paycheck), but they are buying organic food at the Safeway. Organic agriculture is growing at a 30% rate now.

      Ultimately, the economic issues are really more in Congress' court. We also need a Democratic Congress.

      by offgrid on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:26:54 PM PDT

      •  On the coasts...

        what you say may be true, but in the midwest the folks are buying what they can afford.

        Gore can't be a populist because he doesn't know how, he tried it in 2000 and sounded like a fool. They were like Al how can you rally against NAFTA, and the corpo influence in government when you and Bill took tons of corpo cash? Gore took a job on a corpo board, the man isn't a populist and a populist is what it will take to beat McCain or any of the other Republicans in 08.

        The enviro stuff is good, but it isn't a winner, sorry but the environment doesn't rate high enough as a concern for most folks and if Gore spends too much time on it he can be painted as a scare mongering over reacting person.

        People need to drive hybrids but can people afford hybrids? People need solar panels but can people afford solar panels? Before we start dictating what people drive and put on their houses we need to make sure people can afford the cars and panels.

        by jbou on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:46:20 PM PDT

        •  well

          Gore can't be a populist because he doesn't know how, he tried it in 2000 and sounded like a fool. They were like Al how can you rally against NAFTA, and the corpo influence in government when you and Bill took tons of corpo cash? Gore took a job on a corpo board, the man isn't a populist and a populist is what it will take to beat McCain or any of the other Republicans in 08.

          You're still seeing Gore through year 2000 eyes. Check out some of his speeches from to last few years. Go see his movie. I think you will find he is much changed.

          And who do you see as this "populist" that you think can win? Feingold? Schweitzer? Unless they somehow make a big splash on the national scene in the next couple of years, they won't make it. Howard Dean? Maybe.

          McCain is dead in the water at this point, too. He's hitched his boat to Bush for too long now.

          People need to drive hybrids but can people afford hybrids? People need solar panels but can people afford solar panels? Before we start dictating what people drive and put on their houses we need to make sure people can afford the cars and panels.

          This will be the basis of the new economics. This is exactly where government comes in. We have to do this, or the country, and the whole world, is doomed. Again, check out the Apollo Alliance.

          The enviro stuff is good, but it isn't a winner

          To paraphrase Yoda:

          "Oh, it will be. It will be..."

          Global warming is a much greater threat to our country then terrorism is.

          by offgrid on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:30:53 AM PDT

•  He will be the only President to win twice to

  serve one term!

  I told my students in 88 that he would be president in their lifetimes.

  My predictive reputation is at stake.

  Wait, more than that, Democracy is at stake.  

  This man already won once.  Democracy seems to require that he run and win clearly a second time.

  Not too mention, if you watch his film, this is a different, more soulful person, imho....

  Look, Gore, Edwards, Obama, Feingold, even Clinton, anyone, we need to get the current junta out on their keisters where they should have been in 2000 and 2004!

  by 7November on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:51:03 PM PDT

•  He will run...

  ..because where could he do more about solving the greatest crisis this planet has ever faced than as president?!
  Global warming is THE most urgent problem of all, not that silly "war on terra" chimpy is botching up right now...
  The world needs Al Gore in a leadership position!
  Please, Al, run, one last time!

  by Steve CXS on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:56:54 PM PDT

•  Gore is waiting for the right time

  and he can't do it alone this time.  If there is a rising tide, of course he will.  My only question is, do we deserve him.

  by Dianna on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:15:08 PM PDT

  •  We all (and our children) deserve better enough

    than the current state to say that "yes, we do deserve him."

    by Xapulin on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:18:41 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, I guess we do.

      And I hadn't thought of the children, who do deserve better than this, who had no part in creating the situation.

      by Dianna on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:25:35 PM PDT

      •  And not only our children. We can dispute the

        figure of 650,000 dead Iraqis, but I find that kind of quibbling (which Bush did today) obscene.

        Whatever the number, Iraqi children are (and were, for the departed) innocent too. They also deserved better than to die because a man half a world away embarked on an enormous and avoidable failure.

        by Xapulin on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:29:24 PM PDT

        •  what has happened a world away

          is so hard to comprehend, and it was all for no good reason.  

          These wrongs cannot be righted.  But if Gore can lead this country out of the darkness...I'm still in disbelief.  

          by Dianna on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:36:40 PM PDT

  •  come on

    Do we deserve him? After he folded like an accordian in 2000 I think he is the one who owes us.

    by jbou on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:59:55 PM PDT

    •  I think it's the other way around.

      I don't remember the public taking to the streets fighting for the man they elected president.  From what I recall, most just wanted it to be over already.

      by Dianna on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:11:33 PM PDT

      •  Who can really get excited...

        for Al Gore. Gore doesn't exactly inspire a take to the streets kind of movement. Like I have said elsewhere Gore has the base of his support amongst the checkbook liberal set, but beyond that he has lukewarm support.

        Bush had to pay people to go protest on his behalf in 2000, but Gore could have done the same thing, and actually showed he understood he was up against a pretty hefty right wing machine that wanted to win. Gore saw it first hand during the Clinton years and he should have been prepared for the fight.

        by jbou on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:20:59 PM PDT

        •  Well, he also had Nader to contend with

          ...among other things.  With how scary things are right now (ie. the assault on the Constitution and the lack of anyone speaking out etc...), one cannot say what is going to happen.

          You have your points.  Although I don't think Gore should have descended into goonery to win.  

          by Dianna on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:34:15 PM PDT

          •  Yes he should have...

            if the Republicans are going to fight dirty so should we. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and you definatly don't complain that you have to fight in the first place.

            by jbou on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:48:32 PM PDT

            •  I've often thought/talked a lot about this

              ...to what degree do we fight as dirty as they do.  At least we have some common ground here.

              by Dianna on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:55:07 PM PDT

              •  We take a page...

                out of LBJ's playbook and beat the crap out of them. LBJ helped fix the election for JFK, he was well known for getting in people's faces and not backing down until he got what he wanted. We need to fight and we need to fight as dirty as possible. whisper campaigns, attacking early and often and we need to define the republicans before they define us. I am sick of being on the defensive.

                by jbou on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:00:25 AM PDT

                •  Beautiful.

                  by Dianna on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:12:43 AM PDT

              •  fight hard, fight clean

                Look up the Marine Corps Translators/Interrogators website and read the history: hard-core warriors saying we don't need torture to get effective intel.  

                And we don't need to break the law to win an election.  

                Bring a gun to a gunfight, sure, but don't go shooting your adversary's grandma.  

                The plain fact is that the Ds have been weak on fighting for at least the last two races.  Before anyone suggests going into the dirty tricks department, I want to see some real fight:  with both fists, with bayonets fixed, with sufficient rifles & rounds to overwhelm the enemy in close combat, and with enough heavy artillery to pulverise the enemy's strongholds from a distance.  

                For example:  I want to see "consultants" vanquished from our side's campaigns unless they are willing to sign a "win or die" pledge.  That is, any consultant who signs up to work on the next D presidential campaign should sign a pledge saying s/he will never work on a political campaign ever again if the present campaign loses.   Once it becomes "personal" i.e. when failure costs you dearly for example having to give up your entire career, then you'll see some serious fight.  

                by G2geek on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:12:20 AM PDT

            •  This is the first

              comment I agree with you on and it is THE primary issue I'll want addressed with any Democratic candidate.  The republicans will not let go.  It will have to be pried out of their fingers and any candidate that is not willing to do what it takes and call on people to demonstrate when things are being contested will not have my support.

              Doesn't matter.  Gore, Feingold...anybody.  They go to the wall this to or to hell with them.  We HAVE to sort this out during the primary this time.

              by YetiMonk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:07:44 AM PDT

•  He'll run

  and he'll win.

  by YetiMonk on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:27:31 PM PDT

  •  He'll win

    if he runs.

    I like your optimism.

    by Panda on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:36:04 PM PDT

•  Things

  Things are going to be so screwed up approaching the 08 election that people will be looking for someone with intelligence and well thought out plans for the future.  Gore will leverage his encyclopedic knowledge of climate science and combine it with a new populist message.  This combined with a desire to elect the antithesis of Bush will lead....and I am officially making my clairvoyant gaze into the future....to the election of Al Gore as our next president.

  by mojavefog on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:42:07 PM PDT

•  If you want him to run

  buy his book

  Al Gore's New Book, "The Assault On Reason"  to be released next May  by Penguin Press. It is  about the difficulty politics has with making decisions based on facts and reason.

  If the book is a bestseller, he will run; if it is ignored, he will not.  He will only run again if he has a MORAL mandate.  Listen to his speeches.  Unless we all believe that we have to solve real problems together, he will try to influence us from outside, rather than be our leader.

  by expat germany on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 02:49:40 AM PDT