Anyone else think Dean-as-Chairman gives Gore the inside track at 2008?

This is just something turning over and again in my mind as I watched my main man Howard ascend today. Amidst all the warm fuzzies and a feeling of hope that pervaded the day, I started thinking about 2008. Al Gore was, I believe, the first big "name" to stick out his neck for Dean 2004 in an endorsement. Al and Howard reportedly became fast friends afterwards. And if Murdoch Central IS in fact telling the truth about Al Gore being interested in a 2008 run, will Dean being the head of the party make him more likely to run? Your thoughts.

Later.

RJS

I think Gore's days of public office are behind him.
By choice.
JMHO ~

He is far from retired. He has so much to offer the party. What position and/or at what capacity remains to be seen. The same goes for Edwards.

I'd happily and be proud to vote for Gore in 2008. I haven't heard anything though. I do remember not long ago hearing his wife said he was running for something. Does anybody know what she said he was running for?

was the correct strategy along with Kerry using the DLC strategy and losing the 2004 election and losing the popular vote.

Will Gore run again? I don't know. He would have the support of most Dean supporters including me, but he would have to develop a creative Media blitz to attack and overcome the negative sterotypes that the Media pundits laid on him in 2000. Can Gore do that? Yes he could. Will he do that? That is the question waiting to be answered

It's a new paradigm, folks.

He is a friend of Gore's and might have some insight.

He lost an election that he should have EASILY won. He ran a lousy campaign and because of that we got Bush. We need some new blood. I think that Gore realizes that he can't win.

but I think the ONLY way Gore could possibly win 2008 is to say right up front "OK, now you had eight years of this. Some of you called me Sore Loserman. Are you ready to see what would have happened if the Supreme Court HADN'T appointed George W. Bush in 2000?"

Nothing less than a gutsy statement like that would do.

back from the political graveyard to become president in 1968...


Why can't Gore do the same thing...

He's at least as charming as Nixon...

I posted this in another thread...Any thoughts??


Is it possible that...those who missed once (such as Gore and Kerry) would be a better choice? I am, by no means, an expert on politics; but I can think of several reasons why Gore or Kerry could lead a very strong Democratic ticket in 2008:

1. I've read that Vice President Gore did not recount the entire state because the money was not there to do so, and he also believed that for the good of the country he should withdraw and throw his support behind the new administration. I agree with you that he should have recounted the entire state, and that this would have made all the difference. I think this issue goes more to planning, than judgment. I believe he knows this and would handle it correctly in 2008.

2. Gore and Kerry still have a broad base of support, including supporters who believe they won their election.* Who could be better to educate the American public about election reform than a candidate who was most affected by federal election shortcomings? Both could make a compelling case during the 2008 presidential campaign.


3. Because of their experience in 2000/2004 both seem less likely to be mislead by those around them, and MORE likely to "let 'er rip" in a second campaign. I do believe that both have "learned", and would really say what they thought a second time around. I've been reading Al Gore's speeches for the last couple of years, and they are FANTASTIC!



*And now as I'm watching Howard Dean at the DNC on C-Span..The DNC is supporting the Ohio Investigation on Election Fraud.



:party:

this time it should be the people's choice in a 50 state primary. No front loading or gaming.

it's about three years too early to be worrying about who's going to be the nominee in 08.

Second, I agree with those who say Gore and Kerry have had their day and are never again going to be serious contenders. Yes, I know all about Dick Nixon, but that was forty friggin years ago.

Rather than putting any energy whatsoever into who's going to be the guy (or gal) in 2008, let's concentrate on getting the Democratic Party well organized, resisting the Republican lies, uncovering the depth of awfulness that has been done to this country in recent years, the deception about Iraq and the illegal war there, and so on.

third paragraph entirely. This isn't the time. We'll deal with this later.

DEAN and the GRASSROOTS are now.

to be sure. But as we learned from the last time, money, endorsements and throngs of groupies do not insure a win.

necessarily....

But, anyone who thinks that Gore is "out" is KIDDING themselves.

Don't forget who Gore was. He was our Vice President during eight of the best years the United States has ever seen. And he did not compromise his integrity over the past three years of dictatorship, as so many Democrats did (simultaneously destroying their own ambitions).

NO OTHER Democrat can say both of those things, or anything on the same level. Not even Hillary.

Clinton fix Bush I's mess and he could argue he's fixed messes caused by Bushes before and he can do it again.

But, I think it's going to be a function of how the mainstream media treats him and whether he can manage to reverse the caricature created in the 2000 election, partially from the media and partially by his own style. I really like Gore, but I think he will have to fix his image, which of course the media will say is "reinventing" himself again.

And Gore is one of the few Democrats who actually reacted to the neo-con's radical policies in the correct way. He stood up against it. He kept his integrity intact. That gives him serious STRENGTH.

They can't come back at him and say, oh, you're a flip-flopper. He knew. He changed when he needed to. I think he's in a great position.

It's true that not enough people UNDERSTAND that he did...he hasn't been in the mainstream eye. But it is a fact.

I'm just pointing out he's got a couple of hurdles. They're not impossible by any means.

Yeah....I guess I was just "clarifying." :P

very against the Iraq war and all that's going on with that. I remember not long after the Iraq war began he was one of the first democrats outspeaking publicially the Iraq war. Here's the link to the video of him talking agains the Iraq war: illegal codeplayClip('rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/archive/iraq/iraq080703_gore.rm')

If that doesn't work here's the link to that: http://www.c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?ResultStart=11&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=al+gore&

It's the second one on that page. There's a lot of other video's on there from 2004 so he hasn't been totally out of the spotlight so to speak.

Think about it. The last Senator to be elected (without being VP first) was JFK. The successful candidates on both sides have been Governors. That's one of the reasons Dean is so intent on starting at the grassroots.

Too many years in the Senate or House limelight carry way too much baggage!

:P

Except Hillary, of course. Do you really want that, though?

In any case, what I was referring to was your point that no Senator has run and won in however long (without being VP first)....just sayin'....

Governors
Senators that are war heroes
Vice Presidents
War Heroes

That is about it.

If they are a Senator and not a war hero... forget it
If a Senator becomes a VP then they have a chance

our Clarkie comrades....:P

Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during WWII

While I would love to see Gore run again, and I would support his campaign, it's my guess that he isn't really interested in getting back into it. I don't really think he likes being a politician.