Would you support Al Gore in the primary if he jumped back in the race?

Please don't answer this poll if you are one of the few people who are planning to write in Gore whether he is a candidate or not. This poll is for people who have settled on one of the nine (ten if you count Clark) established candidates.

I'm supporting Kerry, Dean and then Gore if he jumps in.

But I wouldn't mind seeing AL as our nominee.

that Gore can beat Bush.

Look at the current poll showing over 2/3 of DEMOCRATS thinking Bush will win reelection. Listen to the talk-show hosts joking about the current field.

The whole dynamic changes if Gore gets in the race. Suddenly, it's transformed into a "rematch" election, and all the issues about the 2000 election are suddenly thrust back into the forefront of national dialogue.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I've been saying all along he should run again, so I can properly be charged with "bias" in this regard!

If Gore were nominated, I would of course vote for him to get rid of Shrub, but I certainly hope the Dem party has not sunk this low.

He didn't stand and fight.

No question about it for me! :-)

(But I'm not getting my hopes up!)

:kick:

There are some things I'd need to see from Gore--primarily, the ability to tell people in his genteel way to kiss his butt about 'flip-flopping' on his decision to run. I need to see some funds raised, I need to see how he's going to explain the spinning wheels and the wasted time...I adore Alby, but I'm not going to drop Edwards for him that easily.

If the candidate pool included he and Clark, though, I'd be much less worried about our chances in the general election.

if I like the idea of him jumping back in now. It would give the Repukes too much ammo. I would feel the same if Hillary were to run after saying she wouldn't. But circumstances would have a lot to do with it. I would change my mind if, say, Dean, Kerry and Graham all suddenly decided to endorse him.

he's not southern anymore. Edwards is the man.

Howard Dean speaks for me and fights my fight. I'm with him all the way. And frankly, I'm very very very very very furious with the DNC powers that be which are worried that THEY can't control Dean. Obviously they can control Gore. He's done what they've asked too many times at our expense.

Gore is DLC light, kind of like Kerry, Hillary Clinton or Dianne Feinstien.

Being married to a member of the DLC does NOT make her one.

Please please please:

Check the list at http://www.ndol.org/ to confirm these things before posting them. I see this with Biden and Daschle and neither of them are DLC either

For some reason she's not showing up on the Senate list at this point, though she certainly has in the past (Believe me, I've checked this list a number of times over many months.) However, she's listed if you click on "view all." I'm copying and pasting her listing here: Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY

And maybe to Clark.

If Al won the nomination - then I'd send him my contribution - but I think even if I have to hold my nose on whomever the Dems nominate I will support that candidate with my money, mouse and shoe leather because any Dem is preferable to the BFEE.

...I'd say he'd have to earn my vote. I'm very pro-John Edwards, so he'd really have to impress me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And by the way, Kucinich hasn't got a fucking prayer of winning the nomination. Get over it.

That is what I have been saying. Why support and give money to a candidate who has NO chance of even getting the nomination. Gore on the other hand can win the nomination and win the Presidency.

But I'm just sick and tired of Kucinich people claiming some divine right to the moral high ground and every other canidate is satan on earth.
God forbid somebody around here would actually give a shit about getting Shrub outta office by voting for a canidate, whether it might be Dean, Edwards, Kerry or Gore. In other words, a canidate who might actually be RELEVANT!

Aside from Lieberman, all of the Democratic candidates are great. Lieberman is tolerable. I'd support any of them against Bush.

Why does a primary vote for Kucinich hurt everyone else? I'll support whoever wins the nomination fully.

Glad you came all the way from planet Zethron to join out debate. That tells me a lot about the 50 "no" votes. Was it a small aircraft or a flying saucer and are you staying long?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

nt

Because feasibly Gore could jump in this election and do something amazing that would want me to vote for him.

But outside of that, my answer is "No", I'm a confirmed Dean supporter

....once as my state representative when I lived in Tennessee, twice as Vice President of the United States, where he served me well in that position, and once for President where he was robbed of the chance of serving by a number of factors.

More importantly, Al has done nothing to lose my trust and hence my vote since I last had the chance to choose him as my candidate. I won't say who I lean towards at this time but if I'm lucky enough to get the chance to have the Honorable Al Gore as a choice to represent me, I will without reservation choose him. :)

What is this, a farce? How many times does Gore have to capitulate to the Republicans?

He didn't have any support from his fellow Democrats. Hell, even the Vice President (good ol' Joe Lieberman of course) wouldn't support him in the Supreme Court battle.

he can't even get his own choice for vice president to support him.
sad and pathetic.
How many ways can we say the DLC is a corrupt failed organization?

Right up until they could not get a SINGLE Senator to back them up in requesting an investigation over the Florida voting irregularities.

NT

didn't see any. Now go back to church.

Somebodies still bitter about not being allowed to sit at the grown ups table.

please tell me you are a young person(being polite).
expect more from DU. write back when you have something intelligent to say.
But then, you know Nader is the Devil, so why bother with reason, right? Only the faithful.

You nailed it!

Glad to see you upset!

But thanks for the silly reply. It shows that Nader bashers act without reason. Like when you say the Devil made me do it.

Much like Nader voters.

next terrorist hit. And you want to play games with Ralph Nader.

And yeah, I'm serious about getting rid of shrub, which is while I'll be voting for someone who might have a chance to do that, unlike the Nadercons.

ending this exchange. you just give non sequitor insults.

NT

trying to figure out what age you are. why this silliness?

I thought you were ending the discussion.

it was a serious question, not at all rhetorical.
I really want to know how old you are(you don't have to if privacy is a concern) But usually people in teen years write insults and play games. It is a waste of time older persons usually don't do.

Or could it be you simply don't know when you're licked?

What game are you playing?

And oldie but a goody. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable at one of the Green boards? Or perhaps Free Republic?

no content in any of your posts. i'm bored with you cheap insults.
goodby.

NT

A spectacularly arrogant man saw the conspiracy surrounding the impeachment as an opportunity to achieve power and took it, actually speaking in favor of the chaos a Bush win would cause, as that would ultimately help his cause, despite its utter destruction of lives, economy, and ecosystems.

If there's a hell, Nader will be rotting in a special ring of it. I used to admire the man, but when he became too full of himself to realize he was being used as a pawn, f*ck him.

Only once, and then only when those 'Republicans' you speak of make up the majority of the Supreme Court! :evilgrin:

Remember, they can't even use their decision from the 2000 (s)election as precedent in the future! I seriously doubt that they will get involved in a decision like that again! :)

Oh! And welcome to DU!......I think? :shrug:

beat chimpy

Even though he did win in 2000, I think middle of the road voters would be turned off by him running again. I could completely see this attitude of "he already lost to Bush once" developing, even though it would be completely false.

:bounce:

Then they could speculate 24/7 as to why he dropped out to begin with. At every open mike he would have to answer the same questions about it, over and over and over. They would ask him, ad infinitim, about the Buddhist Temple "Scandal" (FAR worse than bush lying about Iraq, you see), and about any other dirt they invent on him.

And it would serve as a great distraction for the masses, away from the Quagmire of Iraq, and how we got there. Plus, the other nine hopefuls would from then on be almost totally ignored. No, let's not do this.

If the party has circled its wagons around a clear front-runner, but that person hasn't an iceball's chance in hell of winning -- e.g., a huge scandal is uncovered about him/her and Bush is way ahead in the polls.

In that situation, sure, Al, Go for it. Who knows, he could be our ace in the whole.

But speaking as one of Gore's most loyal supporters up until he withdrew from the campaign, I hope the rumors about his re-entry are false.

Doing so would only elicit the "Waffle House" remarks the Repukes aimed at Clinton and ruin his reputation as a statesmen who always knew when to leave, for the good of his country and party.

Al Gore is a good man and, luckily, a young man. He has over a decade and then some before he's as old as Reagan or Poppy Bush were when they were elected to the presidency. I believe he will be elected president one day, just not in 2004.

Since Al's departure, I've looked over all the candidates, and I could vote for any of them -- even Joe (although I believe he stabbed Al in the back by disparaging the populist message of the 2000 campaign).

But if I had my druthers, we'd be looking forward to a Dean-Clark ticket in 2004: A Governor/Doctor and a General/Allied Supreme Commander. What better way to corner the "gravitas" market on both the domestic and foreign fronts!

"If the party has circled its wagons around a clear front-runner, but that person hasn't an iceball's chance in hell of winning."

Like Dennis Kucinich?

Only becaue it isn't fair to the other candidates who've already started.

I feel conflicted. I really do but I would say no if I had to answer right now.

if it is "Unfair" to others. They will not win anyway. They are a joke! I think everyone needs to realize Gore is the only VIABLE candidate.

He was vice president of the greatest prosperity our country had seen for a long time. Mostly a peaceful world, US with good relations around the world.
Bush a failed businessman, drunk, and stupid beats him.
What gosh darned planet am I living on?! How did Gore become a contender for the man he lost too when he held all the cards?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Let's not stoop to that level.

I could alert the monitor. why don't you chill on the threats.
You obviously are not bright enough to know sarcasm.
and don't ever tell anyone to leave, that is for the host of DU to decide.

is this why they banned you 10+ times? :spank:

NT

What you said was completely inappropriate! If that's not a blatant violation of DU rules, I don't know what is. Considering your past history, one would think you'd be extremely mindful of those rules. If Al Gore gets you that heated, maybe you need to take some time off from politics...

I feel conflicted about it. I really do.

And I give a f*ck about how the other candidates would react, if Gore came back in and somehow won the nomination (which would NOT be easy for him -- the DNC would fight him viciously). Gore would then need 100% support from all the hopefuls, to have a chance of winning in November, and we know that many top Dems really, REALLY dislike him! (If you doubt that, ask yourself why they cheerfully deserted him in December 2000.)

Actually, I don't think that Gore, now, is even viable; his re-entry would end up, I think, much like Teddy Kennedy's failed run in 1980. The media would have only one question for him: "WHY did you drop out in the first place?? Does that show how indecisive you really are?" (Imagine Russert asking this-- it's easy to do.)

This could go either way. Please vote.

who won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote was defeated for reelection,usually by the person he beat the first time.

NT

I'm a Kerry supporter but the only candidate that would make me switch my primary vote is Al Gore. Al Gore is the epitome of cool, and he won the last election. I mean, shit, shouldn't we let him be re-elected?

HRC book is wonderful. Read it.

Wouldn't that be something?

Another thread here about Social Security got me thinking. We're getting older, the need for Social Security is becoming more immediate and there's not enough time left to start "investing" more (in case we had any extra money).

So, what happened to the "Lockbox"? Eh? Lots of us want it and we'd vote for Al Gore to get it.

I think it could work.

...i consider it a pretty tough question.

i only voted for gore to oppose bush but gore won the election. he should be president right now. if he were to start acting that way, i would feel much more inclined to support him. if he were willing to say the election was stolen, if he were willing to state he was running for RE-ELECTION, i might feel obligated to support him. i personally place a very high importance on correcting the historical record, for the sake of educating the american people.

i would also like to see him win the approval of the other candidates. i would want them to voluntarily withdraw to support his re-election and campaign for him. that would present an unbeatable principled united front against bush.

and if he were willing to really oppose bush on everything, no middle of the road shit. then i'd be inclined to support him.

of course, you can bet i'm not holding my breath waiting for any of this to happen.

1) He'd better have a damn good explanation as to why he dropped out last December;
2) He'd better have a highly refined, broad-sweeping vision to counter the tsunami of media criticism that's bound to greet him, should he re-enter;
3) No more pleasing the advisors and image-makers, etc. -- I want Gore to be the *real* Al Gore (we saw glimpses of the real Gore last year);
4) Most important: I'm on board with Howard Dean right now, and Gore will have to make an extremely compelling case as to why he'd be the one to support at this point.

But this is all speculation for now. Unless things change dramatically, Dean's my candidate.

I wish I could have gotten this kind of enthusiasm for my preference poll. Please vote. We could get 500 replies here, a real useful sample size of DUers.

Wasn't that his promise, back when???? If that is so, would the DLC not fight Gore's re-entry with everything they have???

Or, would the implicit deal be that he would run for VP again, with Gore???

again. I admire and respect Al Gore, but do not believe he could change the image he left in a lot of fence sitter's minds.

:kick:

vote!

:kick:

I'm watching Paradise Hotel now...

He has and will always represent my visions for the future. He can also restore our nations respect, thoughout the world, that has been squandered by the arrogant moron who's occupying Al Gore's White House.

because I have supported Gore non-stop. Frankly, I do not see anyone in the current field that I think can win. Frankly, I do not see anyone in the current field that is as qualified. Frankly, it stuns me when people at this site speak of Al Gore and his being a DLC'er when it was the DLC that asked him not to run. Frankly, I do not know where these posters who make remarks about his capitulation
were when Gore waged that recount battle without the support of his party. I guess they were taking a political nap.

This Country is in extremely bad shape. Gore is a proven commodity. He ran against Bush* and won more votes. No other candidate can make that claim. Karl Rove paid one million dollars to commission a study as to how Gore won -- that's the same Karl Rove people refer to as a political genius. Gore took him on and beat him.

Gore was essentially co-president of this Country when it had eight years of peace and prosperity. Read David Mariness' to learn of the deal Clinton made with Gore to make him change his mind in 1992 after he had said he wouldn't run. Clinton offered Gore the equivalent of a co-presidency, with Gore being in charge of numerous spheres of influence. Many people in Washington said Gore ran the government who Clinton was too depressed to do so during the impeachment proceedings.

This is not a time when we have the luxury of picking our personal preference and supporting that person at all costs. This is a time when we have to pick a person who can win against Bush* and restore this Country to some semblence of what it was before. Phrases like "we need a fresh face" have no substantive weight towards that direction. We need a credentialed person who has the ability to re-unite the factions of the Democratic party's base (with the exception of those more loyal to the DLC than to the party itself -- they can be excused from participating). The ONLY person who can do all this is Al Gore. The rest are simply too-high risks.

and be heard...

I like Dean the best, Wesley Clark, maybe Dennis. But Gore gets my vote if for nothing else his genuine concern for the environment

:kick:

:kick:

:kick:

He would have to denounce the DLC. Loudly. With details. Often and all the way to election day.

I prefer a Dean/Clark ticket as a domestic/foreign one-two punch.

:kick: