General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDid I just hear that Al Gore will run for President if Hillary does not run
and that he was on a diet in preparation.
Very interesting - Al Gore/Elizabeth Warren would be a nice ticket
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Lobo27
(753 posts)My screen isn't taking my vote. That Futurama meme comes to mind.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)be a far more potent ticket. As a disclosure, I would like to see Hillary run for the Presidency, but if she doesn't or doesn't make it out of the primaries, I want to see Warren heading our ticket. I don't think Clinton/Warren would work well unless republicans nominate a far-right mouthpiece.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)wouldn't happen anyway as they are politically diametrically opposed (authoritarian/populist).
leftstreet
(36,112 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)But I just don't see Gore putting himself through that hell again. And, I do believe Hillary is running.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)because if true, this is blockbuster news.
malaise
(269,157 posts)at the end part when they tell us something new
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I would like to see or read more confirmation. This just seems so out of left field, that Gore would run for president again.
Gothmog
(145,553 posts)Elinor Cliff was the person who mentioned this potential news. She is a very knowledgeable source
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)Better Al Franken than Al Gore. Gore is a is a social clod who too many persuadable people find unlikeable. Right as he is about climate change, he is also an easily lampoonable rich guy with multiple massive homes. It was all we could do to get him to the finish line in 2000, and he would be an even more difficult sell 16 years later.
If this is the fallback, I say run, Hillary run. She will actually inspire people, unlike Gore, and is a far better campaigner.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Gore did win a close election once already, that proves he can win. He was robbed. Everyone knows that.
cali
(114,904 posts)that doesn't mean I want to see Gore run.
BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)A big problem.
Iggo
(47,565 posts)Squinch
(51,002 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Sad but true.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)that is, more people voted for him than for the other guy. Who do the Republicans have who could beat Al Gore in a fair election?
malaise
(269,157 posts)He won - the Supremes gave it to Bush
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)I think Gore will be seen as a re-tread, so to speak.
Tis past due time for a woman Pres. but I fear Hilary is too hawkish, and still have not forgiven Clinton for NAFTA.
whoever runs, I would like to see Dems come out much much more prepared to fight election fraud by the Republicans.
They WILL steal the election again if they can.
malaise
(269,157 posts)He is well known and it turns out he was correct re the environment, All he needs to do is speak the way he did in that lecture on MLK day some years ago as he addressed "The Assault of Reason" (which was the great book that came out of the lecture).
Lugnut
(9,791 posts)I'd support that!
libodem
(19,288 posts)Would run off with him in a hot second! Oops, I mean he would make a great candidate. Love Dr Dean, too. I'd run off with him too. Oops...
Paladin
(28,272 posts)UTUSN
(70,730 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Couldn't bother when you won the first time? Eff off, too late you missed your chance, Al.
Y'all do know that Al spearheaded all this outsourcing of our gov to private Bushowned entities, right?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)If weather events make the significance of climate change so obvious to the general public that the deniers lose their sway over the Booboisie resulting in a surge of awareness concerning the threats facing us, then Al would be the obvious choice.
My bet, though, is that we'll get a Neoliberal empire builder like Hillary or some as yet TBA Republican Wall Street darling. I'd call it for Hill, though, because she's Citizens United-proof; the "socially liberal" big money will back her.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'd love to see Gore run, but I'd be careful of those particular tea leaves.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)seeing that much grey on the man makes me feel old - was 1992 that long ago?:
I like Al and would back him, but I think his chance to run again was 2008, coming off a well-received book and film (and 8 years of Dubya that would have given him an excellent "I told you so" campaign), but he chose not to run.
I think he'd be a tough sell after this much time away, a divorce (stupid, but it would matter to the hacks in the media) and Hillary and Bill dead set on running again.
demwing
(16,916 posts)But he wont be allowed to win. If Gore runs, Republicans will cheat and not care if they are caught. If there's any question of cheating, Repugs will bring up 2000, and claim Gore is just a sore loser-AGAIN. Forget facts. Running Gore is begging the Rs to steal it.
Township75
(3,535 posts)Why is her choice to run going to determine if he does? It shows that he isn't willing to fight for it and just would want it if it comes easily. ThAt is not what we need now
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)There is just no way I can picture Gore running. The last I saw of him as a potential contender, I think a few months before he made it known officially he was NOT running in 08, he was just outwardly disgusted with the press and the campaign system. He took issue with the interviewer calling it a "horse race". After some stupid question he even pointed out what a stupid question it was (though he put it somewhat more diplomatically than I just did) and suggested serious, actual issues would be more valuable things to ask about.
I only remember the jist of it, as it were, but it seemed to me to be too disgusted with the whole process to even want to bother again. Can't say I blame him one bit.
Julie
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Someone born in the '60s, not the '40s.