Jeez, I bet most Dems and repukes would be estatic if he ran in '08'! I know I would be.
That little record sell out in red state Idaho sure helped!
He certainly knows what he did wrong and can correct it.
I'm sure he would garner the needed 65% of the vote to win this time around.
He would totally be my choice! I've always liked him, and think he would make an outstanding president.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 25, 2007 05:06 PMGore/Edwards 2008!
To answer the question, yes, I'm waiting to see if Gore will jump in. I prefer Edwards to the other current options but the only one I'd work for in the primary is Gore. (FWIW, I did phone banking for Kerry so I do know how to gut it out for the team.)
Posted by truffula at January 25, 2007 05:21 PMIn the Catholic tradition of moral theology, restitution for theft demands the restoration of the thing stolen, and not a substitute, to the person from whom it was stolen, not a surrogate.
GORE IN '08 -- DEUS VULT
Posted by Davis X. Machina at January 25, 2007 05:54 PMMy current belief is that Al Gore will not run and, if he does, Democrats will not unite behind him to take the White House in 2008. It just makes too much sense.
Posted by James E. Powell at January 25, 2007 05:58 PMMaybe my attitude is destructive, I don't know, but I'm a card-carrying member of the "waiting for Al" contingent. No other candidate is getting a dime from me, or so much as a second look, until Al Gore definitively states that he's not running. I like Richardson, Edwards and Obama, but I don't have a second choice candidate at this point, only a first choice. With any luck, he'll announce within a few weeks of winning his Oscar.
Posted by buddhistMonkey at January 25, 2007 06:03 PMGore/Edwards in '08!
The more I hear it, the more I like it. :)
Posted by herbal tee at January 25, 2007 06:40 PMI'm happily Waiting for Gorot.....
Posted by euzoius at January 25, 2007 06:41 PMIf certain states such as California, Illinois, Florida, and Jersey schedule their primaries in early spring, like New Hampshire is, Gore sure won't wait until late '07.
Posted by TruthProbe at January 25, 2007 06:51 PMIf Gore were to throw his hat in the ring I'd actively support his campaign.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2007 07:03 PMUnlike you Steve, I'm less than impressed with most of the current candidates. Indeed, I only consider one qualified. But none compare with what Gore brings to the table. I'm waiting...hoping and waiting.
But what if he ran?
He, Al Gore, would win.
GORE/OBAMA 2008
Me. I wanted him to run for 2004.
Posted by fightingdem at January 25, 2007 07:16 PMGore/Edwards (or Gore/Obama would also be good).
Pulllleeeeese!!!
Posted by jra at January 25, 2007 07:20 PMOh, Gore/Dean in 2008!
Posted by fightingdem at January 25, 2007 07:20 PMHere's my dream ticket...
Al Gore and Bob Graham. Two eminently qualified statesmen who have been right on every big issue of our time.
Posted by Heimyankel at January 25, 2007 07:34 PM
GORE/KUCINICH 2008
I truly believe that Gore would make a great president, and, after the past 6 years, a great president is maybe our only hope. I'd support Al Gore without reservation and enthusiastically and, like the commenter above, will wait until Gore definitively states he will not run before I decide to support any other democratic candidate.
GORE/EDWARDS!
Posted by Elmo_Buzz at January 25, 2007 07:48 PMAbsolutely waiting for Gore. He gets the enormity of the problems the entire world will face in the decades to come.
Posted by Reed Richards at January 25, 2007 08:23 PMThere's no doubt that Al Gore would win if he runs, because he's been in the wilderness since his victory was stolen by a shameful Supreme Court, and he's been tested in the flames of success and rejection, and success again.
He's put aside the petty horserace beauty contest "Road to the White House" bullshit, to work to make the world a better place. He's been liberated by the lies and smears, the superating sore of the DC punditry, and become a man comfortable in his own skin.
He may not run, but he still may serve, because it would be the only way to lift our ship of state from the rocks and shoals of the perversions of the GOP and the Neo-Cons and the Corporations, and steer us towards the welcoming drydock of the US Constitution and the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention.
As for the rest of the candidates and would be candidates, Sen. Edwards, Gov. Richardson and maybe Gen. Clark are the only ones worth a damn, and I would happily support them now and in the future, until such time as Vice President Gore entered the contest, then it's all Al all the time.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 25, 2007 09:31 PM110 percent for gore.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 25, 2007 09:56 PMAl Gore would be the best choice. I agree.
Posted by Copeland at January 25, 2007 10:42 PMLet's hope he (or any Demo) gets 65% of the votera: he (they) will need that many to get 51% of the votes. Having stolen two elections, the repugs aren't going to sit on their laurels. Look for worse than FL 2000 and OH 2004 next time around.
Posted by Brian Boru at January 25, 2007 10:47 PMHe did win, he just wasn't permitted to take office.
Don't let them define the debate or co-opt the language.
Yes, yes, I like Gore also. I'm so excited!
And, and, we could see if Lieberman could be persuaded to run as VP to bring the order of the dragging knuckles to the round table.
And I understand Donna Brazile is just bubbling over with fresh campaign ideas! Let's sign her!
BS aside, I would have no problem voting for Al.
Let's face it, had he not made any one of these 3 fatal decisions, he would still be in the White House.(Lieberloser, Brazile, and shunning Clinton)
reelect al gore!!
Posted by dennis at January 26, 2007 02:12 AMMr. "I used to be the next president of the United States of America" needs to end the speculation.
I go with Gore easily...He's a proven winner, having already won the office once. Hopefully we can keep "get over it already" Scalia's grimy fat fingers out of it this time.
Posted by emal at January 26, 2007 05:33 AMGore/Edwards in '08!
The more I hear it, the more I like it. :)
Posted by herbal tee at January 25, 2007 06:40 PM
*****
Gore/Edwards 2000 was almost the ticket.
Should have been. Lieberman? FUCK. Was that Donna Shithead's idea?
Posted by God Of War at January 26, 2007 06:00 AMGoW made my point for me - Gore was ready in 2000, except he had a legacy network of Beltway and establishment advisers directing him every which way on the map. The Edwards-Lieberman decision is indicative of the problems Al Gore had in the campaign. Without foreknowledge of the future, & Gore's campaign continuing a version of Clinton triangulation, Gore did not look like the President I wanted. I sucked up and voted for him that day because of Iowa's cast role as a "swing state", but I wasn't happy at all about it. I voted more against Bush than I voted for Gore. And because of my ambivalence, I sure as hell didn't work for him or for Nader, despite my sympathy for what Nader was saying. No one convinced me they had a grasp for solving the problems.
All that has now changed - I'd work and vote for him in a heartbeat conditionally as long as he sounds like he can change the status quo and bring in people equally committed to change.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 26, 2007 06:52 AMI have always liked Mr Gore, even as far back as 1988.
How about a Gore/Webb ticket although I could be persuaded on a Gore/Edwards ticket...
Posted by John B. at January 26, 2007 07:15 AMOne more thing:
The Iowa Democratic Party, at this time, has NO deadline to 'file' prior to the caucuses in 2008. In theory, the caucus is purely representational of of people's unmanaged support of a particular candidate. Of course, it doesn't really work that way. In theory, Gore could wait until the day of the caucus and throw in at noon or that morning. Realistically, I would expect Gore to announce on or around December 17, 2007 in order to get enough boots on the ground and have maximum impact.
New Hampshire has some constraints as well, but a month's advance shouldn't deter a candidate's full pariticpation in their primary.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 26, 2007 07:35 AMGORE/EDWARDS works for me. What a dream come true!
Posted by itsmecissy at January 26, 2007 07:44 AMI think the time spent pining for Gore is silly.
I believe him that he isn't running. I think it's time to move on.
Posted by ann at January 26, 2007 09:09 AMGore! Gore! Gore!
Posted by Brian Bell at January 26, 2007 11:07 AMI can imagine a better candidate -- one with no ties whatsoever with the DLC -- but I know of no existing candidate I would prefer. Unfortunately I also agree with Bob Somerby that the press would shellac him all over again. Solve that annoyance and he's in.
--ml
I'd be crazy happy if Gore ran. If he can keep his non-politician personality in the campaign, he would clean up. He's got the highground on just about every issue that clinton, obama, or the republicans will have to deal with. Just keep the damn handlers away from him. If it wasn't for those handlers, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now!
Posted by MDL at January 26, 2007 12:26 PMRe-elect Al Gore 2008. I really love the sound of that.
Posted by angel at January 27, 2007 07:36 AMGore hasn't said he's not running. What he has said, though not in so many words, is that it is up to us: He'll run if we make it seem likely.
It's time to get the ground game going.
Posted by Avedon at January 29, 2007 04:12 AMYeah, I'm not thrilled with the choices so far, either. I'd love to see Bill Bradley back in the race, too....
Posted by Ahistoricality at January 29, 2007 11:32 AM