How Gore could solve the Dem dilemma [w/poll]

Yes, another gratuitous Al Gore diary--or not.

There has been a lot of ink spilled recently about Al Gore playing deus ex machina at or before the Denver convention, swooping in to either be the ultimate superdelegate, or to be the compromise nominee for president should Obama and Clinton not be able to win outright.

All of this supposes Obama does not tie or win PA [which may or may not be probable], or that Obama or Clinton doesn't make a major gaffe and doom their candidacies.  Personally, I believe Obama has a decent shot at PA--no repugs to help Clinton out--and anything less than a 10 pt win is basically a loss for Clinton because of what happened in Ohio.

So how does Gore fix the Democrats' dilemma?

Assuming we go to the convention with no nominee, Gore is put forward as the compromise.  Here's how he does it:  he offers Obama the VP and pledges both Obama and Clinton that he will only serve 1 term, stepping aside so that Obama and Clinton can have another shot at 2012.

Sounds crazy?  But think what this would allow Gore to do with the Climate Change issue!  He would have every reason to fast-track it, and he'd punish either Obama or Clinton if they didn't do everything possible to facilitate his agenda between 08 and 12.  He'd probably have to get guarantees from Dem congressional leaders that they would be on board as well.

A Gore/Obama ticket would win by a historical landslide.  It would give Obama his 'experience', national exposure, and would provide Clinton with a way out of the corner she is slowly backing into, and another path to the presidency.

Okay, so now you all can have a shot at me, but I was the first who wrote weeks ago that Clinton was trying to extort the Dems to either pick her or ruin Obama's chances in 08 so that she could win in 2012.  That meme is now conventional thinking both here in the blogosphere and in the MSM, though nobody who says it now gets flamed as I did weeks ago.

•  Gotta say "No" to that idea.

  We need a nominee that is fresh, that will serve 2 full terms, and that has the mandate of the Democratic voters (i.e. the most delegates and popular votes). This smacks of gimmickry and would likely be viewed as a sign that the Democratic Party is in utter disarray.

  by Reckoner on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:04:41 PM PDT

  •  If the 1st ballot fail to nominate, anything goes

    on the subsequent ballots.

    by MonicaMissile2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:53:32 PM PDT

  •  I'll be happy with Gore for 2 full terms.

    by MonicaMissile2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:58:07 PM PDT

  •  Gore

    would be a lame duck as soon as he took the oath of office.  He is smarter than that.

    Also, every politician has too much ego for stepping aside when s/he is so close.  

    by hilltopper on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:37:00 PM PDT

•  Jesus WHY?!

  The solution is to disenfranchise ALL of the voters thats the way.  

  BTW, all you Gore lovers now forget that in 2000 he put Lieberman on the ticket with him.  Maybe you all forget that he ran to the "center", i.e., away from progressives.

  I haven't forgotten.  I do NOT want to be disenfranchised by Al Gore or anyone else thank you very much!

  by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:05:01 PM PDT

  •  Oh please

    First off, some people, including some here at this site, wrote in Gore on the primary ballot, so don't assume no one voted for the man.

    But more importantly, ENOUGH with the Lieberman meme.  2000 Lieberman was much different than post-9/11 Lieberman.  Don't confuse the two.

    If Hillary and Obama beat each other up between now and August and both are deemed unelectable, would you rather nominate someone who has a slim chance to beat McCain and risk 100 years in Iraq or would you rather nominate a unity candidate that is tanned, rested, ready, and extremely popular to take on the Republicans?

    I know which one I'd choose.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:14:11 PM PDT

    •  Fuck that...

      I and many others saw in 2000 that Gore was moving to the center...but guess what...moving to the center is just another term for selling out.  

      And he put lieberman on the ticket because even in 2000 Liebermann was a centrist, i.e., a conservative.  And the Clinton's/Gore with their Southern mindset believe they can't win without selling out to conservatives.  

      Thats what Gore did and thats why Gore lost.

      by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:18:13 PM PDT

      •  Let's get some things straight

        Could Gore have run a better campaign in 2000? Sure. But mind you, he won the popular vote and was robbed by the Supreme Court, which was of no fault of his own. And don't tell me he didn't fight, because he fought tooth and nail for a full recount. That's why Gore "lost".

        I don't know why exactly he put Lieberman on the ticket, but it is VERY clear to me that your opinion of him is jaded from what he has become post 9/11.

        Did you know that Gore is in favor of single-payer health care?  Did you know that Gore is in favor of a carbon tax?  Did you know that Gore is in favor of gay marriage? Did you know that Gore was the first to speak out against Iraq, before Obama?  My guess is you didn't know any of that because you're so blinded by your hatred for the man and how he ran his campaign eight years ago.  Oh, and by the way, neither Hillary nor Obama are in favor of single-payer, in favor of gay marriage or in favor or a carbon tax.

        Take that centrism and shove it you know where.

        by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM PDT

        •  While Gore in many ways did win...

          ...if he had run a better campaign he could have won by a margin that couldn't have been overturned.  There are many reasons why Gore "lost."

          by cavebird on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:12 PM PDT

          •  10,000 reasons why Gore lost --

            no need to isolate one -- let it all go.

            by Marie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:34:35 PM PDT

          •  Too bad he didn't have you as advisor, then!

            It's kind of obvious that every close loss could've been averted with a "better" campaign.  But Gore's choice of Lieberman wasn't so obviously bad back then, and Nader, Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy, Sandra whatshername, and Scalia helped fuck up the country and the world.

            by amitxjoshi on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:54:42 PM PDT

            •  Gore lost because....IMPEACHMENT

              Don't know why Dems in leadership today are so cockeyed that they believe the exact opposite message from the truth: Clinton was impeached, and Bush got elected promising to "restore integrity."

              Why in God's name they aren't standing up to this NAZI and pointing out what kind of "integrity" he has brought us, I don't know.

              It's plain as day that voters believed Bush's con job in 2000, and they believed it because they wanted to believe it, BECAUSE Clinton was impeached.

              so, why doesn't THAT apply to this fascist we have in the White House who comes up with new ways to shit on the constitution and commit crimes nearly every day? Ask Pelosi. I don't know who is drugging her daily, but what a cocktail!

              by taraka das on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:20 PM PDT

          •  Gore overcame double digit deficits

            to win the popular vote despite:

            1. Clinton scandals

            2. media smears

            3. Nader factor

            Please see.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM PDT

        •  Well you see Gore didn't run!

          So he can be honest now.  I know he's a progressive but he didn't/doesn't trust the American people to vote for him based on his beliefs.  

          by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:43 PM PDT

        •  Lieberman today isn't

          much different than he was in 2000.  Gore selected him because that was the payment to the DLC folks for getting him enough money to win the nomination.

          Gore today is different -- devastating defeats have a way of being life changing.  Not the the liberal Gore was alway part of him -- but as a SEN from TN that got redder and redder year after year and then VP under a neo-liberal, his liberal muscle wasn't much used for a long time.  We'll never know how he would have performed as POTUS if he's won in '00, my guess a lot more like Clinton than his current fans would like to think.  Perhaps he would have done better in a second term, but not much better.  He can say what he says to today because he's not running for anything.

          by Marie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:33:40 PM PDT

          •  Yea...

            because Bill Bradley was really a threat in the primaries.

            by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:35:44 PM PDT

          •  asdf

            "Lieberman today isn't much different than he was in 2000."

            Well, Gore didn't endorse him in 2003 for a reason: Lieberman hawked the iraq war in 2002 which Gore valiantly opposed.

            "Gore today is different"

            I have news for you. It's not Gore that's different. It's the world around us your own perspective that may have changed.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:53 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        "Fuck that... I and many others saw in 2000 that Gore was moving to the center...but guess what...moving to the center is just another term for selling out."

        Gore's own platform was progressive. Lieberman also pledged to abide by Gore's platform.

        "And he put lieberman on the ticket because even in 2000 Liebermann was a centrist, i.e., a conservative."

        Gore opposed the war and endorsed Dean partly for that reason.  

        

        The Lieberman argument is not a good one to use whether you support Clinton or Obama (I support Obama, of course).

        "And the Clinton's/Gore with their Southern mindset believe they can't win without selling out to conservatives. Thats what Gore did and thats why Gore lost."

        Yes, when he represented conservative TN, Gore was more of a moderate. But, he's been a progressive Democrat since the 90s and the most significant politician on the environment. His vision on the internet was probably the reason why you are able to post these comments BTW.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:16:57 PM PDT

        •  He's a great guy dude...

          Just a horrible politician...a bad politician is someone who doesn't say and fight for what he believes in.  

          Case in point...why wasn't he for single-payer health care in 2000 when he was running?  

          Look he's a progressive and a great guy but he should not be our President.  Sorry no way never.  He won't fight for what he believes...

          Even now!  Where is Al Gore?!  Why doesn't he pull a Gary Hart and stop Clinton from tearing our party apart? Why? Because Al Gore is not a hero...he is not courageous.  He had his chance and he failed miserably.  So away with him.  

          Obama '08

          by michlawa2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:50:51 PM PDT

    •  I will never

      support Gore in another election because I put my beliefs before my party, if my parties candidate and I have major differences in policy then I will not vote for him or her.

      by Calev on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:31:13 PM PDT

      •  So...

        you're for universal health care but not single-payer?  Or is it you're for civil unions but not gay marriage?

        by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:55:35 PM PDT

        •  Well I am sure glad

          that during his time as Vice President he helped bring in those things.  Gore is all talk and no action, if he was we would have universal healthcare and same-sex marriage.  I am an American and a Canadian, currently living in Canada.  I do not like Gore because of the way he has medelled in Canadian affairs.  I also do not like the fact that he has moved to the centre.  I am very left wing, even in Canada where Same-Sex marriage and universial health care are things accepted by the majority of the nation.

          by Calev on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:30:25 PM PDT

          •  How's Obama doing leading the FISA fight?

            Oh, sorry, I was thinking of someone else.

            by Clem Yeobright on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:18:01 AM PDT

  •  Bill Clinton moved the country to the "center"

    Bill Clinton triangulated the hell out of us and moved us right.

    It wasn't Al Gore.  Gore was VP. He was in charge of making the government upgrade and become more efficient.

    Gore wasn't the one signing or vetoing laws.

    Clinton gave you the run to the right. Not Gore.

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

    by bronte17 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:56:48 PM PDT

  •  Hillary Clinton wants to win this by hook or

    crook.

    If Obama wins the race by winning on pledged delegates, he OUGHT and SHOULD be the nominee.

    If crooked stuff is pulled by the Clinton campaign to deny Obama the nomination and/or she continues attacking Obama as she did in TX/OH, will we have a situation to deal with (and the Clinton campaign seems to be on exactly that trajectory) where Gore has the stature to try and resolve the matter in collaboration with other party leaders.

    "BTW, all you Gore lovers now forget that in 2000 he put Lieberman on the ticket with him."

    Gore dis-endorsed Lieberman in 2003 for a reason: Gore opposed the war and disapproved of Lieberman's war hawking.

    "Maybe you all forget that he ran to the "center", i.e., away from progressives."

    That's false. Gore's platform was progressive and his theme was populist.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:11:38 PM PDT

•  uh.

  no.

  by strangeman1969 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:05:36 PM PDT

  •  Let me 2nd that:

    No.
    Nicht.
    Nein.
    Nay.
    Nyet.
    Nope.
    Nix.
    Nada.
    Goose egg.
    Melvin.

    Gore's future lies elsewhere.

    by episty on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:38:42 PM PDT

•  gore is a possibility ONLY

  if obama cannot win ONE of the final big states--
  pa,  mi, fl.  clinton will make it a nightmare about big states this bs.  

  in which case we'll take gore/obama over clinton and
  anyone

  by maxnyc on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:07:08 PM PDT

  •  HRC makes evey night a nightmare n/t

    by zerzan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:10:18 PM PDT

  •  Gore is not a possibility...

    even if the moon burst into a billion pieces and the sun failed to rise tomorrow.  

    by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:12:57 PM PDT

    •  You have no idea what you're talking about

      the idea has been bantered around quite a bit of late (see here and here) so clearly some people - who are likely more entrenched in the political scene than you - think there's a chance it could happen.  Longshot?  Yes, of course.  But to say it is impossible is flat-out wrong.

      by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:16:41 PM PDT

      •  Well those people aren't superdelegates...

        who realize disenfranchising  all of America by nominating Al Gore is a terrible idea.  If you or them or anyone else think its possible/a good idea then you need to get your head out of your entrenched politics ass and wake up.  

        But anyway its not possible here's why:  

        The pledged delegates are hand picked by the nominees themselves.  They aren't going to abandon their nominee for Al Gore.  If you think they are you're smoking some  powerful shit.  

        by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:25:33 PM PDT

        •  You clearly

          don't know how a convention works.  Even if every pledged delegate sticks with their candidate, it wont matter because both Obama and Hillary are going to need supers to put them over the top.

          If the pledged delegates, after a round or two of balloting, realize that their guy (or gal) isn't going to win this outright, they'll start looking to make deals or compromise.

          by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:34:19 PM PDT

          •  and you think Al Gore will be the

            compromise.  Yeah I'm clearly the dumb one here

            by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:40:28 PM PDT

            •  I guess the Clinton staffers are dumb too

              more than a few of gone on record and said that a Gore "unity" nomination is a definite possibility.  Here's a story citing one of them.

              Oh I guess the Newsweek writers and Taegan Goddard and countless others are dumb too.

              Like I said, you're just too blinded by your hatred for the man to even admit that it's a possibility.

              And yes, you are.

              by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:44:31 PM PDT

              •  I like Al Gore...

                I really do...wish he had ran as a progressive this time.  But he thought he couldnt run given he move to the left.  He has never trusted the country to be progressive and he never will.  

                by michlawa2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:18:29 AM PDT

  •  Stop with the 'Big States' stuff.

    Seeing the huge turnout, and the reasonably close percentages to Hillary, and the fact that 99% of Hillary supporters will vote for Obama in the GE, that argument is entirely irrelevant.

    by HillarysWar on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:26:56 PM PDT

•  Obama already said no to VP...

  lets take him at his word....

  by dvogel001 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:07:36 PM PDT

  •  Right because there is no basis for that.

    There is no reason to doubt he won't do that as far as I know."

    by Dopeman on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:11:35 PM PDT

  •  No... he ruled out the VP position with

    Hillary.

    I cannot find the quote right now, but it was very interesting in the way Obama worded it... he knows he may be VP.

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

    by bronte17 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:17 PM PDT

    •  I thought he was very clear...

      I am running for POTUS not VP...it was quite clear....Not VP...Period there was no wiggle room

      by dvogel001 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:39:28 AM PDT

      •  But there was another quote...

        I saw it earlier today but cannot find it now.

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

        by bronte17 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:32:58 AM PDT

•  Will eveyone stop the Gore worship?

  His half-assed run in 2000, losing even his home state, is the reason we're in such crappy shape today. (OK, maybe the supreme court and J.Bush are to blame,too) He hasn't had the balls to endorse anyone to date, or else is deluding himself into believing he is now above politics somehow.  He won a Nobel Prize.  So did Arafat, so what. He is a DLC piece of you know what and can everyone stop pretending he is somehow important? O that goes for Edwards, too.

  by zerzan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:09:26 PM PDT

  •  Thank you!

    It needs to be said already.  I like the guy and what he is doing now.  But as a politician the guy was fucking Hillary Clinton.  Same stupid advisor's telling him to sell out his true beliefs to win.  

    by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:11:45 PM PDT

  •  You at the right website?

    He won a Nobel Prize.  So did Arafat, so what.

    Who are you, Sean Hannity?

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:17:43 PM PDT

    •  Everyone see Al Gore through rose-tinted glasses.

      We have George Bush thanks to him.  Fuck him.  

      by michlawa2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:19:20 PM PDT

      •  He didn't do it all on his own --

        the DLC funded him and therefore had paid for the right to dictate to him.  The left didn't bother to buy him and demand that he honor his parents New Deal populist roots.

        by Marie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:23:40 PM PDT

      •  Please

        did you campaign for Gore back in 2000?  If not, by your logic, you're to blame for President Bush.  HA!  If only...

        Blame the Supreme Court, blame the media, blame Ralph Nader, blame Jeb Bush, blame Catherine Harris.  But don't blame Al for President Bush.  You're absolutely insane if you do.

        by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:25:37 PM PDT

      •  And what did YOU do to help Gore get elected?

        What did YOU do to make sure the Democrats took the White House?

        Between a bunch of Nader-voting Greens who keep thinking they can establish a third-party system by destroying the Democratic candidate... and the Rehnquist Court and Enron's money and assistance, and the fatigue of voters from the Clinton scandals... Gore carried it on his shoulders.

        He tried to dust some of it off... and people kept getting pissed at him for sidestepping Bill and Hil.

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

        by bronte17 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:41 PM PDT

    •  Actually, i didn't mind arafat

      I guess it was a bad example. Arafat was a popular politician, loved by his own people, and respected by non-zionists everywhere. Al Gore made a boring Power Point presentation.

      by zerzan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:25:50 PM PDT

      •  Wow

        go home troll.

        by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM PDT

      •  Boring PowerPoint presentations do NOT

        win Nobel Prizes nor move CEOs across the entire globe to provide money and change their business practices.

        Why don't you do a little reading and research before you start your trolling.

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

        by bronte17 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:27:31 PM PDT

  •  No, we won't!

    I'm not in favor of a Gore nomination this time round, but I don't understand jerks who badmouth Gore.  Gore was starved of money (I guess we on the left were complacent after 8 years of Clinton!), Nader was being a dick, and he was fighting off a hostile press.  What the fuck did you expect?!?  Hell, even the shrub, after 4 years of screwing up, got over 50% of the vote in 2004!  How did you expect Gore to work his miracles??

    And even when Gore still managed to win the popular vote, the rethug conspiracy stole the election from him.

    As for your Nobel prize comments, well, you're an idiot.  Can't put it plainer than that!

    by amitxjoshi on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:01:19 PM PDT

    •  I've missed Gore diaries

      but I have to say that a few know-it-all newbies aren't improving the place.

      FWIW, I don't think it's likely at this point, although people were asking Gore about a brokered convention last year and he kept saying 'won't happen-- hasn't in decades.'  Heh... his usually-amazing prescience was a bit off.  I'd love it, but it's almost certainly not going to happen.

      by latts on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:02:01 PM PDT

      •  Where's the hunger?

        Look, I admire Gore, and I was really, really rooting for him to run this time round.  But he didn't.  And it doesn't matter how great a man he is, if he's not hungry for the presidency, he won't make a good president.

        That's what made Bill Clinton a good president.  A man less determind would've caved under the Starr assault--who needs that kind of crap?  But Bill fought back, and by god! retired with the highest approval ratings in recent history!  Drove the newt out of politics, too, effectively.

        by amitxjoshi on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:20:18 PM PDT

        •  Bill's personal scandals

          are one big reason Gore started out with a serious disadvantage among voters, almost sixteen points down. He closed the gap and won the popular vote. And had the recount not been stopped by judicial coup, he would have won Florida and the presidency.

          by limpidglass on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:49:13 AM PDT

        •  Believe it or not

          not all presidents need to be street fighters first, although they should all have good battle plans.  Every once in a while, we get statesmen (or stateswomen, at least theoretically) who reach that status at least in part because they are big-picture people whose ambitions for the country are even greater than their personal ambition.  It doesn't happen often, but if we eliminate the possibility of it happening at all, we're never going to do better than clever political hacks.  IOW, this fire-in-the-belly, want-to argument is a recipe for mediocre leadership, which is adequate most of the time but not a desirable core ideology.

          by latts on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:08:54 AM PDT

•  how bout as a two term nominee

  she is much better than the rest on everything. he should get back the 8 years George Bush stole from him.

  by deaniac20 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:10:35 PM PDT

  •  Gore/Obama

    Guarantees that we control the WH for 16 years.

    by Dopeman on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:13:26 PM PDT

    •  i actually like that a lot

      because we have experience and substance on the top, who the activists and the Clintonites like me love, and on the bottom, we keep the young kids and blacks around us.

      by deaniac20 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:29 PM PDT

•  Ah. No.

  And whether or not Obama wins PA. Hillary won't have the most pledged delegates. She still loses.

  by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:14:04 PM PDT

  •  OK...

    yea, he'll likely still have the most pledged delegates, but what if she wins the popular vote?  If she does, she'll have a very credible argument to make to the superdelegates, whom, whether Obama supporters like it or not, are part of the nominating process.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:18:41 PM PDT

    •  I think this is time #137 (cut and paste)

      The superdelegates will not overturn the pledged delegate count, even if Obama is ahead by one.

      These folks are mostly politicians. Do you really think they are going to steal the election from the first viable black candidate ever? I don't mean that in a racist sense. They also wouldn't steal it from the first viable woman candidate if she was ahead.

      First off, there'd be riots. Second, we'd lose the general. Third, they'd be in trouble in their districts. Fourth, they'd lose the black vote for a generation.

      It quite simply isn't going to happen. In fact, it's not even going to go to the convention. Whoever is ahead in pledged delegates will be the nominee, and that will almost certainly be Obama.

      Why won't it go to the convention? The calendar. They put the convention 8 weeks before the general election assuming we'd have a nominee after Super Tuesday and that the convention would just be a big PR event. There is no way the party bigwhigs, who more than anything else want to win in November, are going to allow 3 months to pass in silence between the last primary and the convention, and then only have 8 weeks to combat McCain before the general.

      Look at it this way. There's only a little less time between now and the PA primary than there is between the convention and the election.

      This whole superdelegate thing is a red herring.

      by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:20:39 PM PDT

      •  Few things

        first off, I'm not a Hillary supporter as you suggest in your comment below.  I'm an Obama supporter, though I'm not a mouthpiece for the campaign like some here are (not suggesting you are).

        Next, and more importantly, the superdelegates would not be "stealing" the election if they put Hillary over the top, especially if she has won the popular vote.  What is so shady about sending your superdelegate vote to the candidate that received the most total votes?  Wouldn't that be the will of the Democratic voters?  Also, like I said before, whether people like it or not here, superdelegates are a part of the nominating process.  If they were there to simply rubberstamp the candidate with the most pledged delegates, there would be no such thing as a superdelegate.

        by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:39 PM PDT

        •  No it would not.

          Ask Al Gore. This whole thing about the popular vote determining anything whatsoever is pure Clinton propaganda and crap. This is not how the primary process works. The popular vote is absolutely meaningless. The primary process is set up with a set of rules to pick DELEGATES.

          I still believe Obama will end up with the most popular votes, states, and pledged delegates, as he has today, but this bait that's being swallowed hook line and sinker that the popular vote means anything at all is infuriating.

          by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:34:46 PM PDT

          •  I'm not contending it does

            what I'm contending is that the popular vote means something to the superdelegates, who, as I keep repeating, do mean a lot.

            by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:47:18 PM PDT

            •  They had better not mean a lot,

              or Denver better hire a lot of riot police.

              by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:52:15 PM PDT

              •  You act as if

                Clinton supporters wouldn't be up in arms should she have actually won more votes from Democrats nationwide but not win the nomination.

                If it's extremely close, esp. if one wins the pledged delegate vote and one wins the popular vote, one side is gonna be really, really pissed one way or the other. Hence the idea for a compromise candidate.

                by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:54:20 PM PDT

                •  They would not have a case.

                  The popular vote does not matter. If it did; if that was what the rules said; then candidates would run their campaigns totally differently, paying no attention to the district maps and delegate counts but working to pile up the popular vote. This would be just one more example of changing the rules in the middle of the game in order to achieve the once pre-determined result of Hillary being the nominee.

                  If Obama wins the pledged delegates and doesn't get the nomination all hell will break loose. It won't be worth being a Democrat anymore because there won't be anything left of the party. The youth vote that Obama has brought out for the first time in decades would stay home. After all, why bother when a bunch of party insiders get to nullify thousands of votes a piece and cancel the process. The African-American vote would be lost for the foreseeable future. It would be Republican rule for the rest of my life.

                  by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:00:24 PM PDT

    •  Not to mention

      You Hillary supporters are totally distorting the role of the superdelegates. I don't blame you. Hillary is encouraging it. They are not there to make any kind of subtle judgement about who they think might be more electable.

      They exist solely for the case where a candidate pulls an Elliot Spitzer so far into the process that they already have the nomination wrapped up. They are there as a safety valve in case of immorality, mental instability, or some other such catastrophe that would render the candidate with the most delegates certainly unelectable.

      by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:23:45 PM PDT

•  That's the end game.

  That's the only way this can end. But why 4 years? Gerald Ford thought he could commit to not running for re-election, and he quickly found that made him a lame duck from day 1.  

  Al Gore for 8 years!!!

  by Clem Yeobright on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:19:06 PM PDT

  •  Al Gore for 8 years!!!

    Al Gore for 8 years!!!

    Here's a poll from a diary I wrote a couple of months ago. 127 votes:

    If Al Gore runs:

    It's too late. I support Clinton.
    2% 5 votes

    It's too late. I support Obama
    13% 33 votes

    It's too late. I support Edwards.
    16% 39 votes

    It's too late. I support somebody else.
    2% 6 votes

    Al Gore is a fraud - global warming is a hoax.
    2% 5 votes

    I would consider Al Gore.
    10% 26 votes

    I'd stomp over the combined tracheas of Clinton/Obama/Edwards/Richardson/Kucinich to vote for Al Gore.
    52% 127 votes

    by Dopeman on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:25:37 PM PDT

    •  woops... 241 votes, 127 for Al nt

      by Dopeman on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:26:33 PM PDT

    •  That was a different universe you were polling.

      Those people aren't here any more.

      Here's my diary from 3 days ago: 59% of respondents are totally committed to Obama.

      This place will become a ghost-blog when another bright shiny object comes along ...

      by Clem Yeobright on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:13:40 AM PDT

•  Would you

  vote for a candidate that you knew was nothing more than a space filler?

  by Calev on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:20:02 PM PDT

  •  Even if it were just one term

    it would be hard to argue Gore would be a "space filler."  He'd probably be the greatest one term President our nation has ever had.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:29:32 PM PDT

    •  Gore knows it's too late to stop global warming,

      and that anything he could do in four years as President would be merely minor palliative.

      by LanceBoyle on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:47:54 PM PDT

      •  He says nothing of the sort n/t

        by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:50:41 PM PDT

        •  Admitting it would just give Americans more cause

          for inaction. But he knows the tipping point has already been reached, and he knows that four years of pressing automakers for higher fuel efficiency, carbon trading, and research into sawgrass is way too little, too late.

          by LanceBoyle on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:41 PM PDT

          •  Please read up...

            ... on Gore's current activities.

            He is placing very wise and very strong bets in a completely different direction than your defeatist post suggests.

            Between waking up to the crisis, and giving up in resignation, there is a large space of possible action towards solution.

            If ya naysayers get out of our way, it'll help us all move faster thru the closing window of opportunity.

            by ivote2004 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:35:39 PM PDT

            •  The window of opportunity has already closed,

              according to James Lovelock, the British climatologist who was one of the first to sound the alarm about global warming. In a 16 January 2006 editorial in The Independent he stated his conclusion that the world had already passed the point of no return for avoiding radical climate change, that the effects of climate change would compound and accelerate with disastrous consequences, and that governments should shift their efforts towards preparations for survival and "find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilization."

              Lovelock's work has been a major source of inspiration for Gore's, and I think enough of Gore's intelligence to assume he too is prepared for the worst.

              I am NOT urging "giving up in resignation." On the contrary, enormously hard work and sacrifice is going to be required of us to adapt and survive. But you speak of "solution," and I think that's either hopelessly naive or a reassuring lie.

              by LanceBoyle on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:01:04 AM PDT

              •  ... akido towards solving the insoluble ...

                ivote2004:

                Between waking up to the crisis, and giving up in resignation, there is a large space of possible action towards solution.

                LanceBoyle:

                I am NOT urging "giving up in resignation." On the contrary, enormously hard work and sacrifice is going to be required of us to adapt and survive. But you speak of "solution," and I think that's either hopelessly naive or a reassuring lie.

                Akido, Lance, akido.

                Working vigorously towards solving the most important unsolvable problems...

                ... is what we are both up to, isn't it?

                With such little time left, and with so many untried paths, it's good that we each try whatever path our own conscience tells us has the best chance of solving as much of the problem as possible.

                I don't think our species is guaranteed-extinct yet; however, since 1974, I have lived and worked daily facing the challenge of ecological collapse as the default outcome.

                Ecosystemic healing is really the only game worth playing, regardless of how unlikely positive outcome may be.

                My own approach is to co-create maximal amplification of activistic effectiveness so as to akido unstoppable forces into service for solving unsolvable problems.

                (And there are still potential positive feedback loops... that may still come to Gaia's bedside... that even Lovelock is unaware of.)

                by ivote2004 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:39:54 PM PDT

  •  would it be hard for me to vote for HRC?

    Yeah, but I'd do it anyway. She'll be forced to resign after one failed term, then Gore and Obama can come in and clean up her mess.

    by limpidglass on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:41:58 AM PDT

•  Gore's power in the DEM

  party isn't that great.  Remember, the DLC/Clinton gang couldn't wait for him to shut up and go away after the '00 election so that they could take back all the power.  That's one reason why I think they controlled the '04 election; feared Dean could upset the apple cart and beat GWB and thought Kerry wouldn't have a chance (bet they were as nervous as the Bush gang at that end of that election.

  I think Gore really wants to stay out of this -- tangling with the Clintons is not something that he ever wants to do again.

  by Marie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:20:18 PM PDT

  •  Are you kidding?

    I guess that's why Obama talks to him every week and all the candidates literally begged for his endorsement.  Every single article that talks about party elders needing to mediate a compromise between Hillary and Obama focuses almost exclusively on Gore.

    With Bill clearly a partisan in this race, Gore is the most powerful Democratic in our party.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:30:46 PM PDT

    •  He has no power with or over

      the Clintons - never has.  Gore's endorsement may or may not have been valuable for any candidate (might have sunk Dean in '04) other than Clinton.  The Clintons will only listen to those on their team and will only have to respond to those who aren't when they come together (assuming that they've had enough of Clinton) and en mass inform Clinton that they are with Obama and that means that she cannot win the nomination.  Her choice is either to concede gracefully now or wait to be embarrassed by the public announcement by the superdelegates that seal her fate.

      Still think Gore would prefer to remain well in the shadows and behind the scenes on this.  From his '00 campaign we could see that he's not a very good political strategist or tactician, and he seems to recognize this shortcoming in himself.

      by Marie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM PDT

•  It all boils down to this

  It all boils down to this: do you want a candidate who will do ANYTHING to win, that is, lie, cheat, steal, change the rules midway, hoodwink voters? If that's your type of candidate, a real 'fighter,' vote Hillary.

  Win at all cost--that's Hillary. Ms. Pyrrhic victory.

  by catspaw on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:27:55 PM PDT

•  Even I wanted Gore`

  but not this much...

  I have the sneaking suspicion that you people read to many comic books with all these grandiose Gore entries.

  by pooh74 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:23 PM PDT

  •  No

    but we do read Newsweek.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:31:58 PM PDT

    •  its not gonna happen

      ever...

      by pooh74 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:32:50 PM PDT

      •  Never say never n/t

        by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:34:43 PM PDT

  •  No... we look at facts on the ground and

    proceed accordingly.

    Hillary has unclean hands. She has undercut the Democratic brand and given John McCain a huge well of appreciative mojo. She has furthermore utilized Republican 527s led by McCain backers to fund her campaign in PA (and TX and OH).

    She has betrayed her party. Now, there may not be time for the betrayal to fully have blowback on her. But, the superdelegates are well aware of the ebbs and flows of her campaign and the surrogates.

    You also must be concerned, if you pay attention, to the serious deficiencies in Obama's position in specific demographics and regions.  It caused me pause when looking at the maps and I saw some of the percentages in the voting returns.

    Make no mistake about it... we will NOT lose this election. We will NOT go into this election in a position of weakness.  

    We will win.

    If that means that Al Gore has to step back into the ring and take up the mantle that he legitimately won and deserved... while Obama is an integral and vibrant VP partner... then that is what we will have.

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

    by bronte17 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:40:38 PM PDT

•  News flash: Al Gore ain't Jesus

  Someone had to say it.

  by insects8mybrain on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:38:30 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the clarification n/t

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:45:21 PM PDT

  •  But when he had a beard...

    ...he rather looked like Jesus!

    by amitxjoshi on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:05:14 PM PDT

    •  So, any man with a beard looks like Jesus?

      Why don't all the fundis have beards so they can be just like Jesus?

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

      by bronte17 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:53 PM PDT

  •  No one said he was.

    Now go get some detergent and wash your ears out... it might clean out the "insects that ate your brain."

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

    by bronte17 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:42:40 PM PDT

•  There are only 2 candidates.

  How does 1 not get a majority of delegates?

  by mr crabby on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:42:55 PM PDT

  •  Superdelegates

    and though less likely, Edwards 26 pledge delegates.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:45:09 PM PDT

  •  Can a superdelegate vote "uncommitted"/

    by MonicaMissile2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:57:00 PM PDT

    •  I'm pretty sure they can either

      abstain or vote uncommitted...I'm certain they don't have to vote for either Hillary or Obama, even on the first ballot.

      by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:58:57 PM PDT

      •  Jimmy Carter can go on some TV program and

        make it a mainstream idea. Hope you get credit for thinking of it first.

        by MonicaMissile2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:06:57 PM PDT

•  I wanted Gore to jump in October

  but he didn't, so now it's Obama.

  If the convention deadlocks after a dozen ballots or so, I'll reconsider.

  by Sam Wise Gingy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:43:20 PM PDT

  •  Gore may have very well wanted to stay low

    Perhaps he wanted to see the paradigm change that could possibly occur with the first woman and African-American running for office.

    But, perhaps he didn't know that the Hillary campaign would take the Democratic Party down with her before she self-destructed.

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

    by bronte17 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:49:17 PM PDT

•  Gore endorsed Dean early in 04. DNC chairman

  Dean may owe him a favor.

  by MonicaMissile2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:46:04 PM PDT

  •  Very good point

    he'd be a nice ally to have should the circumstances arise.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:50:06 PM PDT

•  Is Gore allowed to be VP again?

  He'd be a great choice for Obama.  And he might even accept, if her were given the environment as his area of expertise and influence, with a promise of the freedom and power to actually get things done.  

  by hooper on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:48:15 PM PDT

  •  He is, but

    he unequivocally stated that were he to re-enter politics, it would only be as a candidate for President.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:49:31 PM PDT

•  Why it will never happen

  Any potential candidate who concedes that he or she will only serve one term will be tagged by the public as a loser.  If Gore did this, first, no one would believe him.  Second, no one should believe him.  You think anyone who has served in the top spot wants to leave?  

  Also, I don't think the public would respond favorably to this notion that the Obama/Clinton race would be rerun in 2012.  If this were a reality tv show I'd say it jumped the shark with Texas/Ohio (not implying that this favors either candidate, btw, just that what was exciting and interesting is starting to become drawn out and irritating).  

  Gore as the nominee, though?  That's an idea I could get behind.  If this race runs to the convention and it's clear the outcome will turn on some sort of chicanery I'm hoping he's nominated from the floor.

  Would he win?  I don't think it's a slam dunk.  But a contested convention will probably damage Obama and Clinton even more.  And if Gore won the presidency, that would be one for the ages, a sign that the laws of karma do work sometimes.

  by ClaudiusTheGod on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:50:04 PM PDT

  •  I personally

    would rather see a two term Presidency from Gore, and honestly, should this scenario arise, there's no reason to think he wouldn't be looking at two terms.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:52:42 PM PDT

•  you don't have to bash Gore

  to believe Obama would be a better president. Please stop bashing Gore.

  by nevadadem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:53:26 PM PDT

  •  Thank you!

    it's one thing to not support the idea for a Gore compromise candidacy should the circumstances arise, but good golly, I never realized there was such pent up hatred for the man in some circles on this site.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:57:37 PM PDT

•  Forget Gore as VP

  but why doesn't he step to the plate and show some friggin' leadership??  Thanks to Hillary, the party is going to self-destruct in the next few months.  

  If Gore and the rest of the wallflowers (Edwards, Richardson etc) would come out and endorse someone, most preferably Obama, then we could focus on McCain.

  by Obi on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:53:31 PM PDT

•  I don't see Gore entering the fray...

  He's called himself a recovering politician. I think he's happy raising awareness about the environment. I recall him telling a story about his father after Al, Sr. lost his Senate seat.  His dad was wondering what to do after being turned out of office after serving the State of TN for 32 years.  Al's advice? "I'd take the 32 years, Dad."  Since 2000 I've wished countless times for him to reenter politics, but I think he's going to take his 24 years.

  by WildcatPatriot on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:58:22 PM PDT

•  I wish...but...

  It's really too late for Gore to get into this race.  It's sad, but true.  At this point it would just gum up the works for a Democrat win in Nov.

  What he needs to do is use his clout to end the bickering and get a nominee (and yes, it should be Obama) then again use his clout to rangle the loser.

  He will obviously have influence on the next President (assuming it's a Democratic one) even without being IN the White House.  He can keep doing what he's doing, working against Global Warming outside of politics.  Now he'll just have a helping hand inside of it as well.

  by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:15:34 PM PDT

•  obama is picking edwards for veep.

  Mark my words.

  by louisev on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:21:39 PM PDT

•  only way this works

  is on the 2nd or 3rd ballot in a convention floor battle. my guess is that obama wins it outright, though.

  gore would be a hellova veep for obama, though.

  by wu ming on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:11 PM PDT

  •  Obama already noted

    some time back-- maybe even before the filing deadlines' passing made it clear Gore wasn't running-- that while he'd love to have Al Gore doing pretty much anything in an Obama administration (IIRC; it's been a while), being VP again would be a bit beneath him.  Paraphrased, obviously, but I remember being impressed with how Obama handled it.  It may just be my own bias, but I did get the impression that Obama really respected Gore as an elder & leader of higher stature than most other Dems.

    by latts on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:09:32 PM PDT

    •  that being said

      al's really better at governing than campaigning. he'd be a great veep, if given wide latitude.

      by wu ming on