Gore: No plans to run for president again

[sabra]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2005/10/12/gore_no_plans_to_run_for_president_again/

Gore: No plans to run for president again

STOCKHOLM, Sweden --Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again.

"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," said Gore, who lost the 2000 election to President Bush.

...

"I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," he said during a visit to Sweden

[TNOE]

1. Shame

American could really use him about now.

[blm]

6. He probably feels the immediate fix needed for real democracy is the media

and has developed his own plan to make that happen.

I'm not crazy with the pace and would have preferred he concentrate on EXPOSING the corporate media we are battling now first, but, maybe that IS his goal and he has certainly earned the right to hoe that road in a way that is a more comfortable fit for him.

And after what he's been through, who could begrudge him his level of confort?

I salute him....I believe wholeheartedly that he is still fighting for us in ways that will benefit our democracy in the long run.

And he never said he won't ever run again. He has certainly earned any run he makes in the future.

[TNOE]

9. Couldn't agree more

with what you've said here. Al Gore will always have my upmost admiration. The tons of shit this man had to put up with - going against the vile scum (Bush* et al) he was up against - I don't know how he dealt with it and would never blame him for not wanting to go through it again. America will never know - unfortunately - what we lost when he was denied the White House.

[Cha]

10. That would be the intelligent

And street smart thing to do("immediate fix for the media") and I believe Gore has both of those.

I am so proud of my choice for President in 2000 and whom I wanted in 2004 but he decided not to run then, too.

And, I, too, think Gore is right where he belongs, NOW.."exposing the corporate media"..that would be the Biggest Job of all!

[blm]

14. I really feel alot of our Dems are making steps to counter the unholy

alliance of media and the GOP and even the voting machines. It's just not something that can be taken on in public ways that would satisfy people like us emotionally NOW, but may screw up their efforts in the long run.

I'm as impatient as the next person, but I certainly would NEVER choose instant gratification over serious results.

[Cha]

17. Yes, I agree..there will be

no Superman "instant fixes"..it's a long grueling process. At least we're finally started. How long have the repukeheads been working on dismantling the government and filling the airwaves with hate? 40 years?

[blm]

18. 40 years at least.

Thanks for sharing your patriotism here, zidzi.

[Cha]

23. And thank you, blm!

:patriot: :patriot:

[nashville_brook]

68. he'd be more effective as Prez and re-instating fairness doctrine

[drummo]

56. He didn't say he will not run.

He said he has no plans to run.

Which is what he should say at this point of time.

Noone at this point would say "I will run for president".

Have you heard Hillary say that?

[RethugAssKicker]

2. Well, enough said... Give it up folks

[goddess40]

3. "I don't completely rule out some future interest"

Anyone wishing to run in 08 would be a fool to commit now or even strongly hint that they are interested. Why let the republicans and the "liberal" media rip on you longer then need be. I'm sure that Gore would do whatever he felt was in the best interest of the people of this country.

[highplainsdem]

8. I agree.

[oneold1-4u]

27. "in the best interest of the people of this country."

Other than here and on numerous other blogs and forums, there has not been one person willing to even open any doors to truth and stand to hold them open! All the would-be leaders (Gore, Edwards, Kerry and even Dean and others) have let the door slam closed on everyone and not even spoke openly in behalf of the lay voters and fighters like Cindy. Who would follow these people or vote for them when they are no better than what we have today. I truly believe that is what put the last election into a toss-up.
When someone is strong enough to toss the first stone against the form of government we are existing under today, they have a chance and opportunity to lead this nation back to world honor and peace.
I like to consider Jefferson for this job with Teddy Roosevelt and even Elinore R to be party leader. Truman could be there too because he could decide and do! Just tell me that there will never be anyone to fill those shoes and I will never wish to be a registered voter again! America is better than that! Has to be, or we are really in a world of far worse than any hurricane!

[Jai4WKC08]

30. "No one spoke openly in behalf of... fighters like Cindy"?

Wes Clark did. Several times.

From a live WaPo Q&A, and then issued as a WesPAC press release:

I have the deepest sympathy and empathy with Cindy Sheehan. My son served in the Armed Forces and I worried about him every day. And, I carried a burden of guilt about his service, as I am sure most mothers and fathers do. Because, after all, we either encourage them, supported them, or sustained them in making this commitment to their country.

My prayers and condolences are with every family who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, or seen him or her come home forever scarred or crippled. And I thank them for their loved ones' service and for their sacrifice. And I understand the depth of their feelings I believe, because every American trusts our leaders to use our men and women in combat only, only, only as a last resort. And in Iraq, this wasn't the case. And we will probably never learn the full array of motives that lead our nation's leaders to take us to this war. I warned at the time that it was "elective"--we didn't have to do it. There wasn't an eminent threat. So why did we? Cindy Sheehan, every mother and father of our service members, and every American has a right to know.

It was a strategic blunder to go there. Now America sees it in hindsight. But those in power have responsibilities to do the right thing, and when they don't they should be held accountable. Cindy is doing everything she can to hold them accountable. President Bush should talk to her and tell her the truth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

Clark also appeared with Sheehan at a Congressional Black Caucus breakfast, right before the big anti-war march in DC. As a matter of fact, he spoke up for all the marchers, encouraging them to "march with the flag, because this is about the future of America."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0539,fergusonclar,68194,2.html

And Clark defended Sheehan on Fox/O'Reilly Factor (highest rated cable news program, ya know). Not sure how you missed that one. It was discussed on just about all the left-wing blogs and message boards.

Clark said, among other things, "She supported her son serving in the armed forces and I can tell ya’ there’s a lot of people who wear that American flag pin who wouldn't let their children serve in the armed forces so I honor any parent whose son serves in the armed forces - or daughter."

Transcript at:
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/09/24/wesley_clark_stands_his_ground_defends_cindy_sheehan.php
Or watch the video at:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/24.html#a5084

[karynnj]

38. Elizabeth Edwards had a beautifully comment in support of Cindy

Both Kennedy and Kerry also had short statements. Dean had one. I bet there are more - these are the ones I know of off hand - googling for others seems useless as these 4 plus Wes Clark as you posted already make 5.

[drummo]

59. WTF? Cindy is the standard or what? Where was she BEFORE

the war?

What she is doing now is too little too late.

At least Gore did his part to prevent the whole shit.

[drummo]

58. Absolutely. It's beyond me how so many people just dont't get it.

Name someone who said "I will run for president in 2008"?

Nobody with a sane mind would that now. It's just 2005.

The maximum he can do now is to keep the door open.

Once he says "I won't run" it's over. But he never said that.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

96. You're right. Nobody is saying "I'm running for President in 2008"...

at this point. In case no one has noticed, politicians always deny or are ambiguous about future plans. They keep their options open if they are smart.

[ochazuke]

4. good one

best laugh so far today

[robbedvoter]

5. What I won't give up though is the "who lost the 2000 election to bush"

That is the lie that they never tire crying from the rooftops and makes me angry as hell!:nuke:

[fshrink]

39. Twice!

And as long as this will not be brought up and dealt with, this country will remain adrift. Holding by the paint.

[joefree1]

7. I hope he changes his mind

He's got the foresight and the integrity. A little more charisma and he could kick some serious repuke butt.

[Cha]

11. Funny thing about Al Gore

and his "charisma"..I think Democracy is very charismatic but the corporate media played to the rncfascist's painting of Gore as wooden. Too bad it isn't a Liberal media ..we could have gotten * painted into a chimp box..by the mainstream instead of just the intuitive political cartoonists.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

34. Note sure I agree

Gore won the election, but he should have been able to win with a margin that defied manipulation. I was not happy with his campaigning--and I by no means just follow the MSM. Distancing himself from Clinton was idiotic.

There were too many self-inflicted wounds.

[silvermachine]

61. Pink Flag....

...are you saying he was waving one in surrender?

Stay glued to your tv set.....

[Ex Lion Tamer]

77. Another Wire fan?

Nice to meet you. One of my all-time favorite song titles.

[drummo]

62. No it was not. Gore had to distance himself from the immoral liar

if he wanted to win.

Clinton was a loser in 2000.

Read the debate between lando and stardate on this thread:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/25/19349/8314

The evidence is overwhelming. Gore would have lost by a landslide if he had been perceived as "just another Clinton".

[Ex Lion Tamer]

80. Not just another Clinton

I mostly agree with you, but Gore could have done a much better job of pointing out how DAMN GOOD EVERYTHING WAS!

Don't get me wrong: I like Gore, I voted for him, and I think he won the election. But there were many times during the campaign I wanted to scream at him.

[drummo]

109. Things were not that damn good at all

1.The economy started down in March 2000. Most people noticed it even if many Dems pretending that there was no economic slowdown. There was.

2.Most people thought that the country was in poor "moral condition"
That was the direct result of Clinton's BJ and lies about it, which only reinforced the already ragin culture war and put Dems -- including the ultra-moral Al Gore, of all people -- on the defensive.

3.Why should anyone vote for Al Gore just because there was 8 years of peace (itself is questionable) and prosperity? What's the logic in that?

4.What else should Gore have said? He never forgot to say "we created 22 million job, we lowered the crimed rate, we have surplus etc". It was part of his regular stump speech/
The problem was that few people saw any connection between those things and Gore himself. He was just vice president. Veeps do not get credit for the good things but they get the blame for the bad things -- even if they personally were not involved.
Bush Sr was actually blamed more for Iran-Contra than Reagan himself.
As a result he started the campaign against Dukakis down in the polls by double-digit.
Veeps are treated unfairly. Always because they are simultanously perceived as non-executive second bananas and dirty insiders.

[drummo]

60. Fuck charisma! We need sanity in government not some

charismatic clown who can fool the plebs by hugging every stranger on the streets.

[skipos]

86. We need someone who can get elected so

BOTH charisma and sanity would be nice.

[drummo]

110. The two rules out each other.

Clinton was not exactly sane when he did that for two years.

And charisma is never about sanity. It is about emotional manipulation. It's not about convincing people by making them understand what you say. It's about convincing people by making them feel attached to you.
A totally phoney tactic since in reality there is nothing between the speaker and the listener. It's an illusion.
If Hitler was alive he could say a few words about that.

Charisma is NOT a positive quality in policy making jobs. It's for fooling the masses not for making useful decision.

And charisma is a totally subjective term, anyway. I never found Clinton charismatic, he is all the same all the time. But I do find Gore sometimes charismatic. And those are his worst moments, in my view.

[skipos]

124. If charisma

can help get a good person in office (most people think it can) I'd prefer someone who has it.

If there were two Dem candidates with the exact same record, views, ideas, plans, etc and one had charisma (according to most) and the other didn't (according to most), who would you want nominated?

[drummo]

140. good person is not enough. Good decision maker is what's needed

You can find millions of "good persons" on the street who know nothing about governance.

And I doubt that most people think charisma can put anyone to office.
Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Carter, Bush Sr had zero charisma.
Bush Jr has the charisma of a monkey.

And Clinton could do nothing with his charisma to save the Congress
(I'm still relevant -- remember?) or his political skin without the help of a Republican political hack named Dick Morris.
And he wouldn't have ended up in the White House without the economy being in the toilet.

If there were two Dem candidates with the exact same record, views, ideas, plans, etc and one had charisma (according to most) and the other didn't (according to most), who would you want nominated?

1.You will never find two Dems with the exact same record, views, ideas, plans.

2.Record, views, ideas, plans are not enough. Other qualities such as discipline under pressure, high work ethic, foresight, analytical ability, knowledge, morality are just as important in the presidency.

3.Let's say that there are two completely identical candidate except one has charisma the other doesn't have it.
I would not nominate the charismatic one, as I said it's not a good quality. It's a tool to fool the masses. The voters should be urged to judge your decisions based on their merits and not based on some shallow emotional manipulation -- which is what charisma is all about.

Or what was "I feel your pain" all about?

[skipos]

144. You sound like

someone who nominates candidates without considering what Joe Average will think about them in the general election. And I am not saying that as an insult, I'd say you are probably in the majority of Democrats. I agree that discipline under pressure, high work ethic, foresight, analytical ability, knowledge, morality are all important to me, but "likeability" trumps them all in the general election. 50 million people voting for Bush hammers that one home. Does he have any of those qualities you mention? I have heard Bush fans talk about his morality at times, but I don't think anyone could praise his discipline under pressure, high work ethic, foresight, analytical ability and knowledge.

cha·ris·ma
1. A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
2. Personal magnetism or charm.

You obviously think charisma is something negative, I don't. Regardless, I think "likeability" (or something like that) is really what is important in a candidate (amongst the other things you have mentioned). Millions of people like Bush because Republicans have successfully marketed him as a regular ole guy. One of the fellas who pulls brush and speaks in 4 word sentences like the rest of us.

If I had to sum it up, I just want a Dem candidate that can connect with Democrats as well people who aren't devoted Democrats. That can be done in a number of different ways, but it requires a candidate with more than the qualities that you describe. Someone who can connect with people via great speaking skills (Obama), or charisma (Clinton), or being a down to earth, non-politician (Carter) or having a great history (Eisenhower) or just being likeable (Reagan).

[xultar]

12. Thanks Al. You're a stand up guy. Alright GIVE IT UP PEOPLE!

GEEZ!

Al has the sense to recognize his limits. Al should be a voice of reason and leadership for the party but he's parked his car. Respect it.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

35. Nicely put.

[xultar]

48. Thank you! and...

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[drummo]

63. Nonsense. He kept the door open. Would you please read the FULL

article before you jump to conclusion?

Of course he doesn't have plans NOW. In 2005! Hello?

[xultar]

89. So, I gave him too much credit. My mistake.

[drummo]

111. Credit for what? Parking his car?

[Fluffdaddy]

13. Lets hope J. Kerry says the same

[second edition]

41. I don't know why you felt a need to bring Kerry into this post, but

since you did, I have to disagree with you and tell you I hope John Kerry does decide to run again.

[BlueIris]

93. Relax, second edition.

Posters like that rarely have much of value to contribute to serious discussions about '08.

[Fluffdaddy]

97. Because he can NOT win the big one. And please don't play the

"election was stolen from us card". I don't buy Retreads tires and I'm not buying a retread candidate aka Kerry in 08.

[blm]

101. Kerry did't lose to Bush. He won his matchups. DNC organizing lost to RNC

organizing.

Left leaning and objective media got their ASSES kicked from here to eternity by the RW media machine who controlled their message. (It helps to own the corporate media).

Who legitimatized Free Republic and marginalized DU? Corporate media. Does that mean Free Republic did their job better than we did ours last year?

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Sounds like FDR

"The President has never had, and has not today, any desire or purpose to continue in the office of President, to be a candidate for that office, or to be nominated by the Convention for that office. He wishes in all earnestness and sincerity to make it clear that all the delegates to this Convention are free to vote for any candidate. That is the message I bear to you from the President of the United States."

Senator Barkley, just before FDR was drafted at the Dem convention, 1940.

[Uncle Joe]

19. I believe, Al is putting him self in the position to run again.

Draft Al Gore in 2008.

[Yavin4]

16. This Assures Hillary Clinton the Nomination in 2008

The field is now wide open for her.

[Darkhawk32]

21. I believe you're correct. I dare not comment further. n/t

[CTD]

24. I'll go there... Hillary would be stupid to run and we'd be stupid...

Hillary would be stupid to run and we'd be stupid if any of us voted for her in the primaries.

She is utterly unelectable in the general election.

[nashville_brook]

55. totally agree.

[skipos]

87. Hillary would lose the election if nominated

[Fluffdaddy]

99. Disagree

[second edition]

102. And I disagree with you. Hillary would be a very difficult sell.

Polarizing comes to mind. Actually, frightening to some. She has run one campaign and that was for the NY Senate seat against a very, very weak opponent. She hasn't been challenged. And, why do you think she decided to run in NY-having to even set up residence there-instead of Arkansas or another Southern state. She knew that New Yorkers would be more receptive to her than in the Southerners would. I even think she would have trouble in PA.. She may get Philadelphia, but lose the suburbs and the rest of the state which votes conservative. I could envision people coming out to vote for the Republican just to vote against her or even many Dems not voting at all.

[Fluffdaddy]

106. Then we all agree to disagree. Many ifs here, but it all depends on

how poorly Bush and the GOP drags down this country in the next 3 years and who wins the GOP primaries in 08. But one thing for sure I don't want any DEM retreads in 2008............No to Kerry/Gore/Edwards

Hillary and the DLC are playing it just right to steal one or two soft Red States, if things brake right in 2008 ;-)

[drummo]

112. Hillary is a trim. She voted for the war, she was the echo of Bush

she said that the insurgency was failing -- when it was not --

Hillary is old news. Actually older than Gore. And she is the mother of all opportunism, beside, a very poor decision maker.

You are quite naive if you think with this endless pandering to the right she can secure enough right-wings votes while keeping liberals as well, because after 8 years of Bush they will vote for anyone who is not a republican.

Liberals are very stubborn people -- remember 2000 and Nader?
They will not rally behind Hillary just because she is a Dem.

[Fluffdaddy]

121. Yeah do that . Vote for Nader and the Green party again an see what

Neo-Cons we get in office this time.

"Cut off your nose to spite your face". This mean anything to you ?

[Larkspur]

137. The DLC needs to go extinct. They are a cancer inside the Dem Party

As a member of my town's Dem Committee, I will refuse to donate, volunteer, and vote for a pro-Iraq War Dem. The 2003 Iraq War is an immoral war and the Dems who voted for it and are still supportive of it are war criminals along with Bush and Cheney.

[drummo]

141. Hillary is no better than the neo-cons.

[drummo]

113. Then tell me how do you think Hillary would get the liberal vote --

about 20% of the electorate -- after what she has done over the last 5 years?

If people want to vote for the Republican they will vote for a Republican, not for someone pretending to be a Republican, like Hillary has done over the last few years.

The irony is that the right-wing would always treat her as, yes, a liberal, no matter what she does. So she gets the worst of both worlds.
And remember: you cannot win an election with your party base. But you can't win one without your party base, either.

She is damaged goods in the eyes of the anti-war people. And the number of those people is growing.

[Fluffdaddy]

120. Because liberals have no where else to go. You can always vote for Nader

and the Green party and have Jeb or some other Neo-Con for 8 years

Nose...... cut...spite.... face :shrug:

[Larkspur]

138. This Dem Comm member will vote Green in 2008 if a pro-Iraq war Dem

leads the Dem Prez ticket. The DLC needs to go extinct and voting against Hillary or whatever pro-Iraq war clown heads the ticket is a vote to drive the DLC extinct.

[second edition]

42. Oh, Please! This assures nothing IMO! n/t

[blm]

45. Depends on how well she does in the debates.

.

[Yavin4]

67. Who Will Be Her Competition in 2006?

Clark? No way.
Kerry? Forget it.
Bayh? Don't make me laugh.

Who will be able to stand up to her name recognition and her money.

[blm]

71. I still doubt that as many Dems will vote for her IF she lost the debates.

I'm not a Hillary hater. In fact, I believe that she does have better intentions than she's given credit. (Although it does bother me that she refused to sign on for an inquiry into the Downing Street Memos.)

My only hope is that if she does get in she allows the documents on BCCI to be made public.

[Yavin4]

73. It Comes Down To Money And Name Recognition

And no other Dem, outside of Gore, can touch her on that score.

[blm]

81. I suppose we will see.

.

[skipos]

88. Did Bill Clinton have the money and name recognition

in 1992? That's a serious question, I was too young at the time.

[second edition]

104. I don't think that is going to be enough this time around.

What about qualifications and respect? Do people respect Ms. Clinton's opinions? Actually, how often do you see her opinions taken seriously? And her name recognition brings with it scandal and unfair character associations.

[drummo]

122. Hillary does not deserve unfair character associations. Nobody does

But there is a fair case to be made against her based on her record regarding policy, primarly Iraq.
And that SHOULD be brought up against her because that was no small deal and that seriously questions her judgement and whether she is capable of apolitical policy making at all on national security and
foreign policy matters.

[drummo]

114. Really?

How many people knew Dean in 2001?
How many people knew Bill Clinton in 1990?

And how much money did they have when they started their campaign?

[second edition]

103. Kerry! N/T

[drummo]

64. And spineless Democrats would even vote for her. I won't.

[AspenRose]

70. Me either.

eom

[are_we_united_yet]

20. Damn!

[Larkspur]

22. Then I guess I will not vote Dem in '08, if a pro-war Dem leads the ticket

It's disappointing if this is true about Gore, but I can understand why he doesn't want to run for Prez again.

[IndianaGreen]

28. If a prowar Democrat gets the nomination, the party is doomed

I know for a fact that the issue-oriented voters that held their noses and voted for Kerry in 2004 will never again form such a coalition and support someone that will not end the war swiftly.

There won't be another ABB in 2004!

[Ex Lion Tamer]

36. Agreed. A Democrat with a spine . . .

would be a refreshing change.

Although I guess an anti-war stance really isn't all that brave now that the public finally seems to be coming to their senses about the Iraq war.

Like the song says:

"The real traitors are trotting out the flag,
like the liars over at Fox News.
Ask Bill O'Reilly if fascism pays;
ask Rupert Murdoch if he's singing the blues.

Ask Dennis Miller why he sold his soul
to become the fascist's comic of choice.

Ask every Democrat sitting on the Hill
where their spine went and how they lost their voice."

Red Star Belgrade
"The Real Traitors"
from the CD The Real Traitors

[drummo]

115. But it was brave in Sept 2002. After Gore gave that speech

in SF, his favorable rating dropped to 19%!

This was at the time when more than 60% of the country thought going to war with Iraq was a good idea.

But Gore didn't care. As he usually does not care about polls when it's about national security and foreign policy issues.

After all how many Americans heard about Milosevics in 1991?

And how any of them opposed Saddam in 1988?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

37. Dupe . . . sorry

[drummo]

65. Where did he say "I don't want to run for president again"?

Nowhere.

This is 2005. It's not the time to have plans to run in 2008.

But wanting it is another matter.

Read the full article and remember Russert-Rice!

[IndianaGreen]

25. Thanks Al for sticking us with another Kerry or worse yet, a Hillary!

We are back to the bottom of the barrel again!

Am I hearing the sound of champagne corks popping at DLC headquarters?

[second edition]

44. I see nothing wrong with Kerry.

He is a progressive Dem on most issues and he really isn't pro- war. He has been actively helping in the grassroots movement and has been very active on our behalf in the senate.

[blm]

46. Odd to say considering Kerry maintained a record well to Gore's left.

I have no doubt that Gore has moved left these past 4 years, and that he's finding it a more natural fit for the man he has become. But based on their actual records IN government offices, Gore has consistently been well to Kerry's right.

[drummo]

66. Please show me what makes you think that Gore moved left

these past 4 years.

He is exactly where he was in 2000.

[blm]

69. Actually, in 2000 he promised during the campaign to get tougher with Iraq

I don't think he would agree with that sentiment now. In fact, I don't believe any Democratic president would have invaded Iraq after weapons inspections.

In 2000, one of the left's gripes with Gore is that he was too probusiness, and didn't do enough as VP to protect the environment. I believe now he would definitely concern himself even more with environmental issues than he did in the past.

He;s also no longer fearful of what the media does routinely to Democrats. So I believe his style of rhetoric would be less moderate and less guarded.

[drummo]

78. No. He indeed would have gotten tougher with Iraq.

But he wouldn't have invaded it.

The two are not one and the same.

You can get rid of Saddam without invading the country.

You can use US military power in many ways. And you can use many other tools to trigger a regime change -- including covert action.

And Gore wanted to change the regime in Iraq. He said it in 2000 and in 2002 Feb. But not by sending 150 000 ground troops to occupy the country.

In 2000, one of the left's gripes with Gore is that he was too probusiness, and didn't do enough as VP to protect the environment

And the left didn't know what they were talking about.
All they cared about was to shift votes to Nader. So they lied about Gore every day.

[blm]

82. You just repeated what I posted. I said he would not have invaded it and

that NO Democratic president would have invaded after weapons inspections.

[drummo]

116. But you also said this:

"Actually, in 2000 he promised during the campaign to get tougher with Iraq.
I don't think he would agree with that sentiment now."


Well, he would agree with that sentiment now. He just wouldn't have invaded Iraq. But he would have got tougher with Iraq if he had become president.

[Wordie]

26. He may think the speculation is distracting us from more important work

that needs to be focused on now: the Miers nom, the '06 elections; the war; Katrina recovery; Bush economic meltdown, etc.

He left the door open for a reconsideration of his decision at a later date.

[ms liberty]

29. I don't believe it...

I don't mean I think the quotes are false.
What I mean is that it's too early to rule Al Gore out for 2008.

He'd be crazy to say he was going to run, or even to say he was thinking about it. Would you give the repugnant criminals and thugs in the other party a nice, big target 3 YEARS out - not to mention anyone from your own party who might want to run, or the press who hate you? No, I didn't think so.

What this DOES tell me, is that if we want Al Gore to be our next President, we need to write and TELL HIM. And we need to cc a copy to Howard Dean as the head of the party too, so the party has every letter on record. And make sure everyone we know does the same. And we need to start NOW. And WORK FOR IT.

If Al Gore gets enough encouragement from US, the people, he would run. If the head of our party had evidence of our support for Al Gore, it would carry some weight. Officially, I'm sure the party couldn't get involved with any one candidate before we have a nominee - or before we even have any declared candidates. But we all know that most of the interesting and important decisions (in politics as well as in life) happen without microphones and cameras.

I still think 2008 is Al Gore's time to run. I still think he is the best candidate America has. He's the most qualified, indeed his areas of expertise are exactly what we need. He's the best known, and he's associated in a positive way in peoples minds with issues most Americans are beginning to be really worried about. Like the environment, media reform, and he was even anti-Iraq before it was cool.

America is starting to see the collapse of this * regime under the weight of its' own corruption and criminal behavior, and a lot of people are looking back at 2000. In Al Gore, they see someone who would have handled things a lot differently. The whole "comeback" thing, along with the fact that he WON in 2000 helps him out here in the real world.
To those of you who are always whining about us "losing" in 2000, here's a not very breaking news flash:

Yes, AL GORE WON IN 2000 - and he tried a lot harder than Kerry did in 2004 to fight for our votes. I like Kerry, but it's the truth.

So quit beating that horse - it's not just dead, it's mummified!

I also have to add that I'd be very surprised if Hillary ever became President. She can run, but I don't believe she can win. Many of us dems don't want her as the candidate. I personally think she's too corporatized, she's moved too far to the right for me, and I know others agree. And people who might vote for some other dem are not going to vote for her because the propaganda has worked. The right hates her (and Bill) with an obsessive ferocity that has only grown with time. And the people in the "middle" don't trust her or like her too much either, at least here in my area.

[Kashka-Kat]

31. Y'know, I think people are ready for a "boring" president

I mean who needs the excitement of terror alerts and stupid ill conceived wars, or for that matter the semen stained dresses.

I never bought the b.s. about Gore being supposedly wooden and boring, but let's suppose he was-- I think after the Clinton and Bush years, the national psyche may be ready for "boring" and quietly competent. AND now recognize the need for a check and balance on the excesses of the single-party government we now have.

I would NEVER EVER vote for any pro-war democrat esp. one which has (correct me if I'm wrong) openly stated her pro-war stance was only a strategic move & not an honestly held belief.

There would be such poetic justice if Al Gore was drafted, then ran and won!

[blm]

47. I never found Gore to be boring or wooden. That was media spin to make the

PUBLIC feel uncomfortable with him. They did the same to Kerry.

The media has worked for years to dumb down the audiences for their corporate masters, and both Gore and Kerry were mocked for sounding like intelligent men who cared about details.

I find it a shame when any Democrat parrots the talking points of the GOP controlled media.

[0rganism]

32. Holding out for First Emperor of the Moon, perhaps?

(Cut to: Conference Centre Auditorium. The scientists are gathered in a huge room. The Civil Defence van pulls up on the stage.)

Van: Thank you all for coming! It is my pleasure to introduce the host of the Kyoto Global Warming Convention, the inventor of the environment and First Emperor of the Moon - Al Gore!

(Al Gore's Head in a Jar rises up from the middle of the stage.)

Gore: I have ridden the mighty Moon Worm.

(The audience goes wild.)

Fry: Good for him!

Gore: My fellow Earthicans, as I discuss in my book, "Earth In The Balance" and the much more popular "Harry Potter And The Balance Of Earth" we need to defend our planet against pollution. As well as dark wizards.

(The audience cheers.)

Dark Wizard: Sure! Blame the wizards!

Gore: That's why I'm offering a bag of Moon Saphires to the scientist who can solve this problem once and for all. Lovely aren't they?

Dark Wizard: Sapphires? (Cackles.) With those I could open the Gate Of Kerash!

courtesy of Futurama episode #501

[Dervill Crow]

33. Okay, he said, "I don't completely rule out some future interest."

Hope springs eternal. I will NOT give up my dream of Gore taking his rightful place in the White House.

[Isere]

40. A discussion of Gore's candidacy isn't complete

without a visit to the Daily Howler. Today Somerby revisits the mainstream press' War on Gore. We all remember that, sadly enough.

http://dailyhowler.com/

I do think that if Gore runs again, it will be a whole new ballgame with the press.
And I do hope he runs!

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

43. THERE WILL BE NO MORE ELECTIONS -no joke--seriously!!!

Du ers think I'm just joking but I keep saying this and I'm totally serious-
We will have a PERMANENT CHIMP--
I have a good psychic sense and intuition--can't prove it but believe me,I actually told my girlfriend the night before 911 that something big was about to happen-I was very very disturbed and upset that entire night about the government and the country (and we never talked politics before)-- and she woke me up the next morning to the twin towers event on tv--


I expect a catastrophic "terra" event or "Bird Flu" outbreak near election time, followed by a full invasion of yet another sovereign nation ---Elections to be "postponed"--supposedly temporarily while martial law will go into effect -
-curfew and lock down in all major cities-
THIS WILL ALLOW FOR THE ROUNDUP OF ALL POLITICAL OPPOSITION--
THE MEDIA WILL BE FORCED TO COMPLY-
-THE TAKEOVER WILL GO UN-NOTICED IN THE BEGINNING---


The go-ahead and approval has been granted by "WE THE PEOPLE"---Given the positive re-enforcement from "911" and the lack of opposition to fraud and deception (election fraud via Diebold, illegal invasion of Iraq, no-bid Contracts for Cheney's corporations,billions in giveaways through tax cuts for the richest 1 percent)-

--as they say on Survivor "the Tribe has spoken"--we have indicated that aproximately 50% of the population of the U.S are stupid enough and weak enough to allow it-the other 50% aren't organized enough to withstand the coup'detat--
In Summary:
No group is powerful enough to stop them.-the "bought" media makes sure that we're never to be made aware there is anything to stop.

[Dogmudgeon]

49. Possibly, but it will be temporary

Look at Hitler's "Thousand-Year Reich". It lasted 13 years.

I also disagree that half the people in this country are "stupid and weak". That's the mentality that leads to tyranny. We have level upon level of it right now, so why increase the load? Mental oppression is easy to relieve, but it requires more patience than most of us have. Still, I think it's something we need to do more of.

Plus, the future of tyranny in this country won't be like the lockdowns of the past. The Panopticon model is greatly preferred by our "leaders" -- put a million cameras all around, and never have more than one of them operating at any given time. The problem for the subject is that s/he never knows if surveillance is taking place. This is the Panopticon (actually, it was the name for a model of a prison-in-the-round, but the idea of an all-seeing guard carries over to most social models). When the Panopticon has been internalized, tryanny is achieved.

Although I disagree with most of your post (and you may disagree with mine), I fully agree with your agitation and sense of urgency. It's time to awaken the sleepers, and it's going to take considerable creativity of action this time.

--p!

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

90. no, in "their eyes" 50% of us are stupid and weak enough

not in my opinion---(to clarify)
you know, their religious base, red state types,--the god guns and gays crowd does comprise a substantial portion of our population.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

92. update: check this current DU thread--i rest my case-

a warmup is in progress

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1846144

[Dogmudgeon]

108. *sigh*

This is happening worse than I thought.

They've not only started cracking down, but they're cracking UP, too.

I'm sure we'll get the Panopticon. We may also get the lash.

--p!

[lies and propaganda]

50. well who knows what else could happen in the next three yrs

I dont want things to get worse, Im just realistic. So maybe his mind will be changed, hes still my fave Dem out there.

Does anyone watch his new channel Current? Not bad, and quite slanted in our direction. Its a really interesting channel.

[drummo]

72. I do. And I like it. It's something really new and more democratic than

anything on the media market -- except the Net itself.

I like that I can actually talk with those who decide what gets on air.

Try to do that with FOX.

[Tiggeroshii]

51. Darn

[goforit]

52. You're a heart breaker Presidente!!!

[drummo]

74. Hey he didn't say he won't run He just said he doesn't have plans

to run.

Why should he have now in 2005?

Don't give up.

He should not annouce now that he wants to run in 2008.
The media would have 3 years to kill him.

[goforit]

123. Great point.....I hope your right.

[Megahurtz]

53. We're Screwed! n/t

[Catchawave]

54. No we're not !

I really like Al and Tipper Gore, and I see a future for him in our 2009 Democratic Administration. He would be wonderful as the head of the EPA or Dept of Interior. He could really kick some butt in an environmental position.

I like all the potentional 2008 candidates, and see all of them having a future in the new administration!

If we've learned anything from 5 years of Bush, it's how you pick your team!

[drummo]

75. Are you kidding? Gore was elected president. He would never

accept any office lower than that. Period.

He was not in charge in the Clinton administration he had enough of that.

[Megahurtz]

76. Well I hope you're right and

we're not screwed.
With all this craziness going on it's too easy to start losing hope.:(

[progressivebydesign]

57. I love ya Al, but damn you all the same! We need you! n/t

[drummo]

79. Don't worry. If things get even worse in the next 1-2 years Gore will run

Unless something really unusual happens -- for example he dies.

[Vox_Reason]

83. This is very disappointing.

No one over the past few years has consistently inspired me from the podium like Al Gore has. His speeches have been brilliant, and right on target.

No one can match him for gravitas, in my opinion, and the name recognition thing is not an issue. I agree with some in this thread who have posted saying they don't think Hillary is electable. I think Al Gore has the intelligence, experience, attitude and priorities to do an incredible job of turning around this disaster-in-progress we're currently so enjoying.

I hope he will change his mind; I would pull the lever for him again in a heartbeat.

BUT THIS TIME, PICK A BETTER RUNNING MATE LIKE WESLEY CLARK!

I think a Gore/Clark ticket would be a best-case scenario.

[surfermaw]

84. Clinton thought he was good for the nation

I didn't like the way Gore, ran his campaign,but we need him now, as Clinton needed him in both administrations...He is the man to win the next election...Big Bill , knew he had the knowledge and insite to help him and help him he did.

[drummo]

119. Just a note: Gore thought he would be good for the nation

It doesn't matter what Clinton thought. Gore was not invented by Bill Clinton.

Many Dems seem to forget a small thing: Big Bill was not that big at all when he picked Gore. He was much less qualified for the presidency in 1992 than Gore. As a result when Clinton picked Gore he jumped 11% (!) in the polls.
Few people remember that Gore was a big hit in 1992. Many said the ticket should be reversed, Gore-Clinton.
And many said inside the adminstration that in the first two years Gore was much more presidential than Clinton because Clinton just didn't feel home in Washington and couldn't find his way. (Remember when he was actually trying to prove he was still relevant?)
Gore by contrast was already a veteran federal official who knew Washington as much as anyone.

It was not Gore who needed Bill Clinton. It was Clinton who needed Gore.

[drummo]

118. How could he pick Clark when he said in 2003 that Dean

was the only major Dem candidate who was right about Iraq from the beginning?

Clark responded that he, too , opposed it from the get-go.

But Gore didn't agree because Clark did not take a clear, unambiguous position agains the Bush IWR and later he sent mixed signals about whether he would have voted for it or not.
Clark also accused Gore after that endorsement of somehow trying to subvert democracy. He said, this election will be decided by the people not the powerful.

This episode would be digged out by the RW and the MSM. And they couldn't spin their way out of this.

[pagandem4justice]

85. Did anyone else here read that DLC thread the other day?

The poster explained the difference between the DLC and DNC ... If not, I highly recommend looking it up. DLC is basically a private "think tank" type "club" that backs the neolib agenda ... i.e., these are the folks who back types like Joe Lieberman, and the other wishy-washy DINOs who have ruined this party.

I don't know if Gore is still involved with them, but he was for quite come time, and the Clintons are very involved as well.

Could it be that Gore's statement is code-speak for him moving aside to allow the DLC to back Hillary in '08?

It'd be a shame if it pans out. I do think that he'd make a much better president. She seems too willing to appease anyone to be more popular on the Hill.
:tinfoilhat:

[drummo]

126. He is not involved. The DLC changed a lot in the 90s.

They basically got drunk by the boom and started to believe that there was no longer "working class" in the US only "wired worker" and "investors".

Of course if you read "What's the matter with Kansas" you can know that many in the "working class" started to vote Republican because they fel the Dem party was no longer speaking for them and the Rep started their cultural populism.

[MarsThe Cat]

91. If only we could get Kerry to make the same pledge-

I'd feel a little bit better about 2008.

[drummo]

127. Gore didn't make any pledge.

Show me the quote where he says I will not run for president in 2008.

Noone would say now that they will run. It's just 2005.

[MarsThe Cat]

132. i could support a Gore run in 2008, but NOT Kerry-

neither one of them showed the necessary "fight", and Gore's pick of joey LIEberman was particularly offensive- but he's still the better candidate of the two- Kerry just has a pompous air of "I deserve it" about him that i just can't stomach- and i think(i KNOW) that other people feel the same way about him.

Plus-
NOBODY who voted to support the attack on Iraq has any business being in the Big Chair.

[drummo]

139. Gore didn't fight? Huh? What did he do for 36 days while

a bunch of right-wing thugs were shouting and screaming in front of his house?

[demnan]

94. Once you've lost an election

(even if you didn't reall lose) it is difficult to imagine coming back. Nixon did it, but only because the Democratic party imploded in 1968 and Robert Kennedy was killed.

[fshrink]

95. That's his problem right there.

He knows, like a vast majority of the country, that he hasn't lost the 2000 election. So that by running again he would completely validate the idiot's initial "victory". By not running he leaves it hanging some. He also knows that he chose to avoid a constitutional crisis over having his (our) votes counted. The only scenario which would allow him to get back in the race would be if things degrade steep and fast, which is a low-likelihood possibility (although...)

[drummo]

129. Things have already degraded steep and fast

[MarsThe Cat]

133. i disagree-

about the idea that another Gore run would validate the the idiot-in-chief's "victory"- in fact, if the media were to do it's job and admit it's at least semi-complicity in the 2000 debacle, a Gore WIN in 2008 would totally vindicate him for 2000, and put the historical onus on the * presi-dunce-y.

[fshrink]

134. Yes, but the media doing its job! Lol...

[drummo]

128. Because of Vietnam RFK would have lost.

He came out against it but it was too late. He was a Dem and Vietnam was created by Dem presidents.

[Lilith Velkor]

98. "Failed the Republic have I. Retire to Dagobah I will."

Hmph.

[brainshrub]

100. A shame. President Gore is a great American.

President Gore is a true asset to the Republic. Since he did win the 2000 election, I'm going to start calling him President Gore.

[0007]

105. I certainly won't beg him and I believe Al made a wise decision.

[drummo]

130. What decision did he make? Nothing. He kept the door open

just like anyone who might run in 2008, including Hillary.

When did you hear her say "I will run for president in 2008?".

[0007]

142. Did I say I fucking heard him?

[dean_dem]

107. I have to say I'm kind of glad.

I like Gore a lot better now that he's not being groomed by a bunch of campaign advisors. After the election in 2000, he actually started acting like the intelligent, good natured person he was. Shame he couldn't do that when he was running.

[drummo]

131. Groomed by a bunch of campaign advisors?

Gore made his own decision. He is not a puppet.

Name those so-called advisors and prove that he said or did anything just because those advisors told him to say and do those things.

And don't forget every prez candidate and every prez has advisors. Why is only Gore bashed for that?

Clinton had advisors, Bush, Reagan, Kennedy etc had advisors. Why do you think they had them?

[Dr Fate]

117. Suuure Al. We know you have to say that. I say: DO IT. n/t

n/t

[AlGore-08.com]

125. US News & WR says major movers & shakers are drafting Gore

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

10/13/05
Don't Count Al Gore Out
Al Gore's declaration this week in Stockholm that he doesn't plan to run for president has done nothing to dampen moves by friends and allies to talk him into a 2008 race. In fact, they tell Whispers, it's hardened their belief that he wants to run. But, they said, his comments suggest that he isn't interested in a traditional bid for the presidency: He wants to be begged to run. "I'm not discouraged at all by what he said," said one of the Gore advocates Whispers talked with. This week, Gore was in Stockholm blasting the Bush administration and talking about his political plans. He said: "I have absolutely no plans and not expectations of ever being a candidate again." Allies said that left the door wide open to being wooed. "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," said our tipster. How? Those advocating a Gore candidacy believe that he already has the issues and a top leadership team in place. But they feel he needs to be convinced that there are enough donors not likely to back Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that would move to his side to make his bid unbeatable. That, said the advocates, is their first job and they predicted that there are scores of high-tech, media and corporate donors willing to step forward to help Gore.

(more... but not about Gore... )

[Samantha]

143. That is exactly how Bush* got the Republican nomination for 2000

Believe me, I was working in DC among some well-to-do Republicans (and just a few Dems). They were TICKED when Bush* got the nomination so early and had it sewn up simply in terms of the fast cash he raised. No one could challenge him, simply because of his dollars. Many of them thought he was absolutely not qualified.

"It's official," I will always remember one of them saying, "you can now buy an election in the United States." At that time, I so naively celebrated the fact I was not a Republican. The Dems DID NOT do that. (Cough).

[AlGore-08.com]

135. If you want Gore - - vote in this US News & World Report 2008 poll

C'mon, let's take this battle outside of the left side of the web and take it to the MSM:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/whisphome.htm

[Larkspur]

136. Done

I too think that a strong Draft Gore movement will change Gore's mind about running. I don't blame him for taking the stance he has. It's smart because 1) it keeps the Media focus on the flailing corrupt Repukes and 2) it discreetly allows Gore to set conditions for a Prez nomination bid.