US News & World Report: Allies Planning Gore 2008 Run

[AlGore-08.com]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/051017/17whisplead.htm

(snip)

Is Al Gore coming back? If allies we talked to have their way, the former veep will be the next president. "It's Gore Time," says a political strategist and fundraiser who is opening a bid to get Gore into the race. Gore friends see his recent political and business moves as proof he's preparing to run. Allies say that in speeches, Gore has found his voice to address domestic and world issues. And in raising money for his Current TV network, which targets the critical youth market, Big Al has built an issue base and donor network that's competitive with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 's. Our source--a top aide in the previous Bush administration--is planning meetings with Gore's team to push an early entry while Clinton runs for re-election in New York. It doesn't end there: The Gorebots want him to pick Sen. Barack Obama, the youthful Illinois African-American, as his No. 2.

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

[madaboutharry]

1. Gore/Obama

That would be something to see. Only Gore would have the guts to it. He got his ass burned in 2000 listening to the play it safe crowd. He is out there now. I really think that if he gets to the White House in 2008, he will make a much superior president than if he was there in 2000. The time since 2000 has done him a lot of good.

[rdmccur]

5. What???

Gore won the election in 2000!
It was the US supreme court that installed the idiot W in the White House

[madaboutharry]

9. I know that!

I know he won. That isn't what I am saying here. What I am saying is that if he wins the presidency in 2008 I believe that he will have a far more successful presidency than the one he would have had in 2000, which I know he WON. I am not saying this is the way it should have been, but maybe it is the way it is going to be.

[Andrea]

23. I think you are right

He is more authentic now, and therefore an even stronger leader. And, it's a good thing, because he will need to be an even better president than he would have been in 2000 in order to clean up the colossal mess that Bush* has made since then.

[AlGore-08.com]

24. We sure need him now more than we did in 2000

An average President might have done alright in 2000 by staying the course. But now the country and the planet are so messed up we need a great President to take charge. We need Al Gore.

[Uncle Joe]

113. Well said, the times are calling for a great leader,

and I believe Al Gore is the perfect answer.

[dalloway]

62. yes, he needed to move out of his own "bubble" of consultants

I believe he has a core that is solid and as he has found is voice, he has become a strong voice for leadership in this country.

I've vote for him over Hillary any day.

[FreedomAngel82]

82. Especially if we control the House and Senate

Then we can clean up a lot of messes that George Bush has done. I think Gore would be the best person for us to clean up the job that Bush has done.

[Clarkie1]

43. Gore/Obama would be a good ticket, but Clark/Obama would be better

and have a far better chance of winning the general election, imo.

[radio4progressives]

45. Wes Clark Would be a Great Secretary of Defense, IMO

We'll need someone like Clark heading up Pentagon to clean up the HUGE and COLLOSOL mess that Rummy and his rag tag jerks made.

We'll also need someone knows something about military strategy and what the military really needs to have in order to successfully defend our country (here at home).

[RandomUser]

61. Clark CAN'T be SecDef, and WON'T be VP

It is illegal for Clark to be SecDef. He is not eligible for that position until after 2010 at the earliest -- by law! (SecDef is required to be out of uniform for at least 10 yrs.)

As for VP, if you think Clark wants to be VP so he can be Pres in 2016, then you don't know anything about Clark. Clark is a man of integrity That -- he is NOT a career politician running for President to fulfill some life-long multi-decade ambition. If he runs for President, it will be because he thinks he's qualified and the best man for the job, and because he thinks he can win the Whitehouse back for Dems.

So while your ordinary Senator or Governor or Congressional Rep may see VP as a stepping stone to one day becoming president -- something they may have spent decades of their life as a career politician dreaming about and planning for -- That is not Clark. Clark is not beholden to special interests and lobbying firms or mired in the beltway bubble mentality or a career politician scheming for decades to be president.

He's a man of integrity and competence. He'll run for president if he believes he's the best qualified, able to win, and make America a better place, not to fulfill decades of personal dreams of glory and political scheming (like all the other wannabes).

He going to be on the top of the ticket or he won't be on it at all.
Because, quite frankly, his talents would be wasted on VP. Being the President of the Senate (which is what the VP is) holds no interest for him. It's not a matter of hubris, but of realistic assessment of his skills, contacts, and personal inclinations.

Ultimately, the core of Clark's character is a call to duty -- a call to service. He would feel he can best serve the American people and the rest of the world in a role other than VP if he can't be Pres. And he would be right.

I imagine he would just continue along his current path of service. As he's said: "This old soldier will not fade away." He would keep speaking out for those who can't -- soldiers in uniform being misused as toy soldiers and prevented from speaking out by regulations. He would keep defending Democrats and Liberals (stood up for Moore's stance in the Oscars, defended Dean's chairmanship from criticism by Edwards/Lieberman for gaffes, defended Durbin when the media attacked him for NaziBush comments, etc.). And he would help influence and craft foreign and international policy both at home (he's the "go to" guy for national security on the Hill for Democrats) and abroad (meets regularly with foreign Heads of States who he befriended during his NATO tour, speaks at policy conferences all over the globe).

He will not be VP because it doesn't interest him, and because he feels he can do more good otherwise. He will probably likely not run for office after 2008, not at his age and position in his life. But he will continue doing what he's currently doing, putting his skills to use in the call of service and doing good around the globe -- meeting with foreign leaders to help them craft a better world.

All that being said, he would make one Kick Ass President.

I like the new Gore, much better than the old Gore, and he would certainly be a better President than Bush. But I see Clark as a better choice for 2008. There will be lots of good Democrats running in 2008, and we can certainly differ over who to support in an amicable way. Gore isn't a terribly bad choice, but if you're going to support Gore over Clark in the primaries, don't vote for Gore on the basis of Gore/Clark. Because that's not going to happen. Vote for Gore because you want him over Clark, and fully in the knowledge that there won't be a Gore/Clark. (That way if it does happen, which it won't, you'll be pleasantly surprised, and not bitterly disappointed when Gore chooses someone else).

Gore/Clark won't happen anymore than Hillary/Clark or Someone Else/Clark.

As for me, I'm still voting for the General. Clark has stood up for us when everyone else refused (defended Liberals/Moore/Dean/Durbin against the Media when other Dems refused), I believe he can win (the liberal vote + the military/southern/security moms/moderate vote) and has what it takes not to just be a good President, but a GREAT one.

Good luck with Gore (he would be a HUGE improvement over Bush) -- but there won't be a Gore/Clark. And when forced to choose, I'm sticking with Clark who has earned our loyalty and continues to vindicate it.

[rateyes]

65. IMHO, I believe that Clark will do whatever he is

asked to do, if he is doing it for the sake of his country. If he gets in the race, and Gore gets in as well, and Gore gets the nomination, and Gore asks Clark to be his VP, my bet is that---not to use it as a "stepping stone," but for the good of the country, he would accept. Just my opinion. Clark is a man of integrity and honor---so is Gore.

[RandomUser]

66. Will Gore?

Transpose the words Clark and Gore in your post. Do you think Gore would accept VP again if Clark asked him to?

The answer to the two questions are the same. You're right, they're both men of integrity. I don't believe Clark would take VP anymore than Gore would.

[OzarkDem]

103. Ridiculous

Sometimes the biggest problem Clark has as a candidate is the people who support him.

[rateyes]

107. Gore did....

he was a candidate for President when Clinton got the nomination, and accepted the VP slot---and, although it was a "stepping-stone" for his run at the WH, I believe Gore took it for the good he could do for the country---he's the best VP we've had. In fact, in many ways, I think Gore was more important to the economic boom in this country than was Clinton. But, that's just my opinion. Both Gore and Clark are patriots, and either would do what they felt was best for the country.

[MrModerate]

64. Don't think Clark can win . . .

Based on what I saw last time around, he's just not that strong on the stump or in front of a press gaggle.

Of course, the 'Lican slate is looking pretty darn thin too (I mean, Bill Frist?), so maybe he could pull it off.

[RandomUser]

67. Other than Kerry, who was the only candidate to win a nonHome/Birth state?

Clark. And he only campaigned for 4 months for begining to end, compared to all the others who had a year's head start. That's not too shabby. I'm sure he'll have improved to even better form for 2008, judging by all the fundraising experience he's been doing for 2006 Dem candidates in local races across the country.

[FreedomAngel82]

84. But he didn't get very far did he?

Clark doesn't have enough experience in the government for me to vote for him. I like to vote for someone I can have confidence in. If Clark ever wants me to vote for him he needs to be more involved in the government before I would vote for him for president. Just like I wouldn't vote for Ralph Nader.

[RandomUser]

101. He got further than career politicians from senators to governors to reps

Like I said, except for Kerry, no other candidate won a state in the primary that wasn't a home/birth state. The sole exception was Clark, who won Oklahoma.

Clark has tons of experience in Government. Not in elected office perhaps, but certainly experience in the government. He's managed hospitals, school systems, family counselling and social services, overseen the needs of a population that's the equivalent of a Mayor of a large city or governor of a small state, written and managed budgets, negotiated with Congress for funding, crafted national policy, dealt with foreign Heads of States, was a Head of State himself as SACEUR of NATO, negotiated treaties, written amicus briefs on behalf of civil rights advocates, even saved an endangered species in the desert, etc.

He was in the primaries for only 4 months and still got further, in terms of fundraising and grassroots campaign support, than former Governors like Bob Graham, Senators like Lieberman, etc.

All things considered, Clark did pretty well for only being in the race for 4 months.

But this thread is not about Clark, and I don't wish to derail it from the Gore people. If you wish to debate Clark's virtues, there are other threads to do it in. I only referenced Clark in answer to speculation of Gore/Clark or Gore+Clark SecDef. And, of course, defend Clark if needed.

Gore is a good guy and I think he would make a good president, I just prefer Clark. Just as you prefer Kerry.

[savemefromdumbya]

71. Nice guy but

think he is a bit of a rookie?

[howmad1]

73. I agree, Gore/Clark or Clark/Gore!

With the exception of his speech at the democratic convention, Barack Obama has not impressed me at all. He has no qualification whatsoever to be VP and the rethuglicans will make mince meat out of him. On the other hand, Clark will not take any bullshit from them and give it right back.

[FreedomAngel82]

85. And Clark does?

LOL! At least Obama is doing something with the government. Clark has nothing with the government besides being in the military. Obama has a record where you can see what he has done and how he'll be as a VP. Sorry but I don't think so on Clark. This thread is about AL GORE and NOT Clark. Go start another thread.

[FreedomAngel82]

83. Over Al Gore?

I don't think so. What else does Clark have experience in besides the military? Al Gore has been a journalist, Congressmen, Senator and vice president. Who else in the democratic party has that type of resume?

[MrModerate]

63. Yes but . . . he didn't wallop Schimpanski, as he should have.

And consequently, the race was close enough to steal. Something like that happened to Kerry, but in 2004, the 'Lican vote-stealing apparatus was more effective and was able to steal enough votes to make it appear as if Shimpanski got the 2004 popular vote as well.

Gore didn't realize the extent to which the media hatred of him, predominance of 'Lican secretarities of state, PLUS the traitors on the Supreme Court, would combine to deny him the office he won.

[RandomUser]

68. 2008 won't be 2000

Gore won't pick Lieberman for one thing. I'm sure Gore has learned from past mistakes. We'll just have to see how much he's learned, if he runs. He'll be a more acceptable candidate for us liberals now. And I think his new demeanor can make him more electable.

But I don't want to play defense. I don't want to our strategy to be "blue Gore states +1" and playing not to lose the whole time. I want us to play to win by going on the offense. Not defending blue states, but biting chunks out of the heart of Red states. Gore still has a ways to go to convince me he's extended beyond Blue states and can win the heart of Red ones.

[FreedomAngel82]

81. Exactly

Al definitley has changed a lot though publically since 2000. He's always been the same type of person but I think he knows how to get everything across better now days since he's done a lot of speeches and his time at MTSU. I think it would be a sweet success if he does run again and I really hope so.

[dhaight]

2. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

I like it ... Gore / Obama ... people need to listen to Gore, not prejudge the man ... he makes soooo much f'ing sense! Yeah, I'd definitely consider it. :thumbsup:

[wellstone_democrat]

3. don't I wish...Gore/Obama

...

[peace frog]

75. Gore / Obama... talk about a dream team

2008 can't come quickly enough!

[KnowerOfLogic]

109. No Obama; he was way too wishy-washy on the war. We need a united

stance on the war, i.e. it was a complete mistake, and we need people with the guts to say that.

[J-Hen]

112. Obama ran an Anti-Iraq War campaign

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

"I'm proud of the fact that I stood up early and unequivocally in opposition to Bush's foreign policy (and was the only U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois to do so). That opposition hasn't changed."

"I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. ... What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income--to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression."

"Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors."

[mhr]

4. That's A Ticket I Could Support - No Hillary For Me

eom

[malaise]

6. Gore/Kennedy

that should be the ticket.

[MelissaB]

57. Robert or Ted?

[FreedomAngel82]

87. Either or

in my opinion. I don't know if Robert would run though. He doesn't seem like the type, but of course I could be wrong.

[radio4progressives]

46. Amen to that..

[Cha]

53. hillary has a lot

to answer for with her cunning positioning on the wrong side of the Iraqi War Resolution..and a call for more troop fodder.


Politics, politics, politics..how about what is right for this country? And wouldn't it have been right to stay out of Iraq and not enabled bush on that and tax cuts and fucking patriot act..what kind of freakin' patriot is that?

[FreedomAngel82]

88. That's why I like Gore

He doesn't play politics. He does what he knows is right. He stated it perfectly in his 2000 address. "Sometimes you have to do what is right and not what's popular."

[gumby]

7. I vote Gore. n/t

[Ignacio Upton]

8. Cool

However, after saying that he won't run, I think it is better that he changes his mind through grass-root persuasion, like a draft movement similar to what got Clark into the last election.

[drummo]

25. He never said he wouldn't run. These were not his words but

some assholes in the media claimed that they know it.
The media knows nothing about Gore. Don't trust them.

[FreedomAngel82]

89. I agree

Until I hear it from Gore's mouth himself I won't believe either/way.

[mzmolly]

10. I would love to see Gore run.

We need him.

[Old Vet]

13. Gore/Obama Gore wont wont get fooled again!

[savemefromdumbya]

11. Clinton/Gore 08

heard that somewhere before?

[NYCGirl]

12. Never in a million years. Why would he want to be VP again?

Been there, done that. Top of the ticket only for President Gore!

[savemefromdumbya]

28. Hillary will win the primaries!

Gore may settle for VP again?

[NYCGirl]

33. No, I don't think so. NT

[AntiFascist]

52. What if Hillary was VP?

otherwise they'll lose.

[savemefromdumbya]

70. I think it's 99% sure

that Hills will be President in '08 unless W has the constitution changes he's in to infinity?

[peace frog]

76. So sayeth the talking heads...

but WTF do they know? It will NOT be Hillary, whether in the primaries or the general election.

[FreedomAngel82]

90. LOL!

Hillary winning the primaries? :eyes: Look at the polls honey. Hillary is for more troops in Iraq etc. while the public, especially democrats, are not. Al Gore has been vocal against it and everyone knows that.

[HardWorkingDem]

15. If you are talking Bill.....can't happen...

it is prohibited by the US Constitution, though we might not have one after the Bushies are done.....

[savemefromdumbya]

29. There is another Clinton!!!!

how could you forget?

[AntiCoup2K4]

38. I do believe I have

And I don't mean in 1992 or 1996 ;)

[radio4progressives]

47. no thank you.. we won't be fooled again..

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. 2006

[whirlygigspin]

16. you might want to read this first

DLC/THIRD WAY Report - Galston & Kamarck-Politics of Polarization

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x162989

"The Democratic Party has not yet found a comparably effective formula for bringing its post-McGovern surge of educated professionals together with the average families who continue to hope for some relief from the burdens and uncertainties of the modern economy. Until it does, national Democratic candidates will remain vulnerable to Republican efforts to portray them as elitists, which has always been the kiss of political death in this viscerally egalitarian nation."


--In short, keep choosing elite DC insiders and Senators as Presidential candidates and keep loosing elections.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. All the more reason to fix that and win 2006 first. 2006 is 3 times sooner

[drummo]

27. Gore is neither a DC insider nor an elitist

Just because the press and his political enemies portray him as that it will not be true. It is our job to dispel this misconcenption whith hard facts about Gore actual record and background and finacial situation and how much he knows about average Americans. Far more than any of those who accused him of being an elitist.

[radio4progressives]

48. Professional Elections Losers - Keep out the DLC and vote GORE instead

I like the thought of a Gore/Obama ticket..

[amandabeech]

114. No kidding.

We have to work to take back the House and Senate. And taking back the House means taking the state legislatures for the 2010 redistricting. There's a lot to focus on right now!

I also think that same old, same old won't cut it in 2008. I don't think that independents and moderate pubbies will be enthused by any of the usual suspects. They haven't been before and they won't be now. And who knows what will happen in the next 2 years.

[welshTerrier2]

18. Obama? no thanks ...

During the Bolton hearings, Senator Obama offered these hawkish comments on Iran:

"I would say the policy has been less about patience and more about paralysis--a dangerous situation for a nation such as Iran that is developing nuclear weapons, is a state sponsor of terrorism, and is meddling in Iraq."

if Senator Obama wants my support, he'll talk about avoiding a conflict with Iran before he beats the wardrums for one ... i would also have appreciated a comment or two about the US "meddling in Iraq" ...

[Gyre]

31. I second that.

Screw the DLC and their baby hacks. How about Nancy Pelosi? (who actually STANDS for something)

Gyre

[J-Hen]

34. Obama isn't DLC

Obama opposed the war in Iraq, supported Howard Dean for President, voted against John Roberts, voted against the bankruptcy bill, supports universal health care, etc. He is one of the good guys.

[Gyre]

56. Clarification requested then.

I thought he voted for additional appropriations to keep this psychopathic romp going. Is that incorrect?

Gyre

[J-Hen]

74. The $50 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes he did. The vote in the Senate was 97-0.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/08/senate_backs_50b_more_for_war_efforts/

[FreedomAngel82]

91. I love Nancy Pelosi!

She's a tough cookie and has been doing so great as House leader. It would be great to see a woman on the VP ticket again! I would go for that. Could we draft Nancy? Would she be interested?

[OzarkDem]

104. Agree, Obama has been a big disappointment n/t

[J-Hen]

108. How so?

I know he voted for Rice, but how has he been a big disappointment?

[rinsd]

111. Versus Gore, version 4.0? I'll take Obama. (nt)

[mbee]

19. Gore is the one and - Again, It's the Economy

Stupid!

[Gloria]

20. Who's the aide from the Bush I admin????

eom

[AlGore-08.com]

22. Yes, that's the interesting question... Bush I did have some moderates

eom

[FreedomAngel82]

92. Yes

The post in the GD thread where Karl Rove says "we'll fuck him" that article tells how a lot of moderates have switched to the democratic party when Bush came into office. They still believe in the same policies but are just calling themselves democrats now.

[wakemewhenitsover]

21. RE-ELECT PRESIDENT GORE!

[Peace Patriot]

72. Yes! Yes! Yes! I want that bumper sticker! I think it will be an...

...instant success. Instant recognition. Burning desire for revenge and for the rightful president. People will love it! And if you can put the message on an effective bumper sticker, you've already won.

Re-elect him, yes!

But I might want one that says: "Re-elect President Gore! Demand a paper ballot!"

Or, "Re-elect President Gore! Beat the fraud with numbers!"

Or some such message to warn people that the system is rigged, with far rightwing Bushite corporations controlling the vote tabulation with SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code in voting machines and central tabulators, so that we must get around it however we can; get paper ballots where possible, paper alternative or absentee ballot (good for comparing with touchscreen numbers); get rid of secret, proprietary programming, where possible; gain a good paper ballot backup for recounts and audits, where possible; monitor as much of the election as possible (several such projects in the works--one at USCountVotes.org); and overwhelm the fraud with progressive votes.

My amended bumper sticker is upbeat, and inspiring--Gore, yes, goddamit, RE-ELECT him!--but with a warning.

---------

The trouble is--if we DON'T throw these goddamned election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor'--they will LET him get elected, and the ink won't be dry on his oath of office before they start blaming GORE for Bush Jr.'s disasters. Just wait. I can hear it now. A Gore (re)election may be used to point the finger away from the election theft machines--to stop the election reform movement--and will then only be preparatory to installing Jeb in '12 (after the news media has conveniently forgotten all about Bush II, with their typical amnesiac brainwashing). Mark my words about that, too. If we don't achieve transparent elections, we get one term of a Democrat, followed by a fascist dictator. And that Democrat will more likely be a War Democrat (probably Hillary) than Al Gore.

I've been paying close attention to Gore's speeches. He is right on, on every issue that he has addressed, and he tends toward the core issues of legitimate, constitutional government, and basic decency and fairness. His speeches are incredible! And his delivery is amazing. The man sure seems to believe what he is saying. And he has been rock solid on the illegality of the war from early on, and really lifted my weary heart with his comments on torture, and the degradation done by the Bushites to American ethics and reputation. (I'd sure like to know what he's currently thinking about NAFTA et al, that rather big fly in the Clinton/Gore ointment.)

I'll work for the most articulate one on the war (all things being equal)--for the nomination--but I'll support and vote for almost any of them, even Hillary. We may have no choice, and any Dem regime will likely be our last chance at restoring the integrity and transparency of our elections. (Even War Dems have to pay lip service to progressive values, such as clean elections, even if they don't personally give a damn about Bushites counting the votes in secret!)

I don't think there's any way that Gore would accept a second spot on a Hillary ticket. She could, though (accept V-P)--and that would be a lot more acceptable to me, than Hillary in the top spot.

I don't think Obama is experienced enough--and I also think he's gone down the middle, trying to walk the tightrope of the DLC/DNC on the one hand and the grass roots on the other. Too raw. Too green. Something lacking--maybe, as I said, just experience (both life, and political).

We want HEFT, power, grizzled power--whether male or female. I would like to see John Conyers or Maxine Waters (in either spot). What bricks they are! What solid bricks! Unshakeable people. They've seen it all. We need both solid, battle-hardened principle and enormous savvy.

[wakemewhenitsover]

78. Re-Elect President Gore! Demand Paper Ballot!...

...sounds great.

[J-Hen]

26. Gore's coming back

Ever since I saw him on the Tonight Show a few months ago, I've thought he was going to make a run. It looks like I might have been right.

[savemefromdumbya]

30. What would be nice is that

we could somehow reverse the Supreme Court's decision to insert Bush into what was Gore's presidency. When Bush goes down Gore can take up his place? Wishful thinking?

[AlGore-08.com]

39. Yes, wishful thinking. The order of succession is very well established

If Smirk were to be impeached or resign or pass away, here is the list of folks who would succeed him, in order:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate* Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez**
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao***
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta****
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security***** Michael Chertoff

NOTE: An official cannot succeed to the Presidency unless that person meets the Constitutional requirements.

*The president pro tempore presides over the Senate when the vice president is absent. By tradition the position is held by the senior member of the majority party.
**Carlos Gutierrez was born in Cuba and is ineligible.
***Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan and is ineligible.
****The only Democrat on this list
*****In late July 2005, the Senate passed a bill moving the Homeland Security secretary to number 8 on the list. The bill is awaiting House approval.

As for getting Bush v. Gore overturned... exactly how could that possibly happen? If there was a legal challenge to the ruling, it would have to go all the way up to the Extreme Court, who would get to rule on whether they ruled correctly in the first place. (Odds of that happening are roughly 1 billion to 1, I would guess.)

More likely, the Congress would have to pass a bill removing Smirk and installing Gore. The possibility of the GOP lead House or Senate both passing such a bill is even less than the Extreme Court overturning its own ruling: even folks who might agree that Smirk is illegitimate and/or Gore should be serving now would likely vote against it because of the precedent it would set. (You can imagine how long Clinton would have stayed in office if that option was available in the 1990s.) Even if both Houses of Congress were to pass such a bill, Smirk would have to sign it before it became law. Or... both Houses of Congress would have to vote again to pass it, after Smirk vetoed it or refused to sign it.

Given the amount of time it takes to pass a bill, how much of Smirk's term would be left? Six months, maybe?

And even if the law did pass by some miracle, dollars to donuts it would be challenged in the Courts, and I don't think that it would survive a single court challenge - - it's just not Constitutional. Again, it would have to be challenged up to the Extreme Court, who would overturn it.

Then the only road left would be to pass a constitutional amendment changing the order of succession, which is a very, very long and difficult process, with almost no chance of succeeding. Even if it could succeed, it would take (at minimum) a few additional years to get it passed, and Smirk would be out of office for a couple years at that point.

[savemefromdumbya]

69. well I guess it has to be

revolution?

[radio4progressives]

49. You know - you might have something there..

there is no reason why not.

[wakemewhenitsover]

79. Anyone have link to Gore on Tonight Show?

Welcome to DU.

[bunny planet]

32. or Gore/Clark, Gore/Edwards, or even Gore/Kerry

Gore/Obama is a great one though. I'd like to see them try and suppress the black vote on that ticket, or try and steal it. People who have never voted before in their lives would line up to vote for that ticket. Much harder to steal if there is a landslide.

[gulfcoastliberal]

35. Recommend. Keep us posted Al-08!

Go Gore!

[Tiggeroshii]

36. YEah. If he seriously gives it a run, I'm gonna back him!

Gore desreves this one.

[ourbluenation]

37. This is a winner...GORE/CLARK!

I'm telling ya...Clark is just a flatour rockstar. Gore has found his voice and it sounds GREAT.

I find it really interesting the way the talking heads keep yapping about Hil (who I love, btw, but don't think she has a chance)while from everything I read here - she's not even close to a front runner.

[Clarkie1]

44. Then put the "rockstar" (your words) at the top of the ticket, silly.

Clark will never be anyone's VP. He is not interested in the postition at this time in his life, and never will be. He has better things to do with his time, and better ways to serve the country.

[AlGore-08.com]

40. F.Y.I. this article was read on C-SPAN's Washington Journal today

Positive comments by callers afterwards. :)

[FreedomAngel82]

93. Really?

Like what? I like that! I hope so! And I think there are many good democrats out there who could be his VP. Pelosi, Edwards, Feingold, Obama (even though I think he should stay in the senate some more).

[AntiCoup2K4]

41. I really think the Gore threads need to stop.

I'm on record as saying that Gore is by far the best candidate of any names mentioned for 2008, so far. Of course, given that all of the others (except Clark) are DLC puppets, that's not too difficult.

I'd like Gore to remain the strongest candidate. Which means his potential candidacy should not be overexposed now, and have people be sick of him by the time the campaign really starts in 2007. That's not to say Gore can't make appearances, and continue the kick ass speeches, as he's been doing the last 3 years. But not from the position of "I'm Al Gore and I'm running for President".

Let Hillary burn herself out. Or her supporters, since she's actually been pretty silent on the whole thing. Let the Freepers believe she has the nomination sown up, and let them waste millions preparing Swift Boat smears for her. She doesn't have a fucking chance in Hell of being elected anyway, so let her draw the fire.

I don't want to see a Gore campaign until Summer 2007 at the earliest. Because I DO believe he's the best we have. (Unless Howard Dean gets sick of running the DNC)

[AlGore-08.com]

42. A bunch of Gore threads on DU is not going to affect his candidacy

Most folks don't even know that DU exists. (Sorry, it's true.)

I do agree that the strategy promoted in the article might be premature - - for Gore to announce, in the fall of 2006, during the midterms, that he's running.

But if what they're talking about is a true draft strategy - - having major dems openly courting Gore, demanding he run, that might be okay. (Might.)

Or if what they're talking about is the same thing that all the other potential nominees are doing - - having Gore run around, doing fundraisers, speaking at Dem conventions but saying "I haven't decided if I'm going to run" - - then he probably does have to be doing that in late 2006.

But it all depends on what's going on in late 2006 - - if every other potential nominee has already declared by then, then Gore may have no choice but to announce around the time that they do.

[radio4progressives]

51. true - but the freeptards are paying close attention

and they're the opposition's "activists" base.

Also, low level staffers/operatives in the DLC must be paying some attention, as evidenced during their highly orchestrated, well financed smear campaigns against Dean not to mention their fairly regular on line (and in the press)admonishments to Du'ers and progressive bloggers regarding our "liberal" positions, particularly regarding the war.

so i think there's some merit mentioned in previous post that we should keep this under the radar as long as we can.

[radio4progressives]

50. good point... i agree

[FreedomAngel82]

94. I think that's what all the democrats are doing

I haven't heard anybody except Joe Biden actually confirm they were running in 2008. And yes we can let the freepers and others keep thinking it's Hillary and they can use all their money on her and Gore (or whomever the real nominee is) can come out strong and hitting hard.

[Borgnine]

54. I want him to run, but I have to worry.

Like others have said, Gore is so much more authentic now. He's not part of the establishment. I can't shake the fear that they'd try to kill him on the campaign trail, like I think they would have had Dean won last year.

Yeah, I know, I've got my tinfoil hat on too tight.

[mtnsnake]

55. Gore would return something to the WH that's been sorely missing...

decency, honesty, and integrity.

He's just the type of medicine this sick country needs, and Obama would be the perfect VP choice (and future president).

[unlawflcombatnt]

102. Absolutely

And he appears to be one candidate that hasn't completely sold out to Corporate America.

[Rosco T.]

58. Should Gore run again (and I hope he does...)

and SHOULD he want Obama for his running mate (brilliant)...


HE SHOULD NAME HIM AS HIS RUNNING MATE DAY ONE. NO SUPRISES. NO SPECULATION.

And that gives him TWO voices on the campaign trail from day one.

[FreedomAngel82]

95. Question from me

Doesn't the nominee have to choose someone who ran though? Or could he talk to Obama and see if he wants to be his VP and choose him? How does that work? And yes whenever the nominee is named he should name his choice of VP the next day (after he talks to the person in seeing if they want the job).

[tavalon]

59. If he promises not to hire the same damn group of people

who keep "handling" the Democratic candidates and doesn't do something stupid like choose Lieberman as a running mate, I am leaning more toward supporting him.

Wait, there's another thing I want to see. Who is the DLC going to be pushing. Whoever that is, I won't be supporting them. The DLC needs to go down almost as badly as the neocons.

[FreedomAngel82]

96. The DLC is probably going to Hillary

She seems to be infront a lot with them. Speeches and stuff. I think Gore has learned a lot and won't make the same mistakes. He seems like a different person where it conerns that and I'm sure he has learned a lot from watching everything since 2000 and last year's campaigning. I think one reason why Gore chose Liberman is because Clinton was pretty conservative compared to him so he had to have someone to even him out and draw attention to the conservative base and indie's and moderate republicans who might not have liked Bush. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[IronLionZion]

60. Yes, please

America sorely needs a man like Gore to lead us. Obama hasn't been Senator for even one year yet, that may be a good thing. :shrug: Personally, I would like to see a Gore/Feingold ticket.

Unfortunately, the powers that be won't allow two independent-thinking mavericks to win....unless WE THE PEOPLE overpower the establishment.

I think the only reason it was stolen from Gore in 2000 is because someone found out Gore wasn't going to toe the establishment line. By all rights it should have been a Clintonian landslide for Gore. It should never have been close enough to steal.

[AuntiBush]

77. Oh, Please! Al Gore 2008 w/Whomever! Gore Gets My Vote!

Hands-down.

1st Choice: Gore/Kerry
2nd Choice: Gore/Edwards
3rd Choice: Gore/Obama

NO Hillary. We'd loose!

[FreedomAngel82]

97. I agree

And I like your list. Don't forget Gore/Feingold and someone else mentioned Nancy Pelosi.

[FreedomAngel82]

80. Interesting

Wow, a lot of talks of Gore running. It would be nice! And Barack? Hmm, I could see that working out since he has a lot of charsmia and he could bring a lot to the ticket. And a former Bush administration person meeting with Gore for an early entry? What's up with that and why do I not trust that?

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

86. Either Gore or Clark-- either would lead us to victory in 2008

Hillary would only unify the GOP against us-- in fact, many bloggers are saying that they're so ticked off about this Miers nomination, a Hillary nomination by us would be the only things to unify them. Let's not give the opportunity.

Gore/Clark or Clark/Gore in 2008. Time to send these idiot Rethugs into the political wilderness.

[Senator Lamb]

98. I love Obama

but wouldnt he get criticized the same way Edwards did, being only a one term senator.

[Skwmom]

99. I'll never forget Gore gaveling down the CBC to silence them when

they were trying to contest the 04 election. If Gore would have stood up to Bush instead of worrying about a future presidential run, we might not be in this mess.

[Itchinjim]

100. Clark '08

We will win with Clark in '08.

[JNelson6563]

105. Gore/Fiengold

That would be superb! :toast:

[No Exit]

106. Al, here's a tip: DON'T choose Lieberman as your running mate n/t

[NYCGirl]

110. Not much chance of that.

Since Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean in the primaries — and not Lieberman — I don't think they're even on speaking terms anymore.