When all the smoke clears...... Gore?

If that happens, the convention could turn to a compromise candidate. Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party. After all, he already won the popular vote for the presidency. It was only because of a fluke at the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel. No one could deny that he's ready on day one to assume the presidency. "It's the rational choice if this turns into a goddamn mess, which it could," says the Clinton adviser, who doesn't want to be quoted seeming to waver about Clinton's chances of securing the nomination.

Gore has kept his silence throughout the Democratic nominating season. But his name will surely surface as his party ponders the possibility that they will not have a nominee by the time the convention rolls around—especially since John McCain enjoys a huge head start in launching his general-election campaign. We have the Ted Kennedy forces to thank for the freedom of choice that all delegates enjoy, not just the supers. In 1980, Kennedy argued for an open convention, while President Carter was determined to keep convention delegates bound. With a 600-delegate margin over Kennedy, Carter prevailed. As a result, any delegate voting against the candidate he or she was elected to represent could be replaced by an alternate and thrown off the convention floor. The rule was strict and enforceable. Kennedy couldn't dislodge any of the Carter delegates. Two years later, after Carter lost the election, the phrase "in all good conscience" was inserted into the rule, belatedly giving delegates the latitude Kennedy had sought.

What does that phrase mean? In the eyes of the Clintonites, it holds the promise of some room to maneuver en route to the nomination. By the time August rolls around, if public opinion polls show John McCain beating Obama by 15 points, then what does a delegate or a superdelegate "in all good conscience" do? This week's general-election matchups with John McCain have Obama up by 12 points and Clinton up by 6, but that could change with Clinton pounding away at Obama's inexperience on national security. She's shameless, telling a military audience this week that she and McCain bring a lifetime of experience to the job of commander in chief, while all Obama brings is a speech. An unbloodied Obama fares better against McCain, but where will he be after Clinton is through with him?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119851

I'd rather keep my fingers crossed for Gore!!!

on history and party rules, you would know this isn't "fantasyland". Please, get real.

Why would he choose to get back into the scummiest of rat races? :shrug:

Because he cares about the party, the country and the earth. There is a big difference between declaring your candidacy and agreeing to a draft.

Can't blame him.

Were it even a possibility, I'd be more optimistic about this country's future. I'm not sure that Mr. Gore wants anything to do with fixing the problems. He's not an egomaniac like the current crop of candidates. Were he to become President, he would be, heaven forbid, someone who actually cared about the people and the constitution.

The forces against him ever being given a floor are too great. Both Obama & Clinton are too controlling to ever entertain his entrance as even a compromise. They crave the Throne and Power far too much. And the party leaders, do not appear interested in Mr. Gore. So far as they're concerned, he's the past, and Obama is the future.

But at this point, since I'm not excited about either candidate, I still hold a tiny candle, on the chance a fractured convention might lead, somehow, someway, to a call on Mr. Gore, to be the Democratic party candidate in November.

My thinking is this. He already ran a campaign. He already Won the election. Should he be required to actually run again, for something which should have been his 7 years ago?

:hi:

Welcome "Back" To DU.

Hoping to stick to the safer subjects, and those I'm well versed in, like the future economic collapse of our economy.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:hi:

Yes, I hope this happens, and Gore is the nominee, maybe GORE/OBAMA 2008?

he no longer loved politics. Who could blame him??

And of course, it's a possibility -not probable, but it could happen (and things like this have happened before).

We can dream, can't we? Now days dreams are about the only thing that keeps me going!

I wish more people knew enough about party mechanics to know this IS possible.

I guess we will see.

But this will be decided on the first ballot.

that would be the only way I can think of that would "clear the field" for a Gore run

Yes, if it goes to a second ballot, Gore is very likely going to be on it. These two candidates we have now are doing a pretty awesome job bloodying each other. Clinton especially. We may very welcome someone to step into the fray in August.

And it wasn't any "fluke" that robbed him of the presidency. It was a blatant unconstitutional action perpetrated by a biased judiciary. Not a fluke. A bloody crime.

Amazingly, I have a very Liberal neighbor who is the News director for a local NPR affiliate.I've related to her, and her reporters (now also friends of mine) my own personal experience with the election theft of 2000. I let them know that there were many eyewitnesses who saw the same things I did that day, that signed affidavits , and that Greg Palast is the ONLY reporter who ever listened to me and covered our story. Since it's a local (Florida) story I thought that they would want to cover it. But NO, no interest at all! They thought it was shocking and sickening, and they claimed to have never heard about the police tactics used that day-but no interest in bringing the story to the people. I'm not sure if that's because the station manager is a Right Winger, or if they just thought it was too controversial. They know me and they trust me, so I'm flummoxed. I suspect that the Newsweek staff is no different, but to call it a "FLUKE" is a real slap in the face and a gross mis-characterization!

If they were to cover this story, they would lose their jobs and no other news agency would hire them. It's a difficult time to be a journalist with integrity. I bet we will hear some horrible stories about it if we ever get our country back.

Practically everybody in the public now knows the 2000 election was stolen. It took time, but the facts got out there.

No, Gore will not be the nominee.

Idiots here will still be speculating about this on November 2nd. It was stupid 3 months ago, it's stupid today, it'll be stupid tomorrow.

Ah, to have my 2000 vote finally counted!

:)

Although I do not believe our country can wait much longer.

Thanks for the link. :kick:

I'm sick of this shit.

You trying to whip up false hopes? Aren't you a Lounge Lizard on DU? Why come out and post this stuff?

But...IMHO...I've been waiting for "Neo-Gore" since 2000...and that's why I stayed here...but I did give up...and I only stay here...because I'm a Populist/Progressive.. :shrug: