Gore Will Run, His Backers Say

Forget that half-hearted declaration Al Gore gave at an economic forum in Stockholm, Sweden two weeks ago about having "absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again." According to friends, family and political advocates, Gore's playing it coy and has every intention of entering the race. "I'm not discouraged at all by what he said," said one of the Gore backers who's recently spoken with US News & World Report. "He doesn't want to be embarrassed and he won't just slowly tip-toe into the race. He wants the whole thing set up for him and that will be easy to do."

http://ostroyreport.blogspot.com/2005/10/gore-will-run-his-backers-say.html

We might as well go for a 49 state landslide, rather than a 40 state landslide.

is he still alive?

and warmongered and Bushited by that little worm, Coleman.

I know lots of people that have never been interested in campaigning for a candidate before, BUT they told me that they WILL campaign for Gore.
RE-ELECT GORE 2008!!!!!!!!

Haven't you noticed that Bush has been the president for the last 5 years? Gore couldn't beat Bush. Think about that. He lost to the stupidest man ever to run for the office.

Gore DID beat Bush in 2000....He received the most votes (this is an absolute fact} The 2000 election was stolen from Gore. Several newspaper investigated the election in 2000 and according to their final determination, Gore won the state of Florida in EVERY case except the one that selected Bush to be president and that being, he was selected by 5 Republican Supreme Court Justices. You might want to read up on election fraud in 2000, 2002 and 2004. In order for Democrats to take the oath of offices which they actually win, we have to have election reform and we HAVE to be prepared for ALL kinds of election fraud/stealing.

I find that his winning the popular vote and the (possibly good) chances of election fraud could have been negated if he could have actually be seen as an extension of the positive Clinton administration. He could have won hands down (and bypassed all this nonsense in 2000) if he could have pulled off using Clinton's momentum. There was some ball dropping, but it's exact reason I cannot grasp.

Personally, I like Gore. It's his wife's stance on censorship did not help him.

Lieberman didn't help either.

the "margin of theft?" Why do people here think that would be a finite number? That there would be a ceiling to it?

... viciousness and his human frailty (maybe even because of it), and it was a fatal error of Gore's campaign to try to distance Gore from Clinton. He should have embraced him in common cause against the fascists, and done some re-thinking of NAFTA et al (or in some way accommodated the left). He would have won in a landslide, overwhelming the election fraud.

Water under the bridge now--to say the least. I think Gore is a man on fire now. I've read and seen tapes of his speeches over the last year. Wow! He is so right on, it makes you want to cry, listening to him--especially on issues like torture and unjust war. (Still don't know if he's re-thought NAFTA, though. We must remember that all of these potential candidates are going to keep Corporate Rule and huge military budgets in place; maybe with some mitigations, mere pull-backs from the mind-boggling thefts of the super-rich and the military contractors, under Jr. But at least we can hope for the rule of law, a more progressive outlook, and maybe getting Diebold and ES&S out of our election system.)

popularity ratings were where Bush's job approvla ratings are now.

Gore had a poll among Independents done and the Indies said that if Clinton campaigned with Gore to get their vote, they would vote Repuke for sure.

See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2182428&mesg_id=2184669


it was a fatal error of Gore's campaign to try to distance Gore from Clinton.

Except that it was not. In fact if he had not distanced himself from Clinton he would have lost with a landslide.

Karl Rove understood that he had to link Gore to Clinton. I guess Rove knows very well what works for Reps in elections.

Relinking Gore to Clinton
From the Weekly Standard
08/18/2000
By Fred Barnes

Around the time of the political conventions in August, voters were asked in a Gallup poll to take another stab at the 1992 election. This time, President George Bush defeated Bill Clinton by 53 percent to 42 percent. Then, assuming Clinton could run for another term, they were asked if they preferred him or George W. Bush. The answer was Bush, 51 percent to 45 percent. Finally, this same group of voters registered a verdict on Clinton's presidency. A whopping 68 percent said it's been a success, 29 percent a failure. The meaning of all this: The Clinton bifurcation lives! Voters still like Clinton's performance as president but they don't want him around. And so in the 2000 election, voters want a new president who's the opposite of him personally—and especially morally—but not a strong critic of his policies.

Until a month ago, that person was George W. Bush. His compassionate conservatism isn't a radical departure from this administration's policies, but he's quite unlike Clinton personally. Now, Al Gore has changed things by pulling off a strategically brilliant political transformation. Gore re-mains vice president in name only. He's disconnected himself from Clinton and shaped his image to meet the requirements of the Clinton bifurcation. His policies are roughly the same, but he's presenting himself as morally separate. How's he done it? First by picking a religious person and critic of Clinton's morals, Joe Lieberman, as his vice presidential running mate. And then by talking up religion, playing the family man by showing off his wife and children at the Democratic convention, and emphasizing the future rather than the Clinton-Gore past. Also, says chief Bush strategist Karl Rove, Gore's kissing his wife after she addressed the Democratic convention "worked...unbelievably."

more:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bcfc1964c8.htm

He should have embraced him in common cause against the fascists, and done some re-thinking of NAFTA et al (or in some way accommodated the left). He would have won in a landslide, overwhelming the election fraud.

Bullshit.

I think he did a damn good job considering he was caught between a rock and a hard place at the time. The Republican owned news media and the Republican mouth pieces were smearing him to the ground. They twisted and turned everything he said or he did, to make him look bad and Bush look good (hell they even went so far as to condemn the man for wearing a certain color shirt). He tried to distant himself from Clinton because they would have used Clinton's faults against Gore. Gore ran as his own man and stressed that he would continue to keep on country on the track it was on because the country was doing great. As far as his wife's censorship I think you have your facts wrong. Tipper does not believe in censorship. As a mother she wanted to protect her young children against certain music that had bad language and sexual and violent contents. She wanted to have the music rated so that young children would not be allow to purchase such music (but if a parent chose to purchase the material for the child that would be up to the parent) She didn't give a damn what adults listen to. I agree with her. Would you want your child to be able to walk into a video store and be allowed to purchase or rent a hardcore movie? I know I wouldn't. Adults can be exposed to whatever they chose but children need to be protected (if a parent chooses to expose their child to adult contents that is their choice but I would not want my child (or grandchild) expose to certain contents.

You can keep saying that he did but he didn't. If he did Bush would not be the president. I agree Florida was stolen but that's irrelevant. The election should never have been that close. He distanced himself from Clinton, that's why he lost. It was a bonehead decision. Gore had his chance and he blew it.

different things.

And what do you want with Clinton?
Clinton was LOSING to Bush in every hypotethical poll in 2000, except in one in Oct, 2000 (ABC poll, among registered voters) which was a statistical dead heat. That was the best Clinton could do against Bush. A tie.
Just like Gore and Bush.

Do you want to know how Clinton hurt Gore in 2000?

Read this:

Character Issues as a Legacy of the Clinton Presidency

Any discussion of the role of character issues in the 2000 presidential campaign must begin with the presidency of William J. Clinton. The Clinton presidency is virtually unique in having at its
helm a man whose performance evaluations were strong and whose personal standing was dismal. As they did throughout his impeachment trial, Americans consistently rated his performance in the 60% range, while saying in a variety of ways that they disapproved of his
morals and ethics.
A January 27, 2000 ABC poll found that 58% of the public approved of Clinton’s performance as president, but 61% percent disapproved of him as a person.

Seven in ten Americans said they were tired of the problems associated with the administration, and fewer than one-third of
Americans wished that Clinton could run for a third term.

Fifty- four percent said they would be “glad to see him go,” and only 39% said they would be “sorry to see him go.”

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:xOrrILk_wBcJ:www.ksg.harvard.edu/shorenstein/Research_Publications/Papers/Working_Papers/2001_1.PDF+%22As+Term+Wanes,+%27Clinton+Fatigue%27+Yields+to+Nostalgia%22&hl=en&client=opera

Gore made some HUGE mistakes: refusing to talk about (and take partial credit for) Clinton's terrific record, Choosing Lieberman as a running mate to further distance himself from Clinton, not having the confidence to be his "true self" - he was far too "staged" and "coached" and it came off very poorly. Gore would be a MUCH better President than Bush - in fact - very few wouldn't be better than Bush. But, Gore ultimately showed a lack of confidence - and people want a confident POTUS.

Kerry also made huge mistakes - before he ran - by going along with the Iraq war. The Democrats totally mis-judged their strengths by supporting the Iraq war. I can see supporting the war in Afghanistan. There was a very strong case made that the Afghan government, the Tali ban, was supporting Bin Laden. That may have been a lie, but the case the Bush admin. made was very strong. From the beginning the case to go to war with Iraq was full of holes. Democrats who voted for the Iraq war, IMO, as much as said that the average American was too stupid to spot Bush's lies, so they had to go along with him. I hate it when Reporters and Politicians underestimate the intelligence of the average American, which, I'm guessing, is just about the same as the average Reporter's or Politician's. They think they are the only ones who have any gray matter at all - and it totally pisses me off.

I also don't like Hillary Clinton. I think she is riding ole' Bill's coat-tails a little, and is in bed with the Republican's far too often - again IMO.

I like Dean. I like Boxer. I like Conyers. Are they so far to the left that they are out of the question? (I'm not that far to the left - many times I disagree with people at DU. But I respect honest people - and those three fit the bill.)

refusing to talk about (and take partial credit for) Clinton's terrific record

1.Clinton didn't create the boom.

2.Clinton's "terrific record" meant triangulation which managed to angered the far-left. They went to Nader as a result.

3.Gore did talk about the record. Who cared?

Choosing Lieberman as a running mate to further distance himself from Clinton,

Which gave him a jump in the polls. But nevermind. You can rewrite history if you want.

not having the confidence to be his "true self"

How in the world can you know that? He was his true self. That's why he was right just about everything.

was far too "staged" and "coached" and it came off very poorly.

Who "staged" and "coached" him, huh? Would you name those mysterious people?
Gore never liked the camera. That itself was no big secret. But that doesn't mean he was "coached" or "staged".
His town hall meeting were terrific. Probably you didn't see any of them.

Gore ultimately showed a lack of confidence

It was not Gore who showed a lack of confidence but the press morphed him into a caricature which suggested that he was "not comfortable in his own skin".
But that was bullshit. He knew very well what he was talking about. And he knew what he wanted to do as president. Anyone who payed attention and not just consumed the media caricature could see that.

Or do just like argueing for the sake of argueing?

Look at the exist polls on Clinton in red states and stop rewriting history:


Alabama
Clinton as President approve 51 % disapprove 43 %
Clinton as a Person favorable 35 % unfavorable 61 %

Alaska
Clinton as President Approve 53 % Disapprove 45 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 45 % Unfavorable 53 %

Arizona
Clinton as President Approve 52 % Disapprove 41 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 43 % Unfavorable 54 %

Arkansas
Clinton as President Approve 49 % Disapprove 47 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34 % Unfavorable 63 %

Colorado
Clinton as President Approve 50 % Disapprove 46 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 39 % Unfavorable 55 %

Georgia
Clinton as President Approve 54 % Disapprove 42 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 35 % Unfavorable 57 %

Idaho
Clinton as President Approve 40 % Disapprove 57 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 23 % Unfavorable 73 %

Indiana
Clinton as President Approve 48 % Disapprove 50 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 27 % Unfavorable 70 %

Kansas
Clinton as President Approve 30 % Disapprove 63 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 17 % Unfavorable 74 %

Kentucky
Clinton as President Approve 49 % Disapprove 48 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 32 % Unfavorable 66 %

Lousiana
Clinton as President Approve 50 % Disapprove 44 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 36 % Unfavorable 54 %

Mississippi
Clinton as President Approve 49 % Disapprove 50 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 37 % Unfavorable 61 %

Missouri
Clinton as President Approve 55 % Disapprove 42 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 36 % Unfavorable 59 %

Montana
Clinton as President Approve 43 % Disapprove 54 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 24 % Unfavorable 73 %

Nebraska
Clinton as President Approve 42 % Disapprove 54 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 26 % Unfavorable 69 %

Nevada
Clinton as President Approve 56 % Disapprove 41 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 38 % Unfavorable 58 %

N. Hamp.
Clinton as President Approve 56 % Disapprove 42 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 31 % Unfavorable 66 %

N. Carolina
Clinton as President Approve 50% Disapprove 49 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34 % Unfavorable 64 %

S. Carolina
Clinton as President Approve 50% Disapprove 47 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 35 % Unfavorable 62 %

N. Dakota
Clinton as President Approve 48% Disapprove 50 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 26 % Unfavorable 71 %

Ohio
Clinton as President Approve 56% Disapprove 41 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 36 % Unfavorable 61 %

Ohlahoma
Clinton as President Approve 46% Disapprove 52 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 27% Unfavorable 70 %

S. Dakota
Clinton as President Approve 52% Disapprove 46%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 29% Unfavorable 69%

Tennessee
Clinton as President Approve 50% Disapprove 47%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34% Unfavorable 62%

Texas
Clinton as President Approve 45% Disapprove 52%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 33% Unfavorable 64%

Utah
Clinton as President Approve 40% Disapprove 58%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 20% Unfavorable 78%

Virginia
Clinton as President Approve 55% Disapprove 43%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 37% Unfavorable 59%

W. Virginia
Clinton as President Approve 55% Disapprove 41%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34% Unfavorable 63%

Wyoming
Clinton as President Approve 39% Disapprove 59%
Clinton as a Person Favorable 23% Unfavorable 76%

Sources:
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polllaunch.asp
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html


Great, huh? 49% job approval 34% personal approval in his own homestate! Sure he would have helped Gore a lot. Not.

Clinton gave Bush the White House with his insane actions with MOnica and then his insane denial under oath.

As I recall there was a near 65%...oh wait here is by back up.

(snip)

Just as during the impeachment crisis, the public does not parrot what it is told it is supposed to be thinking. A little publicised poll by Gallup/CNN/USA Today, taken between February 2 and 15, finds Clinton's job approval rate at 62%; Fox News/Opinion Dynamics has it at a phenomenal 66%. Bill Clinton has been a very successful president: but for the 22nd amendment he might well have run and won a third term

(snip)

"Insane actions with MOnica"...if getting horny is insane than color most of the population of the earth crazy. Most nations were laughing at our prudishness and now they're angily staring.

The only thing insane about the Monica Lewinsky situation was the public's reaction to it. Buncha puritanical prudes lemming rushed by the newly created RW media.

Insane is starting a damn war based on lies and propaganda and having the people want to believe it. Insane is preaching patriotism and democracy and then doing things like outing CIA agents and possibly fixing elections.

wanted change. They didn't want the Clinton era to be continued.

Gore had to overcome Clinton-fatigue and he did that pretty well
considering the odds.

He could have won hands down (and bypassed all this nonsense in 2000)

Where do you get that from?
Not even Clinton himself, who was a president not just a vice president, could beat Bush in the polls. He was losing to Bush in Aug 2000 by 6 points. (Gallup poll)

Most people were glad that he left office and his personal approval ratings were below 40% in every red states, including in his own homestate.

There was no "Economic Clinton" and "Monica Clinton". There was only one Clinton.
Yeah I know Gore should have somehow created two Clintons and use only the "Economic" one on the campaign trail. Sure everyone could have done that easily, just Gore blew it.

if he could have pulled off using Clinton's momentum.

Clinton didn't have any kind of momentum in 2000. Most people were
sick and tired of him.

There was some ball dropping, but it's exact reason I cannot grasp.

Of course not because you don't understand how the South felt about Clinton. But if you took a look at the actual data you'd know.

Personally, I like Gore. It's his wife's stance on censorship did not help him.

You have no idea what censorship is. Go to China there you could learn what it means.

Here's Webster's definition:

1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

Censoring: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable


Those labels did not suppress and did not delete anything from those songs. They just warned the consumer. You can see similar information on many other products. Rock music should not be an expection. I don't want to by trash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

Media post-electoral studies/recounts
After the election, USA Today, the Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder commissioned accounting firm BDO Seidman to count undervotes, that is, ballots which did not register any vote when counted by machine. BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today <7>, show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes. Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. The standards considered by BDO Seidman were:

Lenient standard. Any alteration in a chad, ranging from a dimple to a full punch, counts as a vote. By this standard, Bush won by 1,665 votes.
Palm Beach standard. A dimple is counted as a vote if other races on the same ballot show dimples as well. By this standard, Bush won by 884 votes.
Two-corner standard. A chad with two or more corners removed is counted as a vote. This is the most common standard in use. By this standard, Bush won by 363 votes.
Strict standard. Only a fully removed chad counts as a vote. By this standard, Gore won by 3 votes.

The study remarks that because of the possibility of mistakes, it is difficult to conclude that Gore was surely the winner under the strict standard. It also remarks that there are variations between examiners, and that election officials often did not provide the same number of undervotes as were counted on Election Day. Furthermore, the study did not consider overvotes, ballots which registered more than one vote when counted by machine.

The study also found that undervotes break down into two distinct types, those coming from punch-card using counties, and those coming from optical-scan using counties. Undervotes from punch-card using counties give new votes to candidates in roughly the same proportion as the county's official vote. Furthermore, the number of undervotes correlates with how well the punch-card machines are maintained, and not with factors such as race or socioeconomic status. Undervotes from optical-scan using counties, however, correlate with Democratic votes more than Republican votes. Optical-scan counties were the only places in the study where Gore gained more votes than Bush, 1,036 to 775.

A larger consortium of news organizations, including the USA Today, the Miami Herald, Knight Ridder, the Tampa Tribune, and five other newspapers next conducted a full recount of all ballots, including both undervotes and overvotes. According to their results, under stricter standards for vote counting, Bush won, and under looser standards, Gore won. <8> However, a Gore win was impossible without a recount of overvotes, which he did not request.

According to the study, only 3% of the 111,261 overvotes had markings that could be interpreted as a legal vote. According to Anthony Salvado, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine, who acted as a consultant on the media recount, most of the errors were caused by ballot design, ballot wording, and efforts by voters to choose both a president and a vice-president. For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to "vote every page". Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election.

Including overvotes in the above totals for undervotes gives different margins of victory:

Lenient standard. Gore by 332 votes.
Palm Beach standard. Gore by 242 votes.
Two-corner standard. Bush by 407 votes.
Strict standard. Bush by 152 votes.
Democrats also blamed third party candidate Ralph Nader for taking the election away from Gore. Some say had Nader not run, Gore would have won both New Hampshire and Florida and won the election with 296 electoral votes. (He only needed one of the two to win) However, it is worth noting that approximately 8 million Democrats voted for Bush.

In 2003, US citizens living in the state of Florida were asked who they voted for in the 2000 Election as part of the Statistical Abstract Census. The results showed President Bush receiving more than 1000 votes more than former Vice President Gore. However this result was badly tarnished when it was discovered that the man responsible for this census had links to the original Bush campaign in 2000.

Gore would have won in every count. The republican tried every way in the world to stop people from voting and making sure their vote did not get counted. I can just imagine Republican in charge in Democratic areas in FL, punching extra holes in ballots to make sure they didn't get counted.
Read this:

Gore's Victory

By Robert Parry
November 12, 2001

So Al Gore was the choice of Florida s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

Gore won even if one doesn t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed butterfly ballots, or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there s no adjustment for George W. Bush s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide.

You said that by all standards but 1, Gore would have won. All I did was post the link to what many people would consider a fairly reputable source (wikipedia). I do find it odd though that the study was commissioned by, among others, USA Today, and yet the contents of what is in the Parry article do not really jibe with the results of the study commissioned by his paper, or at least as they are displayed in wikipedia.

aStolen election confirmation(GAO report)
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/15...

Powerful Government Accounting Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
October 26, 2005


As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the General Accounting Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its through, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.
More at link


nd steal election

In 2003, US citizens living in the state of Florida were asked who they voted for in the 2000 Election as part of the Statistical Abstract Census. The results showed President Bush receiving more than 1000 votes more than former Vice President Gore. However this result was badly tarnished when it was discovered that the man responsible for this census had links to the original Bush campaign in 2000.

:rofl:

The guy also found Iraq's WMD in Florida.

Florida shouldn't have mattered.

Of course Florida mattered. It had 25 electoral votes, man.

Kerry "lost", whether you think he won Ohio or not, most likely he lost the popular vote. Gore is not the same man he was 5 years ago. He is progressive and he has America's best interest at heart, not corporations. Either you are for everyday Americans or corporations as far as I am concerned.

The space at the other end where left and right have similar interests is always avoided nowadays.

The money grippers will always have first choice who the candidates are, they bank roll them and cut the candidates off when they don't do the corporate bidding they have gotten paid for.

Would you elaborate?

The Preznit was selected.

There is a things called theft, right?

The guy never won an election but he is still there.

And did you notice that Yuschenko lost? Wait....

You can become president in the US even without winning the election.
You simply stole it and that's it.
Hayes did it. John Quincy Adams did it. Bush did it.

Each was beaten by their opponents. And still the losers became presidents.


He lost to the stupidest man ever to run for the office.

Bush is not stupid. You are stupid is you underestimate him.
He is ignorant but he is not stupid.

BTW Clinton himself was losing to that "stupidest man ever to run for the office." In Jan 2002 Bush led Clinton in and ABC poll by as much as 11%. The poll was taken among the general public.

In Aug 2000 in a Gallup poll Bush led Clinton by 6%.

Digest that is you can.

I guess you didn't see or care about the fraud thats known as OHIO. CNN changing THEIR own polling numbers for that State at TWO AM on their web site.

Recounts locked down to ALL media because of FUCKING TRUMPED up Terra threats. Go back and look at what happened in Florida in 2000. In my mind BOTH Gore and Kerry won,but we were beat by voter fraud.

I am so tired of this "Gore won in 2000" crap. I will grant you he did win by a slim margin, BUT THAT ISN'T ENOUGH!

I won't accept any more marginal victories!

He didn't win in the right places.

victory was so marginal.

He defeated Bush by a bigger margin than Kennedy defeated Nixon.

But you would never say that Kennedy didn't win big enough, right?

Because his victory was not stolen. Gore's was.

And the country is divided. Get over it. Not one person can do a damn thing about it. It is divided because the people are divided.
Millions of people not one or two.

The spin that Gore couldn't even beat the idiot? That's not spin, that's truth.

Use your own brain and check out sh-t for yourself and see for yourself what is facts and what is fiction

I certainly know as much about the situation as you do. The fact is that Gore lost what should have been an easy win. I know the facts. The fact is that Gore was a horrible campaigner.

Have a nice evening

and you know it. The "idiot" and his minders cheated.

counted. Gore won Florida. (You do recall Gore won the popular vote by about half a million votes, yes?)

The consortium's study results were to be announced around the second week of Sept 2001 but other news took precedence at the time and the announcement was postponed. Later released in November 2001 as I recall but usually published with a pro Bush headline that was unsupported by the actual data. Florida newspapers such as the Miami Herald also did recounts and determined Gore won Florida.

But of course as you recall, the Supreme Court intervened and stopped the Floria recount and ensured a Bush "victory" in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court well understood it had exceeded its authority and thus declared its decision was a one time deal rather than a precedent.

So again how do you figure "Gore couldn't even beat the idiot" with a half million vote lead in the popular vote and an accurate counting of the votes in Florida? The American people didn't elect Bush, the Supreme Court chose Bush in violation of the Constitution.

The bottom line is that it shold have been an easy win. Florida should have been irrelevent. Gore made some huge mistakes that cost him the election.

What else can one assume?

'Methinks' that anyone who couldn't beat Bush doesn't deserve a second chance. Sorry bubba but I want to see a Democrat in the oval office come 2009 and I don't think Gore is up to the challenge. I'm not willing to support a proven loser in the primaries. If Gore gets the nomination , I'll support him.

Wouldn't a "Gore CLinton" ticket be absurd?

I like Gore and voted for him in 2000, although I voted for NJ favorite son Bill Bradley in the primary. Gore has very many good points - he is intelligent, principled, qualified, nice, and he clearly loves his wife and family - but he is not a dynamo by any definition.

I would prefer Kerry to him because Kerry is more liberal and I think he is the more creative (in terms of finding solutions) of the two. If Gore wins the nomination, I'll support him.

Maybe we can start having meetings outside his home in Belle Meade begging him to run.

Sweetladybug says she could get some people together. What do you think?

A get together sounds like fun!

I want to go, too. I live near Cookeville!!!!

I live about 30 miles north of Nashville (off I 65). I could probably get 10 or 20 people together to go there with us (maybe even more people) Some folks my need rides though. Maybe we need to stay in touch and put our heads together and see what we can do to encourage Gore to run in 2008.

weekend. Of course, we need to make sure he's in town at the time. I'll bet some DU'ers can help us with that.

Maybe we can get some people from the Music Row Democrats to join us as well.

See how many people you can find that are interested. Only 30 miles outside Nashville, I can come pick up anyone who needs a ride up to 4 people. Just PM me anytime.

Re-Elect Gore 2008!!!!!!!!

.... throws his hat in the ring, he has my support, wholly.

would be my preference.

.... mine :)

There are so many reasons why a Gore candidacy works this time around:

1. The country has changed dramatically since 2000
2. History has proven the Bushies and the GOP to be utter, colossal failures both domestically and abroad
3. History has proven Gore to be a man of character and integrity, and quite prescient on Iraq and the environment. People can now appreciate why having a brilliant, dedicated and experienced leader instead of "that beer guy" is in America's best interests
4. Gore's been fired up since 2000, giving one passionate, articulate and energizing speech after another
5. HE WON in 2000!
6. The rest of the Democratic field is weak: Clinton? Not a chance. Kerry? Edwards? Clark? Bayh? (YAWN)

Yeah, Gore, he's our guy.

Sign the DRAFT AL GORE FOR 2008 petition at:
http://new.petitiononline.com/AG2008/petition.html
(AOL users: open in Internet Expxlorer if signature page fails)

The CinC should be CinC.

No Edwards. :puke: Too fluffy, which is fine in a quiche, but, in a candidate... ehhhh... not so much.

He might not be progressive in all respects. But, if I were to take a look at the most likely strong candidates for the Democratic Party nomination -- he is ( with the possible exception of Russ Feingold) probably the most progressive.

He would be the strongest candidate for a number of reasons.

1. His candidacy would invoke the question to every American, "wouldn't America and the world be much better off if Al Gore had been President for the past eight years?"

2. Americans love a come-back story. Eight years is just the right amount of time. I think of Nixon in 1968 after having lost in 1960.

3. He has amazingly become a very good speaker.

4. His candidacy would invoke enthusiasm. Something it couldn't do back in 2000.

5. He would have broad appeal across the ideological divides of the Party.

6. He already won once when he had a lot less going for him.

the so called fire in the belly. Plus the right wing won't have the most devastating weapon they can use against him available to them anymore. I'm referring of course to the dreaded CLENIS.

That said, I'd be proud to cast a vote for Gore/anyone in '08.

We are still 3 years out from the next Presidential election. It is way too early for potential Presidential candidates to publicly declare their intentions. There are all kinds of tactical and strategic reasons why it makes sense for Gore to wait at least another 12 months before making a final decision on whether to seek the nomination for 2008.

It is also way too early for people to set up camp outside Gore's private residence and try pressuring him to declare as a candidate for 2008. Maybe the time to try that would be Spring 2007 - if he has not already declared by then. But Fall 2005 is TOO EARLY.

In the meantime, if you want to help Gore:
- help elect progressive Democrats at local, state and national level.
- support efforts to get clean and fair elections.
- follow the links below ...

In Gore We Trust
http://www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net
http://www.petitiononline.com/AG2008/petition.html
:)

and I'll work my butt off for his campaign....

Gore 2008 (ReElect Al Gore)

His speeches reveal a great shedding of inhibitions. He has laid it out there repeatedly. I've loved every speech I've read/heard from him over the past few years and I think this is the Al Gore we'd see on the campaign trail.

That would be very exciting. I would be glad to work really hard to get him elected.

Julie

be careful what you wish for..."He wants the whole thing set up for him and that will be easy to do." I'd like someone to explain that statement...cause I don't care for the way it sounds..

What is it Shakespeare said...something about the world being a stage, and all the people were merely players...????

No one person, automatically DESERVES to be president...nor does any person deserve to have it handed to him on a silver platter, just because of any previous set of circumstances. Any candidate needs to earn your vote..it's too precious a commodity to give away..or sell to the highest bidder...

Really sorry to read this..already a bit of a cynic when it comes to politicians..now reconsidering recent events..and wondering if all of them (politicians) are always "on the make"...
windbreeze

them informed. We got lazy and let the Repugs ride us...I hope that wont happen again. Al Gore has got to come out about Corporate Corruption and Media Control. If our Democrats sit back and think it's going to "fall in their lap" after their complicity (some of them) with the Bushies they've got another thought coming.

Al Gore is the best positioned....he's the cleanest of them. And, that's not saying much, but a hell of alot better that this infestation of night crawlers we have in there now. I hope he's learned alot since the Election was stolen from him.

I would support him. I'm tired of my beloved Clintons. I defended them too long. I don't feel they deserved it, now.

"He wants the whole thing set up for him and that will be easy to do." My take on this statement is: Bush and the Republican Party is setting up the whole thing for him. Everything Gore said that Bush and the Republican Party would do, they have done. They are liars and con men. It's not Gore that was a liar, it was Bush. And this is easy to prove. Gore has a good heart, he's trustworthy and he can get our country back on the right track.
Re-Elect Gore 2008!!!!!!!!

When and if he decides to run.

Truth to power - it's amazing.

I truly think he's the right guy for the time. He has all the right ideas, and a passion that I don't see in the other candidates.

He's also very much untainted by the events of the past few years. He''s kind of become an outsider. I'd much rather have Gore run than any Democrat who ever supported this war. Not because I don't think those Democrats would be good presidents, but because they can be so easily boxed in by the opposition on that issue during the campaign.

i'll vote for him. Damnit, I loved that thing.

and my money too (and that says a lot)
if he decides to run.

I love al.

if he gets the nomination, i'll vote for him, but i really think we need a fresh, new face i.e. warner, feingold.

he'd be out campaigning for candidates in 2006.

So far, I haven't seen any indication that he cares one way or the other about supporting Democratic candidates in the mid-terms.

So , I'd say anything that comes from a 'draft Gore' site should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

"He wants the whole thing set up for him..."

Could that be just a little more arrogant? Then it would sound just like the Bush machine in 2000.

Al is keeping things on the down-low, same with Wes. I bet these two will team up and are anticipating that alliance now. Hillary is a distraction, and she is taking flak for the Dem's right now, she will shoot for a cabinet position or something and get it.

Dean understands the RW and how they operate. Could he be mastering this huge masquerade? I think it's a possibility, we have the RW'ers looking to bash and bash a Clinton and we run one behind them quietly and when they realize it, it will be too late.


:tinfoilhat:

Clark has an audience on this forum and TeeVee. Political junkies do not add up to the massive number of votes necessary to win elections.
Edwards is out winning over the people who voted against their self interest with his project opportunity. Relating to people at a grassroots level. People can relate to him. The only way Clark relates to Joe average is via uniform. He's too nuanced for a real campaign.
Edwards takes a hardline stand and tells it like it is with this project opportunity. Much like Gore's recent tendencies. They are very compatible.
We need people who are going to draw lines in the sand and make strong statements.

for giving grants to college students. His 'Project Opportunity'.

Since there are already many, many organizations doing the same thing.... why didn't he just partner with one of the established organizations and avoid having to waste money on the overhead?

I realize that then it wouldn't be 'his', but it certainly would have been more efficient.

He is setting an example and using his influence to inspire organizations to pull together.
He is calling for community efforts to generate a movement to fight poverty.
He is interacting directly with communities as he is encouraging this. It seems like the seeds for a campaign.

It's a campaign thing

right out of Dean's playbook. I like it.
He used some awesome framing when I saw him speak. He talked about going to "tax-payer funded schools" and "putting the ladder down behind him."
Good "telling the truth" stuff.

"tax-payer funded schools" and "putting the ladder down behind him."

I guess I don't get it.... I know he's handing out 'scholarships" to eligible kids in NC in exchange for working 10 hours of community service per week, but I'd be more interested in finding out if he's addressing the negative impact of "No Child Left Behind" on learning in K-12.

What he seems not to emphasize is that those kids who need scholarships also have to be eligible to get into college. It doesn't do much good to promise scholarships to students who are a) eligible for existing forms of financial aid or b) can't be admitted to college because their grades aren't good enough.

This isn't a just a political issue for most parents of (nearly) college - age students. It's bigger than 'framing'. It's our kids future. It just seems a little disingenious to me.

Maybe he just needs a little more time to make it clear he's not just doing this for his own political shtick.

and they forget the value of it. He refers to the fact that he got a valuable education at a taxpayer funded public school.
He's pointing out the fact that he had help getting to where he is just as we need to help others now.
He's talking about helping each other get educated, and make sure that people have child care, health care, etc......

His College for Everyone program is providing free tuition for Green County graduates to go to their first year of college. He partnered with College Summit to provide mentoring with applications and preparation. College for Everyone was what he talked about in his presidential campaign.

Sorry, thisis a right wing trick; to repeat something posted up somewhere with no documentation until it becomes true, because you want it to be. This blog quotes aanother famously innacurate blog for it's source, who ultimately quotes someone anonymously.

I've never heard of Ostrow, and his flackitutude is almost spilling off the page.

Until he says differently, I'll take Al at his word,
"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again"

This comment is the one cited as "leaving the door open" in the post?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/archive/october2005.htm

And I think people are making too much of the quote that he doesn't plan on running right now. That's what they all say (remember Dubya in 1998?). If I were to guess, Gore's going to run in 2008, but we will just have to wait and see.

On edit: Gore also said, "I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," during that Sweden speech.

to have been transformed, to have learned his lesson about the DLC and corporatism, NAFTA etc. He was the original DLCer I seem to recall.

i hope he runs, even just for the ridicule value. talk about a way to get the issue of clean elections at the forefront. go al.

Teased us with false good news that never materialized.
NEVER AGAIN!
I drafted Clark - him I trust.

He will do what is necessary to clean up the nightmare mess and hvoc from our 8-year national nightmare.

That is, if too many people are anticipating it-including the GOp, they'll have too much crap prepared for him that it would just fire up the right too much...

Who knows though? These indictments and 2006 might make the right look so bad ANY Democratic presidential candidate would be able to win...

Well, hell, I could back FDR to run for president again, but that doesn't mean he'll rise from the grave and do it.

That should read that his backers HOPE he runs.

(P.S. I'm a Tennessean Gal, too. ;) )

Gore/Clark in '08.

I'll support him all the way, but he definitely needs new advisors. He needs people who will wage a 50 state campaign.

He is one of the few politicians to have gone after the media, opposed the war, and call for a universal health care system. If he runs he would have a lot of support.

I don't see what the big deal is. He won in 2000 anyway, even while running an inept campaign (now, THAT would have to change). There's no denying the man is brilliant, that he cares, that he has ideas and that he knows who can make things happen. I LOVE listening to his speeches. Like the Big Dog, he inspires. I think Gore would easily be the best President of the 21st Century (not that there's that much competition so far).

All I know is that if there were a President Gore (finally) in the Oval Office, I would probably have the first full night of sleep I've had in years. When Clinton was President, I used to SPEED home to listen to him speak. I know I would do the same with Gore. For ONCE in YEARS, it would be great to know that someone with a freakin' brain is in charge.

I am with you.

as long as I could be assurred that he is not in any way connected to the elite..........

Bama

Faster please! ;-) :bounce:

a LOT of work to do.

I'm in no way even close to beginning to maybe decide to even think about who the Democratic nominee in '08 is.

Even if we have to treat his campaign like a shotgun wedding. He's gonna run and that is final damn it!!!

or...Hillary/Clark also.

Clark can NOT be at the top of the ticket. He has never
been elected to any office, and has less than 1/100th
political experience on the stump as Gore and much less
than Hillary who is very good on the stump.