Tipper Gore Says Al Gore interested in a 2008 Run

Not a whole lot of info. Just a snippet of gossip from the NY Post - so take with a grain of salt.

Here's the link and the passage:

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm

WE HEAR . . .

THAT... Tipper Gore is telling friends that Al is eyeing another race himself.

He's also been living in the real world. I have a feeling that he will be quite prepared for a plethora of eventualities.

It has even been said that he has been known to stick his camel's nose under our tent, here at DU, on occasion.

Go for it! I'm still stinging from 2000, and this past election merely reopened those old wounds. You would have had my vote in '04, and I'd give it again in '08.

Al, I voted for you once, would vote for you again! Run!!

years. I'll never forget the way he straight out stated what was wrong with what was going on in the bush administration. He criticized the war before anyone. I would be the first person to sign up and work for him.

eom

prior to these speeches, he was NOT someone who was in contact with his own center. And it hurt him a lot. I didn't care for him as a Presidential candidate -- but now he's got the inner AND outter strength I think that comes with being who you really are. He would be a far, far better President now too. Far better.

:hi:

I'd support him in a New York minute.

I wanted him to run in '04. I will willingly vote for him in '08.

I was one of those Al supporters who BEGGED him not to concede in 2000. When he did, I lost a lot of respect for him (and most other Democrats, who stated that GWB won) when I knew that he did not!! Hell, we all knew that Al had won! Didn't we?

Gore fought a good fight considering he got not much help,+ he was caught offguard by the Repug tactics. (Which we can't say about Kerry)

Looking back, the big mistake was not counting the entire state of Fla, but with Jeb & Co running the show, he had little chance.

He was my first political "crush."

However, he hasn't proven to me that he has learned anything from the people of Tennessee. He said when he conceded in 2000 that he was going to come back here and find out why his own state didn't vote for him.

Then, he came out in December of 2003 and endorsed Howard Dean - who wasn't even a blip on the primary radar in the South, Tennessee included. Did he learn anything about Southern Democrats and Independents? Apparently not.

I've moved on and I hope he just sticks with providing the United States with much-needed alternative and independent news and information, like he's planned with indyTV. We need media reform in conjunction with election reform and a candidate who can appeal to the "liberal North" and the "conservative South" if we're to ever take back the White House and Congress.

about what makes a "wes Clark Dem" different than any other Dem.

Is it this "Conservative South" Dem to which you allude? Is that it?

today and called him President Al Gore!

Gore has become a much better speaker since 2000, he contested the election results when something was fishy, and he's been in the office before under Clinton.

and is better able to speak from the heart.

go, Al!

Then he dissed some of us telling us primaries are irrelevant (not unlike the DNC did, but more directly). I dunno.

that obviously straight-jacketed him in 2000-I'll vote for him in an instant. Keep up the good work Al! He's a much more powerful candidate without the technocratic muzzle. Here's your southern democrat right here--->Al Gore 2008!

...because they've seen him take on the Bushies without fear and frankly...they want to see him take his rightful place in the White House.

He can count on many of us to support him. But he needs to watch out for the RWing Smear Machine and the 'new' democratic snakes that will try to block him at every step

is going to be that he endorsed, "loony Howard Dean." Sorry Deaniacs. I'm not saying that to deride Dean or Gore. The right wing noise machine will never cease to tie Dean to the hip of Al Gore.
Gore continues to show his lack of political prowess when he made that move.

If anything, it contributed to his own enthusiasm. And if Dean happened to get the DNC chair position, Gore would be in a great spot if he were nominated. Dean has very great personal admiration for Al Gore.

Screw the right wing noise machine. We're already taking steps to deal with them.

considering a few minutes ago, if it wasn't true what some people speculated when Gore endorsed Dean. That he endorsed Dean because he knew he wouldn't win, and by endorsing Dean he will have the support of a million deap pocketed, deanie boppers.

And for the record, I'm 47 years old. Most people who supported Dean at that time weren't kids. ;-)

ever been a saint. ;0-)

Labels are silly, especially when they're not true.
Deanie boppers?
Give me a break.

All Dean supporters were not deanie boppers. All Dean supporters were not deaniacs. But there were Dean supporters who were deanie boppers and some who were deaniacs. Then there were some who believed that he was the best man for the job. Get it now.

He's been through the crucible and damn well learned from his mistakes. Can anyone say that about George Bush Jr.?

Go Al Go!

Maybe Gore/Richardson? I don't know.

I hope Al doesn't take a DINO as his running mate if he wins the primary.

I'd love to see Gore/Dean!


GORE/DEAN in '08!!!!

That would be a ticket I could support in a heartbeat!

This country will NEVER elect someone who doesn't have a Christmas Tree. They just don't get it and yes I know Gore really did win with Lieberman, but it would have been a no doubter had he had a Christian running mate. It saddens me, but it's true. No way I'd pick a Jewish running mate- not if I really wanted to win.

He can run, but most people don't want to listen to Gore again.

I went to one of his MoveOn speeches last year, and thought he was great, but I would rather have someone with less baggage.

I have a feeling that no one will hear what Al has to say because it will be Al Gore that said it.

No one will be able to separate his message from "stiff, boring, exaggerating almost-President man."

...you have accepted the RWing talking points about Gore. He doesn't have to carry the 'baggage' handed him by the RWing Smear machine and neither do you.

When the hell will we STOP choosing our candidates based on what the other side thinks? Is it any wonder that Dems are in the minority? This tendency to cry before we're hit is killing us.

And I honestly don't feel he is that compelling as a politician anymore. The speech I saw was at Constitution Hall, and he gave a nice rundown of the dangers of the Patriot Act. It was a good speech.

When the 2000 election went down, I emailed all my friends and family about Gore in '04.

I'm not concerned about the other side. I just want a candidate that isn't damaged goods. I still cringe every now and then at Gore. That's a problem.

He's more than welcome to run, but I don't think he will get the nomination.

based on deliberate and ongoing smears targeting any Democrat who throws their hat in the ring---while Bush, the drunken criminal, is deified as the second coming?

As long as we accept their perception as the conventional truth, they will continue to tarnish every one of our leaders.

Whereas Gore and Dean will take a strong ethical stand, the Clintons will try to dull the sting by compromise, but that won't stop the Right from characterizing them as despised liberals and damaged goods.

If "centrists" feel they have to triangulate to succeed, maybe they should switch parties and try to draw the Republicans back from the brink, rather than advocating New Democrats join them.

Before the Clarkies scream about it.

:P

It seems that many Americans are influenced by them.

I agree completely. I like Al Gore, but he ran a far worse campaign in 2000 than Kerry did in 2004. I want a freshish face (ie not a Clinton, Gore or Kerry) like Feingold or Richardson.

First off, let me state that I really like John Kerry (probably more than Al Gore in fact) and I think he ran a pretty good campaign, particularly in the final 2 months when he really put Bush on the defensive and had most of the momentum. Bush was also a tougher opponent in 2004 than in 2000 having the advantages of incumbency, extremely strong support from his base, high personal approval ratings, and public approval ratings of around 50% - the cutoff mark.

At the same time, I think we have to be clear that there were areas in which Gore's campaign was better than Kerry's. Kerry was criticized for not having any big picture that one could identify him with. There was "stronger at home, respected in the world" but that wasn't something people were really able to identify with. Gore had "People v. the Powerful," which while somewhat crass did work quite well in the same period that Kerry fell behind - August through September. So one could argue that Kerry was a better messenger but lacked a good message, while Gore wasn't a good messenger but had a decent message.

which Kerry didn't

please join me in rejecting the idea that we can pick a candidate based on what baggage we fear they have.

Bill Clinton is one of them, though obviously he's not into politics much these days. John Kerry is another one of them.

Gore, however, kept playing into their stereotype. The media chant of serial exaggerator was well established, and he kept reinforcing it.

I remember watching the debates, when he said things like, "Well, I know a little something about...In fact, I even..."

I wanted to throw shit at the TV.

It's like if Bill Clinton continued screwing around with non-Hillary women through the end of his term and getting caught.

At some point, it's no longer their fault.

Another thing is the way he tried to pick and choose the counties for the recount so as to best give him the chance to win. Obviously counting all the votes was secondary to winning.

The irony that Gore would have won a full statewide recount was not lost on me.

Assume in the future that I have valid reasons for my opinions not based in Republican media la-la land.

choose the rest of the counties and make the effot bipartisan. Unfortunately the Repugs chose to demolish democracy, instead.

link please?

purposely destroy my TV, I wanted to snatch Gore and shake him. :evilgrin:

Gore had no legal option to call for a statewide recount. The law in florida at that time (and probably still) allowed for a state wide recount only if both candidates agree or at the orders of the governor or secretary of state.
Gore did all that he could. Kerry, with all the knowledge we have gained since allowed bush to walk all over us and did nothing to prevent or fight the election fraud.

Won't kick me off the bandwagon, mind you, but still.

Are we running out of Dems without baggage who have name recognition? Hillary - baggage. Gore - baggage. Kerry - baggage.

Feingold? Only if he can bottle whatever it is that people like about him here in Wisconsin. Does the rest of the country love a maverick too?

Who else has name recognition who hasn't been trashed yet. We have some clean slates.

I do wish we didn't have to reinvent the wheel each time. It would be nice to let someone with some national experience have another go. But how do you reinvent someone when we have control of nothing.

We need to learn to be wiley.

I don't suppose there's a "Politics for Dummies" book out there somewhere.

He is a take-no-shit candidate, and already benefits from an association with McCain, planting the maverick seed.

Voting against the Patriot Act is another feather in his cap.

I would love to see him run. He has zero tolerance for Republican bullshit.

in the media.

My God, this time aorund was worse and MORE ORWELLIAN than 2000!

Corproate TV Pravda discusses whatever Faux "News" and the rest of the Bushevik Party-Loyal Sub-Media points them at.

No lie is too demonstrable that it cannot be almost instantly laundered into "conventional wisdom".

No truth (not even 1 + 1 = 2, if the Busheviks set their eyes upon it, and I am only slightly exaggerating here) so provable (including 1 + 1 = 2) that it could not be smear and defamed and reversed inthe eyes of at least 2/3rd of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika if they wished it.

Under such Totalitarian Conditions (and that is only one aspect of a multi-pronged Assault that has alreday killed America, though the corpse isn't cold and the Busheviks are propping it up like Weekend at Bernie's) even IF Amerikan "Voting" was either trustworthy or believable, it is impossible for someone not in THE PARTY (ie the beneficiary of the New Amerikan Pravda) to gain the Imperial Throne.

One of the many reason the odl USA is now a charter member of the asheap of history.

Oh, America will continue as Rome did, with sham freedom and sham debates and sham votes and pious High Pontiffs who are also Emperor (naturally, in Amerika, unlike Rome, our High Pontiffs will not announce themselves as such, at least until the last generatiuons of Free Americans passes away and only Imperial Subjects are left).

Poor Al. If he "runs" in 2008, it will be more sad and grotesque than it was in 2000 or 2004.

He has as much chance of getting "elected" Emperor of Amerika as Zionist Leader Theodore Herzl had of being elected Fuhrer of Germany.

The EXACT same chance. No more, no less.

as Al surely remembers.

It didn't turn out great soley because of ol' Tricky himself. I don't think we're talking about anyone here who's even vaguely Nixon-like.

and i hope to be wearing a Gore 2008 shirt soon.

I don't think I can handle a year of Al Gore starring in "The Comeback Kid."

(Of course, I should point out my bias that I reflexively dislike Al Gore more than any other modern Democrat - aside from the obvious nutters like Zell Miller. Though at one point, I liked Zell more than Gore).

I'm not flaming you or angry at you. I'm just curious why you dislike him so much. I mean, he never really enthused me but I respect him, really like how he's been the last few years. What are your reasons for disliking him?

to avenge his father's defeat and go to the White House.

First of all, my chief pet peeve in politics is dynasties, legacies, and nepotism. Any politician who rides into office largely as part of a family name has to go a long, long way to earn my trust. I am tolerant of the Kennedys and that's pretty much it. I don't like the Caseys in PA, the Tafts in Ohio, the Rockefellers in NY, the Moores in West Virginia, the Fords in Tennessee, etc., etc. I think one politician per family is more than enough. And I don't think the Senior Gore was anything to write home about to start with. Yes, he lost because of his position on Vietnam. Well, he also voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Secondly, I think Gore has been the most pandering Democrat of his generation. Whatever position aided him at the time, he has taken on.

- He won his first victory as a pro-lifer.
- Then he switched when he had higher aspirations in the Party.
- He then backed Tipper on the PMRC nonsense to prove that he was still a "values" guy.
- He ran for President in '88 far before he was ready and inserted Willie Horton in the campaign.
- I don't believe the story that he sold his Gulf War vote to the group offering him the most airtime, but I do think he made the politically expedient move there.
- Then in 2000, he ran as far away from Clinton as possible with his "people vs. the powerful" populst campaign as if he hadn't been part of the Administration for 8 years. And as if it had not been a remarkably successful 8 years at that.
- Then, after his first Gulf War vote, after supporting the sanctions, after supporting Clinton's air strikes, after supporting the '98 buildup to war, he tries to paint himself as Eugene McCarthy.
- Then, at the earliest possible moment, at a time when most past nominees and office-holders are holding their tongues, he inserts himself into the Dean campaign.

Wow, that was harsh. In fairness, his environmental positions have also been brave, he is obviously very intelligent, and he has raised a lovely family. I don't think he is bad guy. But I don't want him in office again either.

people who supported Nader in 2000. Most of it is you deciding his motivation and annalyzing him without a liscense. I won't bother to counter it.

But one thing I will say. He absolutely did not "insert" himself into the Dean campaign. Thousands of of Dean supporters wrote to him and asked for his endorsement. They did the same with Bradley and Harkin. They got their endorsements too.

The analysis is up for speculation.

But I think W's entire political career is based entirely on his desire to prove himself to his Daddy. Actually, it's more complicated than that. He wants to prove himself to his Daddy, while at the same time throwing a lot of his father's "mistakes" back in his face.

That's why I was really hoping that Georgie would be defeated soundly. Now, he can dismiss any of his dad's advice with a "what do you know, one-termer?". I never thought I'd feel sorry for Poppy, but now I sort of do.

Nader had nothing to do with it.

I didn't like him in '88, and I certainly didn't like his wife after the PMRC. I could handle him during the Clinton years, because he was a VP, which is a fairly meaningless gig (unless your name is Dick Cheney, in which case it is the most powerful job in the world). In 2000, I remembered what I had against him. I was a Bradley supporter; I still think he would have been a good president.

as I searched for info on Donna Brazille, that he tended to pander in the campaign. The article I read mentioned Kerry, as Kerry and some activists had been responsible for helping fishermen in the area, and that Gore came in an bogarted the credit for it. I got the feeling there's not alotta love lost between those two camps.

This is in reply to #25 in this thread. I am moved to make a full scale rebuttal. I apologize for the length, but the referenced post is chock full of the spin and distortion characterizing campaign 2000, with the enthusiastic participation of the SCLM. In the interest of full disclosure I must say I’m biased. I would have readily reversed the Clinton-Gore ticket in 1992 if I could have after reading Earth in the Balance, which was the point at which I became a die-hard Gorista.

Point 1:
>His whole life seems to me to be one long calculated attempt ...to avenge his father's defeat and go to the White House.

Subjective point not requiring rebuttal. On the contrary, as someone who has read three Gore biographies, (Turque, Zellnick, Maraniss) and who has met the man, he seems to have been about a helluva lot more than that. I invite you to research his life and make a factual case for such an assertion.

Point 2:

>First of all, my chief pet peeve in politics is dynasties, legacies, and nepotism.

I disagree on three counts:

First, the Gores are not really a dynasty. At least some of the families you name produced three generations of politicians preceded by family wealth (a la the Bushs). Gore Sr. grew up in a poor farming family and went to night law school while working during the day. Gore Sr. didn’t become wealthy until after he left public office in 1970. Secondly, I disagree with your point in the abstract. Dynasties sometimes produce great Dem presidents, e.g. FDR & JFK. I certainly would seriously consider supporting Bobby Kennedy, Jr. if he launched a political career. Thirdly, Gore is a great man in his own rite. Any reference to nepotism or being merely a legacy, while on point with respect to Dubya, is absurd in referencing Gore.

Point 3:

>Gore panders.

I disagree strongly. I believe his career is replete with examples of political courage. I’ll refer to some of those examples in as I take each subpoint in turn:

>- He won his first victory as a pro-lifer.

I don’t believe that is true. I think his first campaign for US Congressman from Tennessee was in 1976. I can’t really prove a negative, but I remember Repubs and SCLM in 2000 trying to call him a liar/flip-flopper on abortion but their arguments and cited facts, as usual were distortions and in some cases lies. It is true that in running in an extremely conservative southern district, Gore’s position on abortion was more nuanced than it was once he achieved a national constituency, e.g. he voted against federal funding for abortions in the 70s and I believe the early 80s. But I have never seen any documented proof that he has ever advocated overturning Roe v. Wade, which is the true litmus test for an anti-abortion politician. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Here I include a citation of a classic example of the War on Gore waged by the press in 2000 in this regard, see:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h052400_1.shtml

>- Then he switched when he had higher aspirations in the Party.

Again, this is spin, in my view. Unless you can demonstrate a reversal on Roe, I think your point is a distortion of the facts and overreaching.

>- He then backed Tipper on the PMRC nonsense to prove that he was still a "values" guy.

This is an interesting point for me because my own view on this has changed since it happened. Being a good knee-jerk liberal in the 80s, I sided with my man Zappa on this one. I bought into his rhetoric about censorship, etc. Since then, I’ve had kids and pop music has become a lot more misogynistic, violent and anti-social. Now I think rating labels for music are a good thing because they gives consumers (read parents) a heads up that a CD might contain objectionable material. We do the same thing on movies and TV shows. As a parent I think that’s a good thing. Tipper never advocated censorship. She gave a recent interview on this issue on NPR and I include the cite. Tipper 1, Jello Biafra 0.

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=11-Jan-2005&segNum=7&mediaPref=WM&getUnderwriting=1

>- He ran for President in '88 far before he was ready and inserted Willie Horton in the campaign.

I didn’t follow his campaign in ’88 and didn’t support him, so I can’t really speak to whether he was ready or not. As to Willie Horton, again that is a factual distortion. He did mention the furlough program in one debate with Dukakis (out of approximately 40 in which Gore and Dukakis participated), but he neither mentioned Horton by name nor played the race card. Of course, Lee Atwater and Dubya did exactly that in immoral fashion in the ’88 general campaign for George H. W. Bush.

Sean Hannity agrees with your spin, but the facts don’t:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110102.shtml

>- I don't believe the story that he sold his Gulf War vote to the group offering him the most airtime, but I do think he made the politically expedient move there.

I don’t believe he sold his vote either because there is no evidence for it other than the blather of Alan Simpson, who can be observed lying by noting when his lips are moving. As to political expediency, Gore was in a minority of Dem Senators who voted for the Gulf War, so how was it expedient? Further, Gore was in the international mainstream in supporting the liberation of Kuwait. The coalition had almost universal international support which included a number of major Arab countries. Gores vote has been historically vindicated. I don’t criticize Dems who advocated allowing more time to let the sanctions work. I considered that argument closely myself but ultimately came down on the side of invasion as well. These are precisely the credentials necessary for a viable Dem candidacy in 2008, i.e. someone who has supported a justifiable war in the past.


>- Then in 2000, he ran as far away from Clinton as possible with his "people vs. the powerful" populst campaign as if he hadn't been part of the Administration for 8 years. And as if it had not been a remarkably successful 8 years at that.

Running away from Clinton as an individual was smart. That’s part of why Gore won. Every VP running for the White House has to differentiate himself from his president. Above and beyond that, Clinton had high negatives with independents because of Monica. Bush was running as something he is not and the press let him get away with it by largely ignoring the Alabama National Guard story, Harkin, etc. Gore was dealt a bad hand yet found a way to win.

As to the administration’s record, Gore’s 2000 stump speech made numerous references to it. His southern populist theme was effective and played a role in winning a good proportion of moderate independents. Another aspect of why he won.

>- Then, after his first Gulf War vote, after supporting the sanctions, after supporting Clinton's air strikes, after supporting the '98 buildup to war, he tries to paint himself as Eugene McCarthy.

I fail to take your point. When Gore supports a war he says so and says why, e.g. the Gulf War or Kosovo (both good decisions in my view and in the mainstream of international opinion). When he opposes a war, likewise, he says so and says why, e.g. Viet Nam and the invasion of Iraq, again, in the mainstream of international opinion. Gore went on the record with his opposition in September 2002 in a San Francisco speech urging Congress to vote down the war resolution. This was at a time when public opinion and the press generally favored the invasion. Where is the expediency in that? I call that moral courage.

>- Then, at the earliest possible moment, at a time when most past nominees and office-holders are holding their tongues, he inserts himself into the Dean campaign.

He said he wouldn’t run in December 2002 and that he would later endorse another candidate. He then endorsed Dean a year later in December 2003, hardly the earliest possible moment. His endorsement was certainly not thrust on Dean. Dean readily welcomed it and it was seen by many as making Dean’s nomination tantamount to inevitable. The endorsement was politically and morally consistent, since only Dean and Kucinich among the candidates had been early critics of the invasion, thus putting them in the Gore camp with respect to the war.

So I agree that your assessment was harsh, but I find very little factual basis for it.

He was against federal funding of abortions - and I have letters proving that fact.


But I do agree with you about his Dean move. I never got that one. Dean wasn't very popular in Tennessee (got only 6 percent of the vote in the primary), so that was way out of nowhere.

However, that said. I love Al. I have always loved Al since he became my senator when I was 14 years old.

I refuse to allow fear of the media to scare me away from the man I think would be a truly great President.

But I have to admit that I wondered about a Gore run yesterday. It had to do with how things were shaping up, if you know what I mean...

I've read most of your comments and have to agree. A lot of what people are complaining about are myths of the MSM (everything from the internet to gore wanting "that James Lee Witt magic"). That is, a lot of what people are complaining about is what the RW wants "out" there.

The main reason that I support a Gore candidacy in 2008 is because it would facilitate bringing the United States back into the global community. Gore's name is instantly recognizable and brings to mind a kinder gentler USA.

He came to Harvard to talk about global warming in December. Someone asked him if he was interested in running again in the Q+A session, and he said no. Maybe he's keeping it a secret :)

We could pull Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Jefferson and JFK out of the grave, bring them back to life, and put them in the oval office. And it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference unless we purge the House and Senate of all the wing nuts.
That is why I am more concerned at this point as to who will be DNC chair. Give me Dean.

I would love to see Al Gore as President, but at this point half of the elected Democrats in the country are 'possible contenders' who are 'eyeing the race' and 'keeping their options open.'

True contrition for theft requires not only sorrow for the act itself, but restitution of the thing stolen to the one from whom it was stolen.

But that's about it.

If you honestly believe that a majority of voters will flock to the polls on election day in 2008 and vote for Al Gore as some act of contrition, you are very, very, very, very naive.

And how exactly would it heal the country when slightly more than half the voters in 2000 didn't support and slightly more than half the voters in 2004 supported the guy who defeated Gore?

...or that it was moral?

You're refuting a claim I didn't make, which I believe is the definition of a straw man argument.

You claimed that electing Gore would heal the country. It wouldn't. The 2000 election was as closely divided as it gets. If anything, the balance as shifted to the Republicans since 2000. The Republicans will be no less partisan and vindictive if Al Gore becomes president, and I think it was naive of you to suggest otherwise.

i believe that al gore is the most intelligent man than has ever run for president.

he knows exactly what we are facing, politically, economically, environmentally and internationally.

and especially since 2000, he has gotten a crash course in political reality 101, and would be ready to fight, tooth and nail, to save this country. he realizes that he has to go with his heart and tell it like it is.

and no one would be better for vp than dean. the very smart pit bull to back up the brains. plus that would set us up for 8 years of gore, then 8 years of dean. we will need it to clean this mess the beloved 2nd coming he-who-would-be-messiah has gotten us into.

gore and dean 2008!!!!!!!

And I hope he does.

if we are going to run former candidates I think he is the one.

:loveya:

For Kerry I could pull the lever, for Hillary I will not, for Gore, I could actually feel enthusiasm.

New York, yesterday, and all these people were saying they thought sure I would be there..I said..I've seen Hillary..now if Howard Dean were anywhere around I would definetly be there!

:bounce:

my tagline again....

"I'm the number one fan of the man from Tennesseeeeee....."
:loveya:

Go for it President Gore....I'll work my ass off for you.
:loveya:

In the hotly contested 2000 race between then Texas Gov. Bush and Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites), which was decided in the Supreme Court, no senators stepped up to lodge an objection. Boxer said she had refrained from objecting then at Gore's request, but had since come to regret her silence.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ss_electoral_dc

I used to defend Gore on that based on hearing him egging the CBC to follow their conscience the day before. The 2 together amount to....pulling a Kerry. :argh:

Even though there were numerous reports of election fraud and civil rights violations...Kerry conceded the next morning. He went out with a whimper.

On the other hand...Gore fought the Bushies and their thugs until the Bush friends on the Supreme Court stepped in and made an illegal decision to stop the legal recount.

Perhaps Gore knew that he couldn't take it any further than the SC? He may have made the wrong decision...but at least he did it for what he thought was the good of the nation. Kerry gave the impression that he conceded without a fight because he wanted to run again in 2008.

Gore did fight in 2000. Some of his legal advice was not the best, but he fought.

He seems to be in an even feistier mood now!

Potentially not in the primaries, depending on who else ran, but certainly in the generals.

Go Al!

interesting.

We know they're full of shit 99.9% of the time, so why are they pushing this particular story?

Were it to be true, of course, I'd vote to re-elect President Gore in a heartbeat. He's changed since he broke with the DLC, much for the better.

RUN AL, RUN!!!

.

lets run Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.... is Mondale stilll around?

YES! I'd love for Mr. Gore to run again and claim what's rightfully his. I think his "loss" in 2000 really shook him out of the stupor most Democrats have been falling under these days (including Kerry and the Clintons), and he's been saying and doing all the right things ever since. I was so dissapointed when he decided not to run in 2004, so it would be great if he could swoop in and save us from the Bush mess.

Plus, say what you will about him conceding in 2000, but he sure as hell fought longer than Kerry did.

that's a ticket I would enthusiastically support, too.

Wow, what a team they would be! WHEW!!! Energy, passion, smarts, everything.

The great thing about Gore is that he isn't tainted by all of the spinelessness of the Dems for the last 4 years.

Dean's admiration for Gore is enormous.

he wouldn't run in 2004.

In 1960 Nixon and the Repubs felt that JFK stole the election. In 1968, after Nixon's only obstacle was removed, namely Bobby, Nixon won. It almost seems that karmically Al is due his reward. I wouldn't vote against karma or history. I love Al more now than ever. I think Al needed to get pissed off to become himself. He is an Aries for chrissakes, they run on anger. I know, I'm an Aries too.

Seriously 08 is a ways off and Gore has plenty of time to enter the race. I sure hope he does. The Dem's could put together a strong ticket with the likes of Clark Edwards and Gore, plus a whole bunch of others who aren't as widely known yet. I believe it will be hard for the repugs to answer any of those especially since they have to pick someone tied to conservative Christians.

maybe history will really repeat itself and * will get assasinated and then Jeb will run and be knocked off too. We owe them the same martyrs as we have, don't we? Then there can become a cottage industry of conspiracy theorists around the assasinations like there is around the Kennedy deaths. The CIA is pissed off enough at *. Okay, tin foil hat time.

opening.

If we want to be Krmlinologists for the next few years, I think we may be able to tell whether Gore is serious or not about running by just looking at him.

My assumption is that a presidential run will be preceded by a major loss of weight.

Hope he loses it regardless, but then I could afford to lose a few too.

If he starts to get his appearance together, he's runnning! Same goes for fat boy Jebbie.

I love the Gores to pieces, but I've been angry with Al Gore ever since Sen. Barbara Boxer said during the 1/6 press conference that Al Gore asked her in 2001 not to contest Flordia's electors.

I find it amazing that he didn't want to stand up for those people that supported HIM!

was in year 2000. :hi:

You're right, Al Gore has been very vocal in his criticisms of the Bushie's failed policies, and I have really enjoyed the speeches he's given over these past four years against Bush.

But that is not the point at all. The point is that many people who went to the polls with the intention of casting their ballot for Al Gore in 2000, were disenfranchised. HIS VOTERS!

And I don't think it was appropriate of him to try to tell a United States Senator to please not sign on to the objection of the Florida electors, that they knew the CBC would raise.

Barbara Boxer was absolutely correct when she said she SHOULD have realized then that it was not about what Al Gore wanted; it was about standing up for the rights of voters.

Maybe he would agree with you now. ;)

i'd vote for him in a heartbeat...

:hi:

I believe, though, that we need a heavy midwestern influence on the ticket to win.

nt

I have been very impressed each time I have read one of his speeches over the past year or so. He has grown and matured as a politician. In time he may be the one who helps us recover and heal.

because didn't Dean say that he won't be running in 2008 if he wins the DNC Chairmanship? I know this is all speculation at this point. But I hope if Dean becomes the DNC Chairman it won't mean Gore is going to get favorable treatment and insider consideration - if all this is true.

As you know running for President would have to start after the 2006 elections. If Dean was asked to be VP on the ticket we are talking more like spring/Summer of 2008 for him to get involved.

And on the plus side, how can the repugs smear him anymore? All of the old smears will seem like old news. (I think that may have been a factor that helped Bush this time, not that I think he "really" won)

I want a neutral DNC with wide open primary contests (no anointed frontrunner) and then the party to close ranks behind whoever proves to be the best campaigner still standing.

it will be as afire and brimstone populist and it will turn the Democratic Party and this nation on its head.

:hi:

under the present circumstances.

I think Gore realizes the mistakes he made in 2000. I still wish he had made it through in 04, but also realized it was probably best he sat it out.

I like Gore...And hope he gets back in.

Here's part of the e-mail alert I got from that nasty conservative "news" service. BTW, they are still pimping Dick Morris' "hillary is going to run" line as part of their usual cottage industry of blaming the Clintons for everything.

****

1. Al Gore Eyes 2008 Bid

NewsMax hears from Washington, D.C. sources that former Democratic Vice President Al Gore is considering a run for the presidency in 2008.

Washington Democrats are buzzing about the news - not so much that Gore will be feted by Democrats, but the civil war it will likely unleash in the party.

For starters, Kerry still says he is keeping open a 2008 bid. But his disastrous showing in 2004 makes it certain he won't win. But Teresa's checkbook means he can wreak havoc in the primaries.

The fratricide among Democrats will come from another likely contender. Hillary Rodham Clinton is giving every indication she will run. Gore and Hillary have long disliked each other.

***

There's more probably on the NewsMax.com website.

We need a fresh start not a rehashed candidate.

BOXER, HILLARY

2008

and ship her off somewhere. Or I'd like to box her ears.

Yeah, that's all we need. Let's relive THAT part of the Clinton legacy all over again.

She voted FOR paving the road to Iraq and too many other of Chimpy's agenda. She's voted against our interests time and time again. The only time she challenged anyone was when it was in her or Bill's self-interest, like Chertoff. Yeah, her objection over that was because of **ding-ding-ding** Ken Starr! Yep, let's bring back all the glory days of Hillary. Her wide hips and rumors of lesbian lovers. That'll bring the independents and undecided running to the courthouses to change their registrations to Democrat.



ROFLMAOWTIME

Ewwwwww

Re-elect Gore in 2008

That's almost verbatim what my husband said after he read my post.

Okay, his first reaction was "jezuz, take a chill pill," then it was a remark about Hillary's, um, you know.

And welcome to DU. :hi:

I like it here. I should have registered long ago.

that Skinner should have somewhere on the website.

Warning: DU is addictive.


I come here as often as I can. It's a great way to get breaking news and other news that the MSM ignores. But you knew that. See you around Mitt.

I mean he's already won once.

Brings the Gore/Dean connection to mind.

And if Gore is running for office with Dean running the party, we will absolutely kick Republican ass. Who do they have that can stand up to that duo?

There will be a hole at the net in the Repuke party in 2008. We need to set up the ball in 2006, and slam it into the sand in 2008.

Dean for DNC Chair
Gore/Clark ticket in 2008

I'm not a Clark fan. I see him as a carpetbagger Dem.

But I think they come from the same place: Washington.

Two guys who have spent the better part of their lives in D.C., & preparing to run for Prez.

It would be "Lockbox" vs "I voted for it before I voted against it."

2 men who aren't comfortable enough with themselves; Al changes clothing, Kerry changes positions.

2 men who chose the same team of loser strategists; I question their judgement choosing Shrum.

Please, we've been there & done that. I feel sorry for Al Gore because he truly did win the 2000 election, & was robbed by Bush & the Supreme Court. But do we really want to go there again?

by an ABB campaign, not as a reflection on Kerry.

Gore has evolved. Kerry? Who knows where he is?