Gore's the perfect 2008 candidate. He would annihilate any Repuke challenger

So many...so many realize that they fucked up the first time and would now vote for Al in a nano second. Name one challenger that would beat him? McCain--- Please!

Now that is what a President looks like

the election system. I want to hear that we'll have people in every polling place watching with lawyers and cops on hand.

after that nothing matters.

http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

VoteTrust

BradBlog

Hmm..."I told you so" may not the best message.

True. But probably not the best way to win people over. ;)

He is as green as Dem leaders get, and I think people are going to eventually wake up to the reality of a dying planet.

From the angle of lowest common denominator . . . I think the most simple-minded Repuke might be able to grasp the idea that Gore is a link to better, MUCH better times.

but they tell us a lot. Gore is a nostolgic link to the good old days.

In 2004, some of the poisoned media would still be primed to go after him, but in 2008.... He is clearly the "new way" and once again, an outsider.

I will work for his campaign full time - I am retired and have enough money that I do not need an income - if we are lucky enough to have him be willing to continue his lifetime of service.

really a problem re global warming.

He is a symbol of the Clinton competence which is looking pretty good right now.

He was correct on Iraq when it was difficult so that is a big plus.

I hope he runs.

edit to add -

I also like the fact that he has been out of the political rat race for a little while.

I think it has given him a wider perspective and a freedom most politicians just don't have when you have been inside the isolated nature of political office for quite a few years. It has benefited him well IMO.

:evilgrin: I'll vote for Gore/Kucinich.

I :loveya: Kucinich.

he's less than telegenic. Plus it's too much lefty for the general public.

:applause: :yourock: GMTA !!! :applause: :yourock:

Gore/Feingold = :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug:

Gore/Kucinich....I'll have pleasant dreams tonight with that thought in mind.

Seriously - Schweitzer is all about energy independence and new technology. He neutralizes the gun question. They'd be amazing together.

Throughout the Bush-insanity. Because he seems like he's taken the worst they could dish out, and still comes out swinging. Because he already won ONE national election, and because he seems so angry he could spit nails, I WOULD SUPPORT AL.

:kick:

but it would be nice if he would at least consider it.

IT'S THE ECONOMY AGAIN, STUPID!

...read "Gore2K: For Earth's Sake." I'd be happy to touch it up a little for 2K8.

Now how do we get him to run?

Birthday and he looked like the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ME with TIPPER at his side! I did a fairly good head count in the DAR Convention Hall that day and a good guess is about 9,000-10,000 were in attendance.

He did indeed look presidential.

Yeah, yeah, I know.

He'll lose again. He's had his chance, and so has Kerry. Hillary would, if anything, be even worse as a candidate.

Wes Clark is the man we need to beat the Repukes.

4 years while Gore was in the White House. Winning is getting there, not getting the most number of popular votes. he didn't have the votes in the Electoral College. Sorry. In this reality he lost. Maybe unfairly, unjustly, and illegitimately, but the history books will record President Bush, not President Gore.

must win. And he didn't win shit.

"shit".

But he'sin the white House. This is reality. Not pleasant reality, but reality. It needs to be dealt with, not ignored.

SCOTUS decision every day.

How so? Bush is in the WH. Winning the popular vote is not the way we do things in the USA.

Bush, if you recall, was ahead in the original count. Bush was ahead after the recount. Gore had to go to court. If he had not, Bush would be President. So he did. Bush knew that he would do this, therefore he also went to court.

Decisions went back and forth, but in the end, the Supreme Court said "enough". The decision did not go the way that I wanted, or that you wanted, but when you go to court, you take a chance. After all, the courts aren't really about justice but about the law. The system is set up to end disputes, not rancor or pain.

So we were stuck with 4, count 'em 4 years of Bush as President. Then there was another election. For whatever reasons our leadership was not able to solve the problems, be they election fraud, or failing to appeal to enough people, or more likely, both.

So we got another 4, count 'em 4, years of Bush.

And instead of trying to figure out how to win in 2008, and spare us another 4, count 'em 4, years of neocon misrule, we keep trying to replay 2000??

OK, if that works for you. But it doesn't work for me. I think we should keep changing the playbook until we find the way.

However, good luck to you and Al Gore, if he chooses to run. Rest assured that if he wins the Democratic nomination, I will give him the same support in the general election that I would to my own favorite Democratic candidate, and the one I'm putting a plug in for right here, Clark.

:)

to court first, hence Bush v. Gore, instead of Gore v. Bush.

I seem to remember accusations by Republicans that Gore WOULD go to court first, but that in the end Bush was the one who made that move.

if Gore had not gone to court, Bush would have won. Bush was trying, in my understanding, to minimize any effects Gore's court case would have. It would have been moot if Gore had not filed his own court case.

But Gore would not have been President if he had not gone to court. As it turns out, he wasn't President, anyway, but he had to go to court because Bush was ahead in the count, and stayed ahead after the recount had been conducted.

Is this right or wrong? Am I missing something here? Is this hard to understand? Gore had to go to court to win. If he had not, he would have lost. Unfortunately, Bush knew that, too, and filed his own lawsuit. It doesn't matter that it was filed first. Until Gore filed, nothing would change, Bush would win.

This, by the way, is not meant to say Bush didn't steal the election. That is another subject, entirely. I'm sure there was considerable election fraud.

I strongly suggest you rent the documentary "Unprecedented." It clearly spells out how the state GOP, with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris at the helm, STOLE the Florida vote from President Gore! If those thugs had not purged the rolls of something like 50,000 black votes through underhanded, sneaky means, Gore would have had the electoral votes, as well. Please educate yourself before making erroneous statements as presented by the corporate-owned media. Gore did NOT lose. The election was STOLEN from him.

I am totally aware of all, ALL, your arguments.

From a practical point of view, they are irrelevant, regardless of their moral significance. There isn't an office of "Shoulda Been President" with any political power.

Bush got in. Gore lost. As did the Democrats and the nation. Even the world. But Gore lost. Unjustly, illegitimately, whatever. But there it is, and if the Democratic Party wants to win in the future, they need to, all right, I'll say it: Move the Hell On.

What do I mean by that? I mean the last 5 years cannot be undone. I mean that there isn't enough time to impeach Bush and all his cronies one by one before his term expires, anyway. That's even assuming that we retake the House. Something that is not a sure thing despite current polls. There is a lot of time for Bush to pull some PR stunt out of thin air, don't you think? Oh, yeah, and to remove him from office we'll need 67 senators. That just ain't gonna happen.

What else to I mean? I mean it's time to stop looking back and look to the future. Each week bring the progressives of the world new reasons to hate Bush. Why concentrate on the 5-year old past? These facts have been known for 5 years, and the American public, hell, even a number of Democratic office holders don't seem to care. So, let's find something they do care about and bash Bush with that.

What else do I mean? There is a goddamn election coming up in 2006. One that must be won. For BOTH parties. The Repukes aren't sitting around moaning about the past like it was an old girl friend that had jilted them. No. They are making plans to WIN. 2006 must be won before 2008 can be seriously considered.

I know I'm being a little dogmatic here, and I apologize. But it seems to me that when it is time to seriously select a nominee, that democracy would be far better served if the selection was done with no lingering desire to correct the past, which can never be corrected in any event, but to create a better future.

I could be wrong, of course, but I really think a Gore candidacy would be a powerful symbol of backward-looking to a large number of the electorate that we would otherwise have in our pocket. It's obvious to me that my view is not widely shared here, and as I said, I could be wrong. But I don't think the average American is as upset that the election was stolen from Mr. Gore as you or I might be. And his candidacy would bring the issue back to the fore. I can see the Swift-boating now.

But if you can get him the nomination, I'll support him the best I can.

the candidacy of the Honorable Al Gore for president in 2008. I was actually very lukewarm about Gore in 2000. I bought into the media hyperbole that he was stilted and stiff and without personality, etc., etc. I voted for him because, like you, I support the Democratic ticket and DEFINITELY did not want Dubya to win.

My support for Mr. Gore today has NOTHING to do with what happened in 2000. YOU said that Gore lost in 2000. We shouldn't go "backwards." I was merely correcting you semantically. Gore did NOT "lose" is 2000. The election was stolen from him. I believe there is a difference.

My support for Gore TODAY has everything to do with the impassioned speech he presented on MLK Day at the DAR Hall. He looked and sounded sane and presidential and addressed just about every single thing that I think is wrong with the direction the lying, cheating, stealing bastards have taken this great country in. He spoke to my fears and concerns and called Bush's domestic spying program what it is: illegal!

Since 2000, I've learned that Mr. Gore is a career politician who comes from a long line of forward-thinking Democrats who have made a difference. I believe Mr. Gore is a man of great moral integrity and high ideals who would have a steady hand on the helm as he worked to steer this vessel away from certain disaster.

Honestly, my heart goes out to ANY Democratic candidate who will be elected to replace the current disaster of an administration. Whoever wins in 2008 will have an ungodly mess to start cleaning up. I wouldn't blame Mr. Gore if chooses not to take on the challenge.

But to presume that my support of Mr. Gore is based on the past, is, well, wrong. While I appreciate your sentiments, they are not based in fact. That said, like you, I will throw my support behind just about anybody who wins the nomination. Personally, I feel pretty strongly it should not be Sen. Clinton. Other than her and Lieberman, I'm willing to take a look at anybody the party puts up. Also like you and your support for Clark, I think Mr. Gore happens to be the best candidate for the job.

Peace,
AL

my assumptions about your support for Gore were wrong. However, they are not wrong for very many people supporting Gore, based on their own words. I didn't bookmark any threads, but explore around a bit on DU and elsewhere, you'll see.

Gore did NOT "lose" is 2000. The election was stolen from him. I believe there is a difference. Maybe morally, but in terms of practical politics, the power is exercised by whoever takes the oath of office and sits in the Oval Office. That's how I define "winning". although I don't recommend cheating or fraud. But then I am not a politician; I can afford to keep my integrity.

So, actually, he won (w/ bigger #'s than sh*t for brains) and he'll win again, just bigger....

And since when do people only get to run once?

Bush is the President, not Gore. So he lost. I wish he had won, too, but the reality is, he lost.

And people can run as often as they want to. Can they win is the question. Gore can't, IMO. Kerry can't, again IMO. And neither can Hillary. But if they run, and if they win the nomination, then, naturally I will support them as I would my favorite candidate, Clark.

Gore did not "lose the election." Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court.

That is a fact.

Look it up.

still President. That's what I define as winning. Words won't change the reality of the thing.

the pResident was installed. No matter what you call it, he was not elected. He did not win fair and square. BIG difference.

was elected. I didn't say he won fair & square. I only said that he won.

Let me ask you a question or two. Who, exactly sleeps in the WH every night? Who can tell the US Marines to come and they come, or to go and they go? Who is surrounded by Secret Service agents 24/7? Who is raining grief on innocent Iraqi families? Who is signing vast tax cuts for the rich?

That would be President Gore, right? :sarcasm:

"Won" is getting there.

Are we going to "win" again in 2008? Let's hope not.

By the way, how does "President Clark" sound to you? He has a much better chance of actually winning than does Gore. At least IMO.

"installed" --and that is why he is there? This is really a semantic debate. I say "won" is for people who got the votes, not people who were "installed" or appointed. The difference matters to me quite a bit. It's just not at all accurate to say he "won" --implying there was a democratic election. He was installed. On the plus side, we have seen what is really going on in this country because of the disastrous and criminal Bush regime. It's an ugly picture of corruption and theft.

Well, I don't dislike Clark but I like Gore better. I think he has what it takes. Psychologically for the country I think it would be a healing thing for the rightful winner to get his chance. He's the most qualified horse in the race IMO. Kerry and Edwards are my next picks. But the Bushites have made such a mess of everything they've touched...I could understand it if Gore just plain doesn't want the mop=up operation. So I'm trying not to get behind any particular candidate at this point. The Dems will come up with a viable candidate. I think this Hillary thing is just a smokescreen. If the Dems do put her up, I will really wonder what insanity has taken hold of the party leadership. She's qualified, no problem, but who wants to live through the relentless, vicious swiftboating of Hillary the Female Antichrist? It's just not what the country needs. Not worth it. I'm counting on Dean to keep the Dems on track for a "win."

I detect that you still believe in the American election system, so that's probably where we differ. I think the system is non-functional--a sad sham. The next election will tell the story. That's the real bottom line, not who the Dem candidate will be.

Because it does matter HOW you "win." More than ever, AB (after Bushco)...it matters HOW you "win."

you said Gore "lost." What we are trying to point out is that Gore did not lose. The election was stolen from him. In fact, Gore did win the popular vote, and if the voters roll purge had not happened, he would have won the electoral vote, as well.

Therefore, if the Honorable Al Gore decides to run in 2008, it will be NOTHING like what happened in 2000. If anything, he will have a stronger, more solid base of support than ever before, and a much more watchful electorate! There is currently a grassroots movement under way to ensure that ALL electronic voting machines have a paper trail by 2008. Now THAT's an issue I can get behind!

All that said, I respect your opinion about Clark. Please, though, do not use the argument Gore lost in 2000, therefore he'll lose in 2008 as a basis for throwing your support behind Mr. Clark. Quite simply, it's not true.

Sincerely,
American liberal

your feelings on the matter.

The fact remains, however, that Gore did not lead us into the White House. to my mind, the reasons are irrelevant. Of course, there are moral distinctions between winning honestly and cheating. However, Gore didn't have what it takes then, and there is no reason to suppose that he has what it takes now. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it's not just stolen elections and fraud. The Democratic Party repeatedly refuses to learn from experience, IMO.

If plan A (Gore) didn't work, try plan B. That didn't work either (Kerry). Time to try plan C. But what has been done to keep the elections honest? What has the D Party done to snatch a few voters who really did vote for Bush back from the Dark Side? Has there been any self-examination by the Ds, or does "election fraud" explain everything?

IMO, such as it is, Clark is the man who can get answers to these questions, and Gore (or Kerry or Hillary) is not. That all being said, if any of the above mentioned, or anyone else, gains the D nomination, they will have the same support from me that Clark would.

But, until the nomination is settled, I'm pulling for Clark and against the above named three. Anyone else, I'm neutral on.

...and the election is stolen, then that candidate "lost."

That's idiotic.

But I'll tell President Gore that you said so.

It's not "logic", it's facts, and of course, how you define winning.

A man had an enemy in Wild West days. The enemy wanted to kill him and planned to challenge him to a showdown. The man bought a gun and went and shot the enemy in the back. Shot him dead. When asked if he didn't feel like a dirty, rotten coward, how could he do such a thing, he replied, "Well, he's dead, and I'm not, and that's the way I wanted it."

So by your "logic", the enemy won?? Sorry, IMO, that's idiotic.

But he did not "win" the election.
If I cheat my way through school I did not earn a degree.
If I steal a loaf of bread, I didn't pay for it.

And a gunfight is not a good metaphor for an election. There is nothing in that metaphor that represents the will of hundreds of millions of voters, which is the point of an election: that the candidate who ascends to power is chosen by the people.

still got the degree, and you still ate the bread.

Look, all I'm trying to say is that Gore is a bad candidate because he carries the burden of that lost election. Sure, he should have been President, but he didn't make it. The Republican base is as convinced that Bush actually won as the Democratic base is that he didn't. Gore would polarize them almost as much as Hillary would. Swift-boating? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Results are what counts. Gore didn't "win", and, IMO he can't win. That's just one reason I support Clark.

metaphors don't have to be exact. I was trying to make an analogy to "win" not "fair fight" or "people's will"

to want to run.

WE have to convince him that we NEED him. Appeal to his civic duty, and he'll do it.

I even convinced some Repukes at work to vote for him if he runs. We were discussing Katrina via email, and when I sent them the links of Gore's rescue operations 3 of them said they would vote for him if he ran.
:bounce:

Sorry, he's never going to shake that "Gore the Bore" meme.

:loveya: I'd be giddy as a 13 year old at her first school dance!! :applause:

They would blatantly ask voters if they regret their vote for *, and tell them why they SHOULD, and then tell them they can make amends by voting for Gore. They are always so wishy washy. Americans do not admire wishy washy.

He spoke on the Patriot Act, and spying on citizens. It was at the DAR Constitution Hall, and he had that hall ROCKING! He was on fire. He speaks like that as a candidate, I can't imagine who WOULDN'T vote for him.

He runs, I'll devote all my free time working for his campaign.

As for VP? As long as it's not Lieberman, it would be Al's choice.

I think the clincher was when I saw his global warming speech. And afterward, one of the people on Linktv mentioned how if he had only talked that way during the election, he'd have won. To which Mr. Hertzgard replied that he had asked Gore that very question, to which Gore replied, HE HAD SPOKEN THAT WAY DURING THE ELECTION. The media just didn't pick up on it. I honestly didn't see him with the fire that he has now. But if he says so, then I believe him. And it makes sense, since an ape "beat" him. And we all know, especially now, that Bush is a complete clown. I can say that without any hesitation.

stole the office from him! :mad:

John McCain's or George Allen's or Rudy Giuliani's or Bill Frist's America, then I want Gore and I want Gore badly.

I worry that an Adlai Stevenson model could be the fly in the ointment with Gore. He's intelligent, capable, visionary, a LOT more civic-minded than Bush, and he almost certainly won the 2000 election.

But even then, he would have won it narrowly.

If he entered the 2008 sweepstakes and got the nomination, would he be able to carry Tennessee this time? How about West Virginia? He gave up on Ohio without contesting it, essentially, even though he only lost it by about 3-4 % points.

I wonder what the convincing evidence is that would say Gore would beat McCain, for instance, when McCain is so popular among swing voters. Even if I hate McCain, the fact stands that he's very electable in 2008.

Al Gore's recent speeches have been fire-in-the-belly and high-ideals-in-the-head -- which is exactly what's needed. If he wound up as the nominee, he'd have my vote, absent choosing Lieberman again as his running mate.

And I think an Al Gore candidacy in the 2008 primaries would effectively end Senator Clinton's campaign for the White House. He'd take her out in both Iowa and New Hampshire, just for starters.

and holding * accountable. I loved his last speech!


P.S. There is NO such thing as a PERFECT candidate. Whoever the nominee is, we need to be prepared to rally around him/her and stay on message,

No candidate is above the smear period.

my vote if he's our guy.

I wouldn't be surprised if the repukes complained after Gore runs for a second term. The pukes would claim he's trying to win a third term.

Gore will have his hands full reversing all the BS anti-environmental crap * and his cronies imposed or tried to impose on this planet. * has set this planet up for auto-destruct.

President Al Gore should be reelected in 2008, only this time he should be allowed to take office!!!!!!!!!!!!! Al Gore, "The People's Champion"! President Gore, "The People's President"!

Gore/Feingold 2008

Gore/Kucinich 2008

Gore/Clark 2008

Gore/Dean 2008

ad infinitum

:)

that is, more or less, how the gop would respond to gore in the general election.

But who the fuck cares what the gop says? Gore would be a great candidate, and a voting public which in 2000 saw very little difference b/w gore and bush would certainly understand the difference in 2008. I think he'd have a great chance to win, and (given his evolution since summer of 2000) have a great chance to be a truly great president in a time of great need for our country.

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

If they wouldn't allow him to run then, why 2008?

I kind of think that the time has come for someone new, with no baggage, that might just appeal to those dosaffected repubs, too, and actually win one for a change.. right now I don't who that is, but maybe somebody will show up

IF gore ran again in 08 I would be there helping out anyway I can....please gore run.!!!!!

Al's my man. I just hope it's not too late.

K&R

and, previously, when he gave passionate speeches for MoveOn, he was labeled as crazy, bitter & angry over "losing" in 2000, etc.

So, I'm guessing they fear him.

a cult figure on the campuses, with his crusadea against Global Warming. Hear, hear!

He's the only one who can lead the Restoration forces to victory. He's the president-in-exile.

Now how do we convince him?

Here's his address (and, no, he doesn't have a public e-mail):

The Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue, Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203

ph 615-327-2227
f 615-327-1323

A bunch of us wrote to him after his powerful speech on MLK Day. Although I got a memo back saying "Mr. Gore does not intend to run in the 2008 election," I think if he had enough grassroots support, he'd do it. And I'm with you, after what I heard from him on MLK Day, nobody could beat him! :loveya:

Remember, he ran a lousy campaign in 2000. Was more concerned about the color of his flannel shirts. Had Donna Brasille (sp?) , a closet Republican and close friend of Karl Rove, running his campaign. He had his chance. Next please.

I've noticed!

you opinion is duly noted

Look who's in the White House.

To say that Gore won the popular vote or that the recount was irregular is a tautology. It's technically true, but it says nothing of substance. The simple fact is that Bush is in the White House and has been there for 5 years and 2 months. But can you say that because of this fact Gore and Kerry are unelectable? I don't think so ... just look at Nixon. Secondly, a day is a lifetime in politics. Never forget that.

Please Run!

He'd kick some major GOPer ASS, AGAIN!

:hi: I love your screen name! :bounce:

McCain would be too busy kissing shrubby's ass to notice Gore THRASHING him at the polls.

Can you say Gore Clark in 08? Frist and his minions wouldn't know what hit them.

or not they can carry their home states. Gore did not carry Tennessee in 2000 and he would not carry it in '08. The same goes for John Edwards/NC.

Kerry and Clinton would carry their home states, but they would not carry Gore’s or Edwards’ states either. As a result, they cannot win.

On the other hand, Mark Warner can carry his home state and would likely break through in NC and/or other southern states too. He can win and I hope he wins the nomination.

I didn't like the part Gore played in F-9-11 -- he should have told them to stick that gavel up their ass

They steal the election and he presides over over those meetings!!