A gentle reminder to all those discussing a Gore run for the presidency...

I have seen posts on DU remarking that Gore shouldn't run again because "he lost".

From DU's About page:

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

If you're here, you should understand the fact upon which this website was founded: GORE. DID. NOT. LOSE.

Thank you.

I know Gore didn't lose. Sadly, he also doesn't occupy the White House.

Despite the fact he won the election, he did not win the battle for the spoils that ensued afterward.

And his pick and choose recount strategy was a big factor in that. If he had fought for a fair, statewide recount, he might well be in the White House today.

He did not, and I think he bears some responsibility for that.

BUT I personally think he is the strongest of the Dem candidates.

Nixon lost in 60 and then won in 68.

I was disappointed in the way things panned out for him, and there were a few moments in the debates where I could have throttled him were it possible. I think he was great at governing, but not the best campaigner, despite a lot of effort and some definite moments of greatness.

He has shown his true colors over the five years since he won in 2000, and I know he would have made a great president.

Hmmm...just thinking.

He hasn't been in the political arena in a while and he's definitley better at everything I think with the public. I don't think he himself has changed just his presence in the media and everything. Look at him from 2000 and compare it to 2003 or now. I think if he was to run in 2008 it'd be a very powerful and uniting and we would see the new Al Gore. I also think he's probably learned a lot more about campaigning, who to hire and not, the media, etc. from watching other campaigns etc. I hope he does run in 2008 but if not then that's fine and he'll still have all my support and respect.

...but y'all have fun anyway!

My belief for Gore's possible candidacy is based on the fact that he has stated twice that he won't rule out a run in 2008.

The way that Al Gore answered a question about running again sounded like a negatory, good buddy.

Most of them indicate that Gore is thinking seriously about running. I've listed a couple of examples at the bottom.

It's true Chris Matthews cited an unnamed source saying Gore wouldn't run. I find it incredible that Gore would leak to Matthews because Matthews hates Gore and completely trashed him in 2000. It's also not the way Gore has operated when he chose not to run in 1992 and 2004. Both times he made a public announcement when he made his decision.

So I'm fairly confident that the status quo remains. Al Gore reserves the right to run.

http://algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=132&Itemid=78

http://algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=187&Itemid=78

I recall Al announced he would not run in early or mid 2003 and hence the primary battle began. If Al was sure he was not going to run, he would have said such already, so my hunch is he is being catty.

The axiom in prez politics is that the later you get in, the better. Partly, because it keeps the heat on someone like HRC. Also, it lessens the chance of peaking too soon.

is that he lost.

Therefore, "he lost".

I intend to continue to remind people of that truth, "irrelevant" or not (IMHO, not).

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

in 2000, we just had a coup to keep him out of office. However if you insist he lost so have Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland and Richard Nixon before they were elected.Abraham Lincoln lost about every race he ever ran for before he was elected President. The Denver Broncos, Kansas City Chiefs among others lost before they won the Super Bowl. The Boston Red Sox lost before they won the World Series among others. I would wager everyone has lost at one time or another. The real losers of 2000 was not Al Gore, it was the American People, does this mean we can never win again?

P.S. Thanks for the history lesson, I did not know D.U. was founded on that date for that reason.

If a team loses the Super Bowl by 1 point via four TDs called back due to outrageous bogus penalities, they still go into the history books and memory banks as the loser. Sorry, but as tragic and unfair as it is, that's Al Gore.

Six months after election 2000 a poll of voters indicated a significant percentage of Gore voters wouldn't even admit they had voted for him.

I think Gore would have to make election reform a major part of his campaign. Otherwise, he would be seen as a loser who was going to give it another shot, instead of a winner who was cheated.

I think we have to Get Rid of all the fucking media and start over fresh..and then we would be getting somewhere.

Remember when the public believed that security guard at the Atlanta Olympic bombing was a villain rather than a hero? Remember when the public thought Bush was doing a good job on Iraq?

Every campaign is different. If Gore runs in 2008, it will not be with an "I was robbed" motif. Rather, IMO, Gore will run on restoring America and the planet. Climate change, Iraq and terrorism will be front and center, IMO. Gore is spreading a gospel of hope that we can yet save the planet. I believe he is our last, best hope for saving civilization.

The campaign of 2008 will be radically different from 2000. The bloggers had no effect on 2000, but in 2004 thay had a real effect. In 2008 they will be much, much stronger than they were in 2004. MSM will not be able to change the outcome in the way they did in 2000.

Also in 2008, Gore would have the advantage of the Bush legacy, as opposed to the disadvantage of the Clinton legacy. Major differences. The similarities between 1968 and 2008 are striking. Nixon and Gore, indeed.

I don't have a crystal ball but I know that Gore is inspiring audiences around the globe. He is not perceived as he was in the Democratic Party in the aftermath of the election, especially post-Katrina as more people pay attention on climate change. He is the most charismatic figure in the party, IMO. That reality of charisma and change will make it into MSM by the blogger echo effect. Things change.

...is that Gore lost Tennessee - his home state. If he had just taken TN, we might not be talking about 9/11, Iraq, and FEMA right now.

If Gore wants to run again, let him try. But his message will need some serious retooling. At least he's taken some cues from Dean and the grassroots.

NT!

I've got the link on another computer. I'll get it when I have time.

...but the biggest worry at the forefront of my mind is the disease of fascism Bush is allowing to take root in this country.

It is not business as usual the next presidential race. The next Democratic candidate has to have more fire in the belly then Gore or Kerry showed, and be a heck of allot more articulate in a manner that connects to the people.

Interesting you mention the whys as to the founding of this forum. I stayed at Free Republic/Cafe Paranoia as Ferret and many returning bannee accounts because the dump is a perfect spot to put one's finger on the pulse of the spirit of fascism people like Bush represent.

If Gore runs, he damn well better win. Because fascism is such a systemic and stubborn disease that is hard to remove once it is deeply embedded in it's victim, it may already be too late.

obligatory waving smiley: :hi:

A hearty welcome to DU, btw!

Keep this KICKED!*****

Why didn't he run for re-election?

The American people do not want a rehash of 2000, and it's simply not the best image our party can project. At this point, the political reality of what a Gore re-run would bring has very little to do with Gore himself, or even how much he may have "grown."

I say this as someone who campaigned for Gore when he first ran in a presidential primary. Gore was the first presidential hopeful I ever shook hands with, but yesterday's gone.

I know a lot of you disagree with me, but that's my opinion. Even if it's not Clark (my first choice) we need a new face, image, and direction for the Party.

Or that we no longer have a democracy, a free press.
The Constitution has been trashed along with the US treasury.
Sorry cannot move beyond this stuff any time soon.
My country is gone, maybe forever and that hurts.

the things you mention are something else entirely.

We cannot ignore that we do not have free elections.
Pretending otherwise is folly. If we just move forward,
we keep being victims. When do we restore democracy?
That issue has to be faced before we even think about a candidate.
Or we will be like the movie Groundhog Day. The same Fla and Ohio
scene over and over and over.....

Should we also move beyond the illegal purging of black voters in Florida?

The partisanship of the court that took Gore's victory and handed it to b*s*?

The easily-rigged machines?

Clearly, I disagree, and refuse to ever move beyond recognizing the historical fact that the loser stole the highest office in the land.

I do not mean this as an insult, but the willingness to move beyond something as criminal as the 2000 Coup is a huge part of why the world is increasingly - and RIGHTFULLY - disgusted with Americans.

You can choose to overlook this massive crime. I will not. I could not. Such a notion is utterly alien to my sense of conscience.

What I'm saying is we cannot undo what happened in 2000, or "right the wrong" by running Gore again.

Running the same candidate again does not deal with the roots of the problem, and is not a solution. History is history.

FWIW, I wasn't necessarily pushing for a Gore run (though I do love the new and improved Gore), I just wanted to illustrate a fact that too many seem to have forgotten.

Worked out pretty well indeed.

and nominated. This country is begging for REAL LEADERSHIP. Gore fits the bill. He would kick ass in the primaries over anyone running, and he would win the general election, a second time, but this time he would be sitting in the Oval Office.

If he runs, he will win.

stolen from him. Lord only knows how fine life would be had President Gore taken the oath...

Gore/Clark

I like the sound of it.

manning it, some young handsome dark-haired fellow.
I'll never forget it, thank you DU!

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

Gore and Dean nutty?

Anyone have butter for this? :popcorn:

Nicely said. :evilgrin:

:)

It's so rare that I encounter a freeper in the wild, much less get a Close Encounter of the Third Kind. :)

or is it fairly usual with Kerry, Clark etc. thread?

Neither did John Kerry. I think it would be sweet justice for Gore to run again, win again and this time the Supreme Court can butt out and we can inaugrate our rightful president.

I had no idea that that was why it was founded in the first place. Makes perfect sense to me.

I hope Gore does decide to run again. I keep reminding my husband he didn't lose.

the general attitude in America THEN versus NOW!

Yah Gore should have won, we wouldn't be where we are now if he had been elected.

Gore DID win.

Gore did not run for re-election in 2004.

Despite my problems with the New Kerry, I did wind up voting for him, and I do think the evidence shows he, too, was robbed.

from Wash.Post, Time, etc. and Matt Cooper of Time mentioned the fact it wouldn't be unusual for Gore to come back and run again as Nixon did.

If you're talking about "Win the election", then he almost certainly won, but if you're talking about "Become the president of the United States", then he clearly lost, and it was the second one that really counted, unfortunately.

That said, I think he'd probably make a good candidate if the election was in 2006, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he will in 2008 (I phrase it that way because three years is a very long time indeed in politics).

A sitting president can lose the presidency. But a sitting vice-president?

and I'm spitting mad all over again. I'm in such a mood that if anyone wants to suggest Gore didn't win in 2000, I'd be willing to drop-kick their ass from here all the way to Florida so they can review the facts.

I so desperately want Gore to run again. He did unsuccessfully in 1988, and 2000 was a freaking nightmare, but this is so his to win. I wish we could help him find the heart to put it all on the line again.

All we can do for now is make sure Gore's name is mentioned whenever the discussion is about who should run in 2008. This is working already. 6 months ago here on DU it was all about Clark, Hillary, Dean ... often Gore would not even get mentioned because conventional wisdom said "he already decided not to run again".

Those of us who believe that Gore would make the best President for the future (2009-2016) should keep spreading the word.

I think most of us admit that Gore's campaign in 2000 was not the greatest. I would love to meet the person who advised Gore to go stand close to Bu$h during the debates. That attempt to physically intimidate shrub helped to turn many voters off Gore.

But I truly believe that Gore is a stronger leader now than he was in 2000. His speeches just keep getting better and better - and he has consistently been right on all the major challenges facing the US and the world: Bin Laden, Iraq, The PATRIOT Act, Abu Graib, the budget deficit, global warming, Katrina ...

I also agree with those who say that there is one issue much more important than who runs in 2008: getting clean elections and restoring democracy in the USA.