Gore said he would not run. If he does, it's Flip-Flop all over again.
Posted by T2 at October 17, 2005 01:02 PMI would like to see Gore run, but just last week he stated he wasn't interested.
Maybe a write-in campaign could change his mind?
Sure would be nice to have an alternative to Hillary the Hawk and Joe "MBNA" Biden.
Posted by Dartanyon at October 17, 2005 01:02 PMWhy not, we already know that he can outpoll a Bush. One other point on his electability, if Gore turns out to be a two term president then, because of his popular vote victory in 2000, he would join Grover Cleveland and FDR as the only presidents who won the popular vote more than twice.
Posted by rlp at October 17, 2005 01:04 PMif you look closer, you'll see that Gore's statement said 'at this time,' so I would not characterize it as 'never.'
and as for the flip-flop talking point, please--that's just lame.
Posted by David Witt at October 17, 2005 01:07 PMGore/Clark in 2008? It has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? The Democrats will win in 2008 - for a variety of reasons. I would love to see a Real Democrat in the tradition of FDR, Truman, and JFK - someone with a progressive vision for America - like Al Gore - get the nomination. If Gore doesn't run, I think Wes Clark would be the perfect choice in '08!
Posted by leftydem at October 17, 2005 01:23 PMI have no problem with Gore running in 2008 - in fact, he is the logical one - e.g., expertise, experience, smarts, etc. - and if he can demonstate that he now knows how to campaign, he's my man. (I nearly tore out my hair during his 2000 campaign - he phoned it in.)
Posted by DOT at October 17, 2005 01:24 PMGore is a very smart man - well, except for that Lieberman pick, maybe. But I think his time is gone, and he just doesn't have the charisma to capture to appeal to the majority of voters.
Posted by ann at October 17, 2005 01:27 PMAmen Steve! While I agree that Iraq will be the most important issue in 2006 and 2008, Gore is well placed on just about every other issue as well. I cannot think of a candidate save Russ Feingold who even comes close. His environmental credentials are impecible. What other candidate can actually claim that 50+ million voters already support him?
Posted by weinerdog43 at October 17, 2005 01:29 PMIf Gore can campaign like he means it - and the press doen't have a Kool Kidz attack and ignore the passion his puts out - he'd have a chance. No phoning it in. No Lieberman. No wind-surfing.
But I think anyone running as a Democrat is going to have to know how to sprinkle some sugar and alternatively spank some journalist ass in order to compete.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 17, 2005 01:36 PMI don't think we should let ourselves be blinded by a resume. Gore's national security experience is worth as much as toward getting elected as Kerry's: zilch. We need to field a candidate who people will want to see on their TVs for the next four years.
I don't think we need to strategize on how to beat Hillary - when the primaries come, there will be viable alternatives. The background of the alternatives matters not - if Democratic partisans don't want Hillary (and I'm betting they won't), someone else will get more votes.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at October 17, 2005 01:37 PMDemocrats would do well to remember that it was not Kathryn Harris or the Supreme Court who played the biggest roles in giving us eight years of George Bush. It was Ralph Nader, an irrelevant artifact of the 60s with an ego bigger than Texas. Had it not been for him, then Gore would almost certainly have carried Florida and perhaps other states as well. He was not a factor in 2004, but by then it was too late.
If the right is divided over Meirs and other litmus issues, then the smart thing for Democrats to do would be to encourage third party candidacies by the Looney Tune fringe, i.e., Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, etc., etc. Perhaps even offer them a little funding help.
Posted by PrtezelsOne at October 17, 2005 01:52 PMJohn Edwards 2008 or bust.
Posted by thunderhawk at October 17, 2005 01:57 PMGore could campaign on "bringing dignity and honesty back to the white house!"
Posted by Sharon at October 17, 2005 01:57 PMclark/feingold
feingold/clark
Posted by benjoya at October 17, 2005 02:16 PMClinton/Gore.....just kidding. Gore/Clinton, ugh.
Gore/Clark, good. whatevery happened to Howard Dean? Lieberman/Miers..haw.
al gore in 2008....he already won once
Gore/dean would be a great ticket...
Posted by dennis at October 17, 2005 02:20 PMand to all the redstaters: Gore's brain is whiter than Bush's, that's obvious
Posted by Sharon at October 17, 2005 02:21 PMI agree with Ann. His time has passed. I also worry about his ability to project himself as a strong leader. Think back to some of the reasons he did not have more of the votes, and you have the very same reasons today.
Hillary would assure the Democrats a defeat. She comes with too much baggage, and the media would remind people every chance they got, that voting for Hillary would be voting for Clinton again.
One thing we have learned, I hope, is that the candidate must be strong enough to immediately attack anyone who trys to distort their record or destroy them with lies. Also, as much as I hate what I am about to write, they must have the power of charisma, and Gore nor Hillary have that power.
Posted by Judith at October 17, 2005 02:22 PMOops, I got that backwards, sorry, Bush's is mighty white
Posted by Sharon at October 17, 2005 02:23 PMA Clilnton/Edwards (or Edwards/Clinton) ticket would stand the best chance against the Republicans. I like Gore, but unless he reinvents himself somehow, the public won't be enthusiastic about him.
Posted by at October 17, 2005 02:24 PMOn second thought, Gore/Dean could be a winner, but not because of Gore, but because of Dean.
Posted by Judith at October 17, 2005 02:25 PMThe Democrats have several great candidates - Gore, Clinton, Clark, Edwards to name a few. Hopefully they won't kill each other off in the primaries. And don't count out John Kerry.
Posted by Cookie Monster at October 17, 2005 02:28 PMI could get behind a Gore Candidacy, but only if it is with someone with national security background a point CA Pol Junkie astutely makes...how bout Wes Clark? Gore/Clark...Clark/Gore....although Edwards did grow on me and I could do the Clark/Edwards Edwards/Clark
I'm still not a Hilary supporter, but if she is the nominee against say a hack like McCain or Jeb I guess I could hold my nose and vote for her. I still hope we steer clear of Hilary...but that's just my opinion.
Posted by at October 17, 2005 02:30 PMEdwards for me, too.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 17, 2005 02:32 PMIt does not matter who is Democratic candidate if Democrats have no clear cut message to the voters. There should be a contract with America as follows:
1) Will get out of Iraq
2) Will emphasize development of alternate energy sources
3) Will develop program for affordable health care system
4) Will repeal the Taxcuts for rich and invest in infrsture work generating jobs within the country
5) Fight terrorism intelliginatly not just by brute force as in Iraq
6) Emohasize higher education to avoid losing technical edge in the world
From where I sit, Gore is the best we've got for 2008 from the "known" contenders.
Russ Feingold or Bill Richardson would make good candiadates. Feingold shoots himself in the foot with executive deference, but by next year that will have faded some.
It could...be...anybody. Dean was no one and took the field early, simply because no one else at the helm of the party stepped up.
Any Democrat who steps up now--I mean gets relentless--will be President in 1,000 days.
I don't get it. The brass ring is right there, yet no one grabs it. Don't tell me Hillary raising 70 million bones is grabbing the ring. Far from it--she's precisely why we continue to lose.
Man, it's right there, just for the taking. Surely an American political ego will step up to that.
Posted by paradox at October 17, 2005 03:01 PMSuresh, one more plank, and it's a biggie...To reject cronyism and appoint to key public office competent individuals with appropriate and demonstrable experience in areas over which they will have managerial control, especially those areas with responsibility for public health, safety and security.
Posted by PretzelsOne at October 17, 2005 03:10 PMI agree that Hillary can't win. She just raises the hackles of the right wing and they would be immorally relentless in trying to bring her down. Yet, having met her once, she is fiercely intelligent, and would make a great president. Damn shame.
Posted by Cookie Monster at October 17, 2005 03:10 PMEdwards...wire to wire...although I believe Homer Simpson could smoke the other side by '08!
Posted by Goyo at October 17, 2005 03:29 PMThe longer Iraq drags on the more the "Draft Gore" movement will grow. He was the only major Democrat to have the guts to call Bunnypants on the Iraq fiasco from the git-go. Either I get Gore, Feingold or Dean in 2008, or I vote Green. I'll take Hillary as VP, but no way as the Presidential nominee.
Posted by roamer at October 17, 2005 03:32 PMI'll never, ever compromise my principles again by voting for an Iraq war voter. Never.
I won't vote Green, either, fuck you, Ralph. Guess I'll just toss a vote to the wind to some fringe candidate if I have to.
Posted by paradox at October 17, 2005 03:37 PMEdwards/Obama, if Edwards just keeps that thumb down. Need to groom Obama for the Presidency. Clark would make a great Secretary of State or Defense.
Posted by bbtb at October 17, 2005 03:49 PMThe longer Iraq drags on the more the "Draft Gore" movement will grow. He was the only major Democrat to have the guts to call Bunnypants on the Iraq fiasco from the git-go.
I don't have a requirement--though I do have a strong preference--that a candidate have opposed the war from the beginning. But in 2008, I absolutely can't support a candidate who won't admit it was a mistake. And I mean soon. Lots of people make mistakes, and especially when lied to. Only fucking idiots refuse to learn from those mistakes after years of dire consequences.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 17, 2005 03:53 PMGore is the best candidate for 2008. Other than good friends in the chattering class he is overqualified for the position. But given the chattering class selection of Bush, they have no credibility anymore.
Problem is that he knows how American really works, and has no interest in supporting the mistakes of the power base (We mean the actually power base that crosses both parties), unlike Hillary who has made the laps to the various major groups and re-assured them. Other than the people of the US, Gore has no support base, ie lobbying/money/power base. A serious Gore candidacy means challenging these things out in broad daylight, and that's a lot of downside for a candidate that is pretty happy in his current life.
We want Gore as President. Gore deserves the job. After this current 5 year fiasco, its long past time the country was run by the people's choice, but the question remains will the power structure permit a people's candidate to hold office in this modern America?
Edwards/Obama
It's way too early for Obama. I thought it was too early for Edwards in 2004 - I wish he'd stayed in the senate until 2008 - I think it's going to be hard to run him again, especially with his new Wall St consulting job, although his work with the Poverty Center helps him. But I don't want to see them pull Obama up too early and see him end up in the same situation.
Posted by ann at October 17, 2005 04:49 PMSuresh, and repeal the Bankruptcy Bill and the Patriot Act (at least as it reads now).
Posted by Judith at October 17, 2005 05:24 PM"...only major Democrat who is positioned to run against Hillary as both electable..."
Electable?
Bring it on!
Posted by Bagley at October 17, 2005 05:42 PMElectable?
Bring it on!
The way things are going right now,the Democrats could win in 2008 with a Homer Simpson/Fred Flintstone ticket.
Argus,
While many people are not happy with the Bush administration, they are not ready -- in this dangerous time -- to elect a Democrat President, Senate, or House.
Posted by Bagley at October 17, 2005 06:10 PMI'd vote for Gore and anyone other than Lieberman.
I'd vote for a ticket with Clinton in the VP spot.
I think the eventual ticket that gets the nomination is going to have at least one member that no one is currently even close to considering.
No, I don't know who that person is. Just a hunch.
It should be interesting.
Posted by muckcat at October 17, 2005 06:29 PMBagley,
I guess we'll get an idea next year, don't be surprized to discover that your suddenly in the minority.
Posted by argus at October 17, 2005 06:33 PM"In this dangerous time"? Created by the WORST PRE$IDENT EVER!!!!
Democrats will take back both Houses in 06, and the Presidency back in 08. Finally, we the people, will tell the politicians to start working for the working class, again!!!
The way things are going right now,the Democrats could win in 2008 with a Homer Simpson/Fred Flintstone ticket.
Well, Homer's only fifteen years old, so he doesn't qualify. But Fred strikes me as a good choice; as a caveman, perhaps he would have the "stones" to "rock" the boat of the corrupt Washingstone establishment.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 17, 2005 06:48 PMWell, Homer's only fifteen years old, so he doesn't qualify. But Fred strikes me as a good choice; as a caveman, perhaps he would have the "stones" to "rock" the boat of the corrupt Washingstone establishment.
Yes!!! Yabba dabba doooooo!!!
Posted by at October 17, 2005 06:51 PM""In this dangerous time"? Created by the WORST PRE$IDENT EVER!!!!"
Yes, I am sure thatthe Islamicists waited until PresidentBush was elected before bringing down the Trade Center.
Oops, the first attack was in '93. And then there was the Cole. And let us not forget about the Embassy bombings.
"... the working class...."
Now that is a phrase that will win Democrats back the House, Senate, and Presidency.
Good luck! (It did not work for the Soviets.(
Posted by Bagley at October 17, 2005 07:43 PMI realize that I live in weird Portland, Oregon, but Gore spoke here recently about global warming and so many people showed up they were agreed to put on a second show.
Posted by DeAnna at October 17, 2005 08:27 PMBagley, please provide a link or proof for your statement that many people are not ready to elect a Democrat president in these dangerous times, or a Democratic House or Senate.
If this is your opinion, fine. But if you are stating it as a fact, then back it up.
Thanks.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 17, 2005 08:47 PM... I am sure thatthe Islamicists waited until PresidentBush was elected before bringing down the Trade Center.Posted by Bagley
One cannot deny that Bush did nothing to prevent the attacks despite being warned by people with their "hair on fire" that a major terror attack was being planned. Bush did nothing despite being warned by Bill Clinton that bin Laden and terrorism should be his major concern. Bush did nothing despite being presented with a daily briefing titled, "bin Laden determined to strike in the US."
In fact, as the terror attacks were occuring, Bush did nothing but sit in a classroom for a photo-op for 20 minutes, then he ran and hid like a scared rabbit. Yup, Bush is a great hero, a great hero to bin Laden and Stalinists like you.
al gore grew up in politics...served in the house..senate..served 8 yrs as vp...and was elected president..slogan could rightfully be reelect al gore...he came out for dean as the only serious candidate against this illegal war..his stance on the environment will help him tremendously given recent events and people will feel that a huge mistake was made by the supreme court electing that fraud...al gore is a good and decent man..and he is not a liar as they portrayed him..he can fight them on that through experience...hillary..edwards..kerry..all the lot..should have by now come out with a call to end this war....Gore/Dean
Posted by dennis at October 18, 2005 03:44 AMbagley is nothing but a typical criminal party coward..you won't get any links from him...
Posted by headxray at October 18, 2005 07:55 AMI was going for young blood, a political climate change with my selection of Edwards/Obama.
I can't support a Gore/Dean ticket.
I could go with Gore/Clark. We will probably still be in Iraq in 08, so with 2 veterans running that can't be swift boated (or at least they won't sit idle while they are swift boated). Boosting Veterans Benefits and processing claims faster will appeal to the younger veterans.
Gore/Clark can't be accused of being chickenhawks.
Let me just add, "Anybody but a Republican"!!
Posted by bbtb at October 18, 2005 08:03 AMGore/Clark can't be accused of being chickenhawks.
neither can dean. you have to be a hawk to be a chickenhawk
Posted by benjoya at October 18, 2005 08:10 AMbenjoya, Point taken...but Dean is not a Military Veteran.
If not new young blood...I feel for the next Presidential election you need to have Military experience to sway the core of moderate conservatives. A lot of those ex-military who have seen this admini$tration screw the pooch big time!
The only people who want Hillary to run are those of FAUX NOOZE & Bush$Co. The mere mention of her fires up the base into the voting booth.
Yeah - I'd take Gore.
I'd take Clark too. Maybe Feingold. For sure Dean.
Maybe Edwards - but his message has got to diversify away from poverty.
Posted by old crone at October 18, 2005 09:37 AMMaybe Edwards - but his message has got to diversify away from poverty.
With Bu$hco economic policies in place, there may not be anything else to talk about by 2008.
Posted by rlp at October 18, 2005 10:53 AM