Gore loses to Clooney. Hillary doesn't want to run.

Swiss Billionaire, Nicholas Hayek, announced yesterday that he chose George Clooney to sit the board of his new energy company, rather than Al Gore.

The company, which will develop environmentally friendly techniques for car motors, batteries and other devices, is aimed at reducing CO2-emissions in energy consumption, Hayek said in an interview with daily Berner Zeitung.

Now Clooney is a very good choice, but Al Gore would seem to the more logical selection, except for this:

"First I hesitated between Al Gore and Clooney," said Hayek. But he didn't chose Al Gore because it was still unclear whether he was running for presidency of the United States and therefore might have accepted the post as a mere public relations exercise, Hayek told the newspaper

And what about Hillary? On the jump.

Hillary, in "The Unique Voice of Hillary Rodham Clinton," billed as "A Portrait In Her Own Words," said it quite clearly.

"I don't want to run for office," the then-first lady said bluntly. And, despite all the spinmeisters patrolling Pennsylvania Avenue, she sounded as though she meant it.

and

"People have always talked to me about running, since high school," she said some years ago. "I have too many other things I'm interested in -- my life, my daughter. But I like to be part of solving problems, like to see things happen."

Okay, the book quoted here is from ten years ago, but still she said it and was quite clear about it.

I wouldn't have believed Hillary for one second. I still have trouble believing her. Gore, on the other hand, I do believe. He has no plans to run right now. That's it. He has literally made to plans for a presidential run, as in mapping out a campaign strategy or hiring a campaign manager because he's not running....as of right now. So what is it about his non plans that made Hayek, "hailed as the saviour of the Swiss watch industry in the 1980s and a driving force behind the Smart car", chose George Clooney rather than Al Gore?

•  Good diary

  This caught my attention:
  "So what is it about his non plans that made Hayek, "hailed as the saviour of the Swiss watch industry in the 1980s and a driving force behind the Smart car", chose George Clooney rather than Al Gore?"

  I think this is the million dollar question.  I am sooo ready for Al to either make a shermanesque statement or announce.  Today would be perfect.

  by triciawrites on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:33:37 AM PDT

  •  I read somewhere else

    And I can't find the link, sorry, that he actually has until sometime in November before it would really be to late. He wouldn't have to compete in the earliest primaries. But he does have to say something soon. A number of Hollywood friends of his have started supporting other candidates, although they would all come right back to him if he announced anything.

    by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:38:25 AM PDT

  •  "Today" works for me

    I agree with all the Goreiacs that it's not too late for Al to enter the race, but I can't decide why he still might think it's too early.  Other than hating campaigning, anyway.

    by john07801 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:24:20 AM PDT

•  I liked the Hillary bit.

  It's true that you need to choose your timing carefully.  Imagine the total uproar that would have ensued if she had said "Well, I would like to run for President but I think I need a little political experience under my belt first.  I think running for a Senate seat would be a good first step.".

  by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:38:03 AM PDT

  •  Hillary's been running

    since we first met her.

    by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:39:34 AM PDT

    •  Of course.

      I don't think that Bill would have made it all the way to the White House without her.  The only change was went she went from running for him to running for herself.

      by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:42:16 AM PDT

      •  Disagree

        It's Bill who is the natural politician, not Hillary. I don't think she was ever much help to him on the stump. Standing by him during the Gennifer Flowers incident was the one thing she did do to help his Presidential campaign, but I don't think that amounts to "running for him."

        by Jim in Chicago on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:44:45 AM PDT

        •  She was his 'minder', his manager, his

          (grimace)Gal Friday.

          While Bill has the kind of personal charisma you just can't fake, he also apparently had a certain lack of self control that could have rapidly sunk his political career.  Hillary understood him well enough to keep him on track and out of trouble.  Bill never seemed to have the organizational skills that Hillary has, the kind of political acumen that can size up people and situations to the best advantage.

          by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:52:42 AM PDT

          •  I get the feeling she was also his heavy

            his hatchet man.

            by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:55:54 AM PDT

            •  Me too.

              Mostly because I find it easier to imagine Hillary chewing someone out than Bill pulling a Trump("You're FIRED!").

              by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:00:37 AM PDT

              •  Apparently Hillary is not fun to work for.

                She is of the Martha Stewart school of management, which involves a lot of screaming at people. There are also plenty of men who belong to this school. Joe Trippi is among them.

                by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:05:49 AM PDT

                •  I don't know about that.

                  Many of her staff have good things to say about her, and have stayed with her for years and years.

                  by ghost2 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:18:20 AM PDT

                  •  I'll give you that.

                    And I do believe that at times, women have a harder time working for other women.  We respond to each other differently and assertive women can be intimidating to both men and other women.  We are our worst critics and we scrutinize one another more than men.  Some may disagree, but I really believe it to be true.

                    by Scout Finch on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:51:28 AM PDT

              •  the silent treatment

                Mostly because I find it easier to imagine Hillary chewing someone out than Bill pulling a Trump

                Nope, completely the contrary. In George Stephanoploulo's book All too human, he says Bill would scream and curse at the staff everyday, but when Hillary got mad at you, she'd give you "the silent treatment".

                by William Domingo on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:05:52 AM PDT

            •  good cop/bad cop? n/t

              by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:01:42 AM PDT

        •  Hillary was one of the principals running his

          campaigns - from his first run for congress to both his presidential runs. His infamous war room, with the Speed Kills t-shirts, was her creation. She's the fighter of the two of them and is the one that understood first that you have to respond to every developing meme quickly or it becomes conventional wisdom. Bill's war room was ground breaking and that's largely her invention. That's someone who understanding campaigning and public discourse in their soul.

          The idea she isn't a natural campaigner is preposterous. She wouldn't have a 30 lead on Obama right now if she wasn't. Campaigns win - not candidates. What the past 27 years has taught me is that lousy candidates (Reagan, both Bush's) with brilliant campaigns win, and brilliant candidates (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) with lousy campaigns lose. In Gore and Kerry's case, they both managed to win and lose. Bizarre but true.

          by lorelynn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:59:40 AM PDT

          •  They were both stolen

            If you think Gore ran a bad campaign, then read the Vanity Fair article to get a real idea of what he was up against in the press. Yes his campaign made some mistakes vis-a-vis the press, but read the article.

            by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:08:13 AM PDT

            •  Yes, that's why I said they both won and lost.

              Despite that, Gore ran one of the worst campaigns imaginable. I volunteered for the guy, I love the guy, I gave him time and money. Had he attacked the memes about him as soon as they came out, even with the theft, he'd be president today. I've read everything i can find on both elections. I've sat down with a statistician who showed me through the numbers of the Florida vote - everything from voting booth placement to the disenfranchisement. I did an immense amount of research because I was thinking about writing a book about how to steal elections. Alas,  someone beat me to it. What happened is horrible.

              But back to Gore - he was handicapped because he's not a fighter. When people starting accusing him of being a liar - which is the most preposterous thing you can accuse him of - he didn't fight back. And to make matters dramatically worse, he joked about the meme. All of that stuff was an albatross around his neck in the post-election debacle. Kerry made the same damn mistake.

              Just think about this campaign though - Obama issues a hit, and Hillary slices his head off. His campaign releases a nasty press release and two days later, he's apologizing. That's the kind of stuff you did not see in either the Gore or the Kerry campaign. And it's part of the reason none of the current candidates have been able to get any traction on her.

              by lorelynn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:19:47 AM PDT

              •  disagree

                sorry, but this a completely different year from 2000. For one thing, Bill Clinton was a big liability then where he is not now.  The media lied about Gore all the time, even the liberal media, in fact they were the worst.  He had to run against the right and the left and the DLC which undermined him.

                Clinton is not immediately coming back when attacked, she hasn't had to.  Her opponents are beating themselves up. So don't tell me how tough she is in that department.

                Gore ran the right campaign for him.  The election was stolen and none of us could have predicted what happened.  By 2004 Kerry should have known better, but he bought the DLC meme that Gore screwed it up (the one you are selling) and he was not prepared.

                by MollyStark on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:50:49 AM PDT

                •  Yes, the media did lie about Gore non-stop.

                  The problem is that Gore didn't challenge their lies. He just didn't. Kerry took days to do it. The media lies about Hillary and the other candidates now. The media doesn't like Democrats and will sabotage them where ever, and whenever they can.

                  Gore knew what Clinton had done when attacked, and he didn't use the same model. He made the idiotic mistake that Obama is making now that what happened to Clinton was Clinton's fault and that it wouldn't happen to him because he didn't misbehave.

                  Mondale didn't fight back. Dukakis didn't fight back until the last few weeks. Clinton fought back. Gore didn't fight back. Kerry fight back. Hillary does.

                  And as for your charge that she hasn't needed to - bullshit. Obama's campaign released the D-Punjab memo, and within two days he was apologizing to her. Most of the fight back doesn't happen publicly. It happens by contacting reporters and providing evidence that the charge (whatever it is) is false and then being willing to go public if necessary.

                  So, please, show me a response from the Gore campaign within 24 hours of the charge that he said he invented the internet. It didn't happen. Show me a response within 24 hours to the charge that he said he discovered Love Canal - another totally false story that he didn't respond to.

                  You think he ran a great campaign - great, show me where he responded aggressively and immediately to either of these stories.

                  by lorelynn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 12:09:55 PM PDT

              •  It's Bill Clinton's reckless conduct that

                handicapped Gore to double digit deficits, which make it harder to win. Gore also had to overcome RWNM/media/Nader smears.

                Despite all of that Gore out-polled Clinton'96 among Democrats and Independents:
                
                1996 exit polls

                
                2000 exit polls

                More on the 2000 election here:

                The 2000 Presidential election: A Synopsis
                

                by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:11:50 AM PDT

                •  yeah, that's why he left office the most popular

                  president in the latter half of the 20th century. No one's buying it except people who hate Hillary. Give it up. You're doing nothing to help your candidate.

                  by lorelynn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 12:26:37 PM PDT

                  •  Blue dress, cigars,"is", Ken Starr

                    The press had been having a field day with that for over a year!  Perhaps you think that a bona fide impeachment, the long drawn out investigation and Bill Clinton being grilled in front of Congress was forgotten by 2000?

                    Bill Clinton might have been personally popular, and his personal problems might not have been administration-wide scandals, but impeachment and Lewinski cast a cloud over what should have been eight years of acheivment.

                    Some things just leave a bad taste in people's mouths.  Why is the AUMF vote a deal breaker for some people?(go Kucinich!)

                    by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 12:50:07 PM PDT

                    •  They cast a cloud over the Republicans far more

                      than over the Democrats. people didn't like or approve of the impeachment. Amazing how EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault.

                      by lorelynn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 01:26:12 PM PDT

                      •  Oh, there was fallout for the Republicans.

                        But don't tell me Bill Clinton didn't come out looking like a two timing lying weasel.

                        by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 02:14:46 PM PDT

                      •  People didn't approve of Clinton's behavior

                        (that's why he polled 60-67% unfavorables "as a person"; even I wouldn't leave a teenage sister or daughter under Bill Clinton's care; of course, not :)) but didn't think that removing him from office was justified. At the same time, people were fatigued of Clinton.

                           Pew Center poll

                             Released: September 14, 2000

                             Introduction and Summary

                           Clinton fatigue, which first surfaced more than a year ago, has not diminished. In fact, more voters today completely agree with the statement "I am tired of all the problems associated with the Clinton administration," than did a year ago (48% vs. 36% in August 1999).

                             Clinton fatigue is prevalent among all major demographic groups. Even 56% of Democrats say they have grown weary of Clinton, and fully 78% of independents agree. The percent of voters who wish Clinton could run for a third term has remained steady since last year. Just one-quarter wish Clinton could run again, while seven-in-ten disagree.

                             -------------

                             I wish Bill Clinton could run for a third term
                                                             
                             Sep'00: Agree (27%), Disagree (71%)
                             Aug'99: Agree (28%), Disagree (71%)
                             Mar'99: Agree (28%), Disagree (71%)

                        It's a complex set of feelings American had towards Bill Clintons.

                        by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 02:27:31 PM PDT

                      •  Funny how that "cloud over the Republicans"

                        somehow gave them control of the White House, the Senate AND the House.

                        Not everything is Clinton's fault, but that  filthy triangulation is part and parcel of the "Democrats don't stand for anything" meme.

                        Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

                        by bronte17 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 04:02:52 PM PDT

                  •  Clinton's personal unfavorable: 60-67% UNfavorble

                    during 1999-2000.

                    Clinton: 60-67% personal unfavorable (99-00).

                    "You're doing nothing to help your candidate."

                    I don't think Clinton should have been impeached. I supported him strongly during impeachment, as did Gore.

                    But, it's irrefutable that Clinton harmed Gore with his reckless bahavior (after helped him win in 1992, and worked hard towards their joint successes).

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 02:23:17 PM PDT

                  •  Yeah, right. Clinton squeeked into office

                    because Perot split off the vote for Bush I.

                    Clinton inherited a world where the Berlin Wall had just come down and Russia was in turmoil and dissolving.

                    We had a window of opportunity to pursue peace and stability in lieu of a Cold War. Clinton/Gore pursued an economic policy favorable to the middle class - across the globe. It's a solid policy and won lots of hearts.

                    Unfortunately, the rabid freaks of the GOP had their neocon plans interrupted and the quadrupling of our national debt under Reagan had to be addressed. So, Clinton reorganized and cut the military. The outrage was vicious.

                    Clinton is an extremely intelligent man, but his flaws undermine his strengths. He did manage to give people the perception of caring and empathy... especially with that little biting lip thing... but he could be ruthless when necessary. He took care of himself and made sure Hilary was set up to proceed... at the expense of the Democratic Party and our nation.

                    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

                    by bronte17 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 03:59:21 PM PDT

              •  I've had this debate with you before

                and you're still saying the same thing.

                If Hillary Clinton is ruthless, the Republicans are far more ruthless. If she's to win on negative campaigning alone, she will have to get much dirtier than they are. She'll need her own Coulters and Limbaughs, except a thousand times more vicious. And those she does not have and will not have.

                But back to Gore - he was handicapped because he's not a fighter. When people starting accusing him of being a liar - which is the most preposterous thing you can accuse him of - he didn't fight back.

                Everybody piled on Gore. It wasn't just that they smeared him. They actually called him a liar every time he opened his mouth. If every reporter starts calling you a liar WTF are you supposed to do? Say "I'm not a liar?" Real convincing.

                Bill Clinton's personal problems also hurt the Gore campaign. This poll taken in 1999 concluded:

                While Gore does benefit from Clinton's robust job approval ratings, he is clearly being hurt by weariness with problems of the Clinton administration. An overwhelming majority (74%) of Americans agree with the statement, "I am tired of all the problems associated with the Clinton administration." This view is held by 77% of Independents and 64% of Democrats. Among those who express fatigue, 60% say they would vote for Bush over Gore in a two-way 2000 match-up; only 35% pick Gore.

                According to the poll, if the election had been held in April 1999, Gore would have lost to Bush, 54% to 41%.

                But despite the media ganging up on him, despite the negatives from Bill Clinton's scandals, despite Ralph Nader, he closed an initial 18%-15% deficit in the polls and won the popular vote.

                Consider Hillary's current position. 70% of people hate this war and the disaster of the Bush presidency. The media has anointed Hillary as the "inevitable" candidate and the frontrunner. For God's sake, even Bush has said she'd be a formidable opponent.

                Despite all this, she barely beats Rudy in the polls, 49%-47%. In the same poll (the CNN poll of Oct. 12-14), Gore beat Rudy by a larger margin, 52%-46%.

                I have explained to you why I consider Gore to be by far the most qualified to be president. You're not doing your candidate any favors by your attacks on Gore.

                by limpidglass on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:12:51 AM PDT

                •  How do you fight back against that

                  Everyone said Gore was a liar. A Pew Research poll found that about 3/4 of all the articles in 2000 mentioned that he wasn't truthful, while most on Bush mentioned his "new kind of conservatism". (in the Vanity Fair article for this month. Google Vantiy Fair Gore for the exact quote).

                  So how do you come out swinging on that? People did try. On the Love Canal thing, a high school student who was there and had video confronted the Times and Post reporters with the facts, that they and not Gore had lied. Both papers did print corrections. But of course, it was too little and too late.

                  by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:34:21 AM PDT

                  •  Speed Kills. Any political lie not dealt with

                    within 24 hours becomes a political truth. i don't remember which assault of Gore's veracity was the first. But for the sake of argument, let's just say it was the "al gore says he invented the internet" bullshit.

                    You fight that by sending out an immediate press release detailing how aggressively you championed the internet. Gore's the VP. He can get on any talk show immediately. He can probably get a spokes person on a talk show immediately as well. You go on talk shows yourself (depending upon how aggressively you feel you need to fight something) or you get your spokespeople on and you talk about what you did to help create the internet. You offer up experts on the subject to the panel shows to talk about what you did. You blanket the media with an immediate response. You talk to reporters at major media outsets and you offer them an exclusive interview if they'll allow you to address this stuff - which, of course, they'll be delighted if you do.

                    And it is a constant battle. There is a lot of stuff a candidate has to fight non-stop through out the campaign. What you don't do is ignore it because if you ignore it, it sticks. Gore did worse. He joked about it.

                    by lorelynn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 12:25:39 PM PDT

                •  I'm not attacking Gore. You're reading stuff that

                  isn't there into my responses because you're locked into a way of thinking. I like Gore. He's a great guy who would make a brilliant president. He was treated hideously by the press. Hideously.

                  He ran a lousy campaign. The reason the liar meme stuck is because he didn't fight it immediately before it spread.

                  The difference between Clinton and Gore is that Clinton won the election and then won the Whitewater/Travel Office/Lewinsky impeachment battle. Gore won the election as well but lost the battle. The difference between the two is that Clinton fought every charge immediately. Gore didn't. He didn't believe that anyone would ever buy that he's a liar, and he didn't do it. When that internet press release story went out, he should have been on national tv the next day talking about his role in the creation of the internet. Had he done that, the story would have turned into a positive for him. Instead, he's still the butt of jokes about it.

                  You're still saying the same stuff. Your rhetoric is the reason Dems win. You're encouraging Democrats to be passive and not learn from their mistakes. My point is fight and fight aggressively. Don't assume a media discussion is every going to go your way. Don't assume the public won't buy a lie told about you.

                  by lorelynn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 12:17:30 PM PDT

                  •  putting words in my mouth

                    Your rhetoric is the reason Dems win. You're encouraging Democrats to be passive and not learn from their mistakes.

                    Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're full of shit. I am saying no such thing. I'll just throw your own words back at you:

                    You're reading stuff that isn't there into my responses because you're locked into a way of thinking.

                    Will Gore have to counter smears if he runs? Absolutely he will. But he has enormous advantages that Hillary lacks.

                    Hillary hasn't yet faced the full power of the RW media machine. They're waiting till she gets the nomination. Right now it's only other Democrats she has to worry about, and they don't play nearly as dirty as the Republicans. I really don't see any indication that she would be able to respond more effectively than Gore would.

                    Recently the media started in on Hillary's "cackle". What exactly did she do to slap that one down? Now it's out there, and you can bet they'll bring it back if she wins the nomination.

                    The problem with the anti-Gore smears of 2000 is that they were not just individual lies, but an entire, coherent narrative, tacitly agreed on by the pundits. You cannot fight accusations of being a liar if the media says that every word that comes out of your mouth is a lie.

                    If you're painted alternatively as a weak-willed woman and the Wicked Witch of the West (as they will undoubtedly do to Hillary if she's the nominee) everything you say or do will be seen through that frame. And what can you say to counter that? "I'm not a weak-willed woman" or "I'm not the Wicked Witch of the West"? Do you realize how lame that would sound?

                    Gore understands the dysfunctional media machine, as one can see from The Assault on Reason. If he runs he will exploit the power of the Internet to debunk the lies and get his message out, and, having learned from bitter experience, will handle the conventional media with more care.

                    Hillary has shown no such distrust or understanding of the media. She'll walk right into what they'll fling at her, and it will be ugly.

                    by limpidglass on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 04:25:25 PM PDT

                    •  Don't you get the feeling

                      that those who go on and on about Gore's "terrible campaign" haven't read "Assault on Reason"?

                      by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 04:37:09 PM PDT

                      •  I think Gore understands

                        how the media works.  I watched Jib Jab's bit on the media - and they are right.  We had better media when there were three broadcast networks.  Now we have a bajillion cable "news" shows which are anything from ego driven pundits to gossip hack jobs to breathless "Breaking!" news music videos.

                        by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 05:43:32 PM PDT

              •  So, you saying Gore needs some ruthless female

                campaign staff to make some heads roll?

                Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

                by bronte17 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 03:50:52 PM PDT

•  And Obama said he would serve his full term

  in the Senate. This diary serves as a great reminder of why we should keep pushing Gore.

  BTW, speaking of Obama, it appears he's now going for the anti-gay biggot vote. =(

  by Jim in Chicago on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:41:46 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for all you do

    I might lurk quite a bit but I have noticed all the great work you do day in and day out.

    by triciawrites on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:43:50 AM PDT

  •  Jeez. tell me it's not ture

    Oh I guess it is. To be honest, that is something about Obama that has always made a me a bit uncomfortable. I like religion and politics unmixed and unstirred.

    Unless you are JFK, who refused to bomb Cuba during the Bay of Pigs

    "Do you think I'm going to carry on my conscience the responsibility for the wanton maining and killings of children like out children we saw [playing] here this evening?

    From "Brothers" by David Talbot, Free Press 2007

    by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:54:25 AM PDT

•  Interesting

  But he didn't chose Al Gore because it was still unclear whether he was running for presidency of the United States

  So a case can be made that Al Gore is not being as effective as he could be on Global environment issues while he leaves a presidential run ... dangling.

  Time to announce ... one way or another.

  by ZappoDave on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:45:28 AM PDT

  •  For sure.

    It's like waiting to hear back from a job you interviewed for and you really, really want.  

    by Scout Finch on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:54:00 AM PDT

    •  Either way

      when Gore's announcement does come in, even if he doesn't back a candidate in the primary, will not be good news for Hillary.

      Either:

      - He announces a run and it hurts

      Or

      - He announces he won't be running and it surges Edwards, Obama, Kucinich in polls. The anti-oil war vote that is holding back.

      by ZappoDave on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:57:13 AM PDT

      •  Yup!

        Apparently a lot of the Hollywood money that would be Gore's is drfting to Hillary, but would dump her in a minute for Gore.

        by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:59:28 AM PDT

        •  True ... but

          I was thinking more of everyday people that haven't committed or contributed to candidates because they have hopes for Gore. Once he announces, one way or the other, the race breaks wide open and Hillary will have more competition.

          by ZappoDave on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:09:24 AM PDT

          •  It underscores

            how ludicrous the 600-day campaign really is.

            by john07801 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:43:03 AM PDT

      •  It completely shuffles the deck

        something not lost on future-President Gore.

        by john07801 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:44:48 AM PDT

    •  Another Analogy

      To me, it's like waiting for Christmas, but you don't know if you're getting ruby slippers or a pair of socks.

      by Traveling Companion I on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:00:08 AM PDT

      •  I could use socks.

        But I'd rather have the slippers

        by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:03:16 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the diary Grassroots Mom.

  Nice work.

  by Scout Finch on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 09:52:22 AM PDT

  •  Just trying to do my bit

    It just stuck me a curious. Does this business mogul know something we don't? Did he have a conversation with Gore? Because it's a new company, without even a name yet, did Gore feel compelled to say domething privately that a run was a possibility? So many questions?

    by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:02:18 AM PDT

    •  And wouldn't Gore be worth waiting for?

      I mean if you had the opportunity to ask for and get Al Gore and he said: "I can't tell you yet, but I can give you a decision in a couple months." would you wait or just let him go?

      by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:05:41 AM PDT

      •  Depends on what he said, doesn't it

        by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:13:15 AM PDT

•  You know, i understand why you love Gore and

  want him to run. All of us, even those of us who are supporting other candidates, would love to see him in the White House. So I undstand you posting pro-Gore diaries. I don't understand your need to piss on other candidates in your diary. you may not like hillary but so what? Why add to the volumes and volumes of hatred and negativity here? It certainly doesn't change any minds, and it simply clogs the place up.

  by lorelynn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:05:02 AM PDT

  •  Um, she's NOT "pissing on Hillary".

    She simply pointed out that one candidate previously disavowed any intent to run for President in the past.

    Are Hillary supporters usually this touchy?  Or is it me?  

    by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:08:22 AM PDT

    •  I think the Hillary

      hate around here border on hysteria and I don't blame them for fighting back.  Lor might have over reacted  this time, but cut her a break it is understandable.

      by MollyStark on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:04:58 AM PDT

      •  Let her stop boxing at shadows then.

        It's as if you mention "Hillary" and "Candidate X" in a sentence or paragraph together and the knee jerk reaction sends you flying across the room.

        And we've even said nice things about Hillary!  My opinion of Hillary is that she is a Politician first, second and third.

        I want a Leader.

        by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 12:54:28 PM PDT

  •  I saw Hillary at Yearly Kos......

    and much to my surprise, she tried to piss on Al Gore.  Why?  She fielded a question about NAFTA and she blamed it on Al Gore.  Pretty weak stuff.  He's not even running yet.  And she was all too eager to tell the audience - with a broad smile - that it was Al Gore's fault.  As if Bill Clinton weren't the guy standing at the podium with all of the cameras pointed at him while he talked up all the benefits of NAFTA.

    by Scout Finch on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:09:22 AM PDT

    •  That's certainly weasely behavior.

      She had the option of: "It wasn't ideal but we did what we could with a Republican controlled Congress.".  Better than: "Vice President Gore did that!".

      by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:14:20 AM PDT

    •  she SAID that?

      to educated, critically thinking and informed Kossacks??????

      There is only one pen that is authorized to sign ANYTHING into law, and it belongs to the President!  Even if Al came back with a bad deal, the President could've easily rejected it.  That is not so hard for any of us to understand.

      That sounds like the buck passing we've heard for the last six years.

      Jesus, if you do something and fuck-up, just admit it!  People do respect others who take responsibility for their actions, even if they were wrong.

      by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:00:02 AM PDT

      •  She sure did.

        I'm sure it's on video somewhere.  It was at her break-out session.  The one that she was originally scheduled for, then backed out of, was roundly booed during the announcement, then found time in her schedule for it again.

        I do give her some credit.  It took some guts to walk into YK and take questions.  Personally, with the exception of blaming Al Gore, I thought she handled it all very well.  She handled that Q&A much better than she did when she was on the panel with everyone else.

        As much as I desparately want Al Gore to get in the race, I left Chicago fairly comfortable that I could and would get behind her if she got the nomination.  Now, let me say again that I want Al Gore in the race.  :)

        by Scout Finch on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:08:56 AM PDT

        •  I should have been there to nail her on the war.

          I now regret not attending YKos for exactly that reason.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:15:03 AM PDT

          •  on the war and blaming Gore

            by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:16:16 AM PDT

            •  I have to warn you.....

              she is very good at absorbing or deflecting hard hitting questions.  I was impressed at the candidate she could or will be.  I may not agree with her on everything, but I can say for certain she will be a strong candidate for us - IF she gets the nod.

              As you well know, I sincerely hope that Al Gore gets it.  But I can't ignore that Hillary Clinton is very good at what she does.

              by Scout Finch on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:20:52 AM PDT

              •  she is good spinning out of tough questions

                if the questioner is either not fully informed on the subject at hand or just lets it go.

                She can't really get away easily from the ridiculousness of her vote for the war. The IWR IS a really bad resolution, and her votes related to it were bad (Edwards' co-sponsorship/votes were worse, but hers were pretty bad as well). People just are not getting tough with her on this. Her Kyl-Lieberman vote should be a wake up call.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:27:54 AM PDT

              •  See what Lincoln Chafee

                the sole Senate Republican that voted against the war said about those that voted for the IWR:

                Lincoln Chafee: "Anybody Who Voted for the War Is Disqualified"
                link
                video

                by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:40:16 AM PDT

    •  hillary IS running against Al Gore

      She has been from the start.  The Clintons know Al is the only real obstacle standing in the way of their control of the Party.

      Gore's position on EVERYTHING is opposite hillary's.

      by Zacapoet on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 12:11:49 PM PDT

      •  I wouldn't say it's always the opposite of,

        but certainly more progressive than Hillary.

        by Scout Finch on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 12:20:13 PM PDT

    •  To clarify, she blamed him for the Telecom Act

      of '96 as well.  I am almost certain she pinned NAFTA on Al, along with the Telecom Act, but as was pointed out to me, I could be wrong about what exactly she blamed on Al.  Does anyone have the video clip?  I remember the guy who asked the question, but can't remember his username.  And I also remember that goldberry was sitting just across the aisle from me.  She got a question in too.

      by Scout Finch on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 12:41:41 PM PDT

  •  I'm not pissing on Hillary

    Just pointing out that she said at one time that she had no intention of running for anything ever.

    by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:10:47 AM PDT

    •  She had a school age child and a husband in

      office. Don't you think it's pretty normal that she didn't want to run at the time?

      I just even understand the point of bringing it in.

      by lorelynn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:22:58 AM PDT

      •  what was the point

        of you coming on this diary and selling the DLC line about Gore's mythic lousy campaign?
        I defended you, but look at yourself.  This is a Gore diary.  Have some respect.
        And BTW, when Bush was busy stealing the election in Florida, Clinton was president. What did he do to stop what was happening?

        by MollyStark on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:10:29 AM PDT

        •  He ran a terrible campaign and that's important.

          He JOKED about being a liar - fuck, that's like the one thing you cannot do.

          As for Clinton, those are state laws that were violated. What was he supposed to do? Got any evidence that the DOJ knew about the disenfranchisement beforehand? I've read a lot about this campaign, and I've never seen any heads up there.

          by lorelynn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 12:00:01 PM PDT

          •  Ah. Now that we are done reliving 2000

            can we get back to talking about how great HIllary is?

            by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 02:17:13 PM PDT

•  Edwards is playing very hard

  for Gore's endorsement.  He even just loaded up two clips on Al's current.com

  by NYPopulist on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:06:25 AM PDT

  •  havent seen much attention to this yet

    Maybe he's playing both sides- endorsement or vp slot?

    by triciawrites on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:07:39 AM PDT

    •  I think it would be extremely unlikely that Gore

      would select Edwards as a running mate.  2 white men from the South on the same ticket?  Not gonna happen.  Gore would have to go after Obama first and foremost.  Sebelius or Richardson would be very high.  As much as I would hate to see Kathleen Sebelius leave Kansas (she's a heavy favorite in 2010 for the Senate - she would be 1st Democratic Senator from KS since 1939), she would be an excellent addition to a Gore ticket.  She's a Democratic woman from an overwhelming red state (my home state) and she has been able to work brilliantly with state Republicans, even convincing several high profile Republicans to jump ship and join the Democratic party.  Several of those party hoppers won their respective elections as Democrats.

      She is going to be a more conservative kind of Democrat.  So-called "value voters" are gonna love her....just like these red voting Kansas Republicans and Democrats love her.

      by Scout Finch on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:16:26 AM PDT

  •  It's all good.

    And certainly candidates associating themselves with Gore is a nod to Gore's political clout.

    by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:11:08 AM PDT

•  Gee,

  a book published in 1997 quoted Hillary as saying she doesn't plan to run.  Sorry that she didn't confide in you 10 years ahead of the time!  

  by ghost2 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:16:24 AM PDT

  •  You think Hillary was a shrinking violet

    way back when?
    No, Hillary has always been an ambitious, determined person.  And I'm sure her reaction to the question wasn't "Moi?  Oh, my goodness, no!  I'd never dream of such a thing.".

    by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:19:31 AM PDT

    •  No.

      She has never been a shrinking violet.   That's why I like her a lot.  

      by ghost2 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:33:57 AM PDT

      •  You like her, but do you trust her?

        I admire her, respect her but I don't trust her.

        by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 02:16:15 PM PDT

        •  yes, I do.

          As much as I trust any politician, and more than some.  

          by ghost2 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 03:15:03 PM PDT

          •  That's isn't saying much, is it?

            Hillary is the kind of person I'd want working for me, but suspect she will always be working for herself.

            by Fabian on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 05:06:48 PM PDT

  •  Look, I'm only quoting a column

    in a newspaper which makes the point. The columnist goes on to point out that her rhetoric did begin to change as the time for her to announce her own intentions of running came round. Still, iirc, it caught a lot of people by surprise when she said that whe was going to run for Senate — in New York, given her previous assertions that she never wanted to run.

    by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:28:11 AM PDT

•  hey

  "hiring a campaign manager"

  Al hasn't called me yet. Now, why is that? :)

  by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:31:07 AM PDT

  •  That is quite silly of him.

    Hey Al! You have a genius waiting to work for you. Bet you could get him (or her) cheap, too!

    by blue vertigo on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:34:16 AM PDT

    •  seriously,

      "You have a genius waiting to work for you."

      actually, I have some critical milestones in my own career (nothing to do with politics) falling in Nov'08, which I have spent a long time working towards.

      But, if Al runs, I'll help out as much as I can, mainly because I don't want them to make avoidable and dumb mistakes (which to my surprise, too many campaigns do) in strategy and rapid response areas.

      "Bet you could get him (or her) cheap, too!"

      he just has to ask nicely, and pay what my regular job pays, to hire me full time :)

      by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:44:37 AM PDT

      •  of course,

        i'd do this only because the causes at hand (including global warming and stopping unnecessary, dumb and brutal wars, but working towards peace around the world) trumps any other possible cause.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:00:54 AM PDT

•  What do you guys think of this article?

  http://www.mnweekly.ru/...

  I found it googling just Al Gore a few days ago. Its from Moscow and I found it interesting that a leader in Russia wants Gore to run and be president.

  by marlakay on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:35:41 AM PDT

  •  I read that one

    Not surprising. I think the rest of the world would love to work with someone intelligent and experienced who can see the big picture and who isn't constrained by ideology.

    by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:38:23 AM PDT

  •  here's more

    draft Al from Germany:

    http://www.algore2008.de/

    Just so you know, I posted that in another diary because I thought it was interesting.  I am posting here because it seems relevent.  I am not intentionally spamming.

    by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:03:27 AM PDT

    •  Is your diary in English?

      If so please post a link here so I can find it. The article is mostly German, which I don't read so well. Thanks

      by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:26:51 AM PDT

      •  sorry GM

        It is not much different than US sites, but I posted it because it was in German.  That I think is an important point, it's for Germans and Europeans are not usually so concerned about US elections.

        It is not an article, it's an actual European draft Al Gore site, it's implications I think are worth noting.

        Al is truly an international hope, not just a Democratic one.

        by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:01:31 PM PDT

        •  I've seen articles from around the globe

          all hailing Gore as a visionary and hoping he'll run. Only the American press and some British papers are negative.

          by Grassroots Mom on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 03:39:55 PM PDT

  •  He's from the Academy of Sciences

    and is showing respect for Al Gore.

    Not sure how the melting of the Arctic icecaps affects Russia, but they appreciate and respect science.

    Russia has some serious issues with the loss of the  Aral Sea (it was the fourth largest inland sea and is now dry) and contamination from the Chernobyl radioactive fallout.

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 04:21:23 PM PDT

•  Here's a ticket

  If Gore doesn't run now, and Rudy wins, (Arrrgh! gnashing of teeth and pulling out of hair), what about Gore/Clooney in 2012? Isn't Clooney thinking of doing a movie with DiCaprio about Howard Dean? They should come talk to me about what it was like to be involved as a grassroots person in the middle of rural PA. I had TV cameras showing up at my house parties. (More Arrrgh and gnashing of teeth)

  by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:42:32 AM PDT

•  He didn't lose to anyone as he didn't

  even run for that position.

  Or you lose everytime someone else becomes something that you don't?
  Then the world doesn't have anything but losers.

  I for one didn't become a board member of that company either. So I must have lost. Whatever.

  by elender on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 02:57:40 PM PDT

  •  He was considered and didn't get selected

    Were you being considered?

    The diary title was meant as a rhetorical comment.

    Whatever.

    by Grassroots Mom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 04:39:52 PM PDT