If Al Gore runs, will you support him in the primary?

[AtomicKitten]

At this particular snapshot in time,
if Al Gore throws his hat in the ring,
would you support him in the primary?

[R_M]

1. Of course I will!

<--- See my avatar!

[illinoisprogressive]

2. he's the same as in 2000. Besides I have a candidate. but, I wish him well.

[Matariki]

4. your candidate will be his VP - you just wait and see.

that's my prediction.

[William769]

7. You better get a new crystal ball.

Of all people Obama would not be Gores running mate.

[Matariki]

20. why's that? n/t

[jefferson_dem]

33. Because anything that's not called "Hillary" is "poison" to the poster.

:bounce:

[elocs]

3. Sure, if he will actually run sometime soon

instead of appearing to be coy and wanting people to beg him to become a candidate.
Either run or don't run, none of this I haven't ruled it out stuff. I haven't ruled out being an astronaut either, but that doesn't mean it will happen in this lifetime.

[Vincardog]

60. He is playing the PREStitutes like a fiddle. When he announces the coverage disappears.

[William769]

5. Other.

I honestly believe that he is not going to run this time.

[Tellurian]

10. yes, I agree..I don't think he'd want to get back in the ring for a 4 yr battle.

I think Global Warming is a much more important issue to him.

I doubt he would turn on his heel and want to devote himself to the presidency.
He could probably get more done if another Dem won the prez and he accepted
an appointment as the Environmental Czar. That, I believe would make him happy!

Power without the grief.

[closeupready]

81. I agree, though I would support him enthusiastically if he did run.

But I just don't think he's gonna.

[ingac70]

6. No way....

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

I will not vote for anyone in the primary that perpetuated this lie. :grr:


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

This includes her, too.

[KittyWampus]

32. And Gore was correct in both statements. What's your problem with what he said in 2002?

Don't tell us you think Saddam was just a jolly nice, misunderstood guy.

Gore NEVER said Saddam had nuclear weapons.

He did, however warn later on that if Bush were to invade then Saddam's arsonals had to be safeguarded. And they weren't.

[Straight Shooter]

8. Please see avatar for future reference in all questions relating to Gore.

<------------- :D

[William769]

12. You might want to rethink that caption.

Look at your post with your sig line.

[Straight Shooter]

14. Okay, I've rethought my caption, and looked at my sig line.

I see no reason to change anything. Thank you all the same, my perceptions remain.

[William769]

15. I wansn't trying to be smart.

You have a avatar of Gore an arrow pointing to him and right underneath a pic that says "Traitors in the White House". Maybe I said it wrong originaly. Sorry for trying to help.

[Straight Shooter]

19. Well, I referenced the avatar in my caption, and included a smilie.

Didn't say you were trying to be smart. Certainly did't mean to imply that. It was just an odd response you posted since the thread is about Gore.

I've had that "Traitors in the White House" pic since they outed Plame. It doesn't occur to me that someone would associate it with Gore, or that I would ever intend to create that association. :shrug:

[Dr.Phool]

18. I want to run my avatar.

<-------- You dig him up, I'll run him!

[Straight Shooter]

36. I think his spirit would make a most excellent candidate

:)

[napi21]

9. Sorry, I've watched him on his recent interviews about his book.

He's the same hesitant, stiff, and non people person he was in 2000. I DO believe he is the most intelligent of any of the candidates who are running, but if you can't win over the American voter, that doesn't matter!

[Bridget Burke]

78. "non people person"?

Yes, that's what so many pundits said. Actually, they phrased it less cutely.

Gore has always impressed me as a serious, intelligent guy. Bush seemed like an half-bright fratguy--when he ran for Governor of my state. (Although his mental capacities have gone downhill since he became President.)

[Mabus]

80. I think you left out a few of the choicer talking points

Like Gore is wooden, doesn't know who he is, is constantly re-inventing himself, is off his meds, he's crazy, he's too heavy, he's too intellectual, he doesn't connect, not the kind of guy you want to have a beer with, he grew a beard!, he thinks he invented the internet, he thinks he & Tipper were in the inspiration for Love Story, and so on and so forth.

:banghead:

[Double T]

11. Absolutely Yes!

[nevergiveup]

13. Nope

I will be voting for either Obama or Edwards. Gore is a great guy but not a good campaigner. I don't really wish to go there again.

[ElizabethDC]

16. No thanks.

I like Al a lot but for some reason, I just don't connect with him as a candidate. :shrug:

[jenmarie]

17. Only if

Clark doesn't run. Minus Clark and Gore I will probably get behind Kucinich, even though I realize he hasn't a snowball's chance... He's still the only one of the current bunch I trust completely.

[Dinger]

35. Same Here Jen (nt)

[CarolNYC]

73. I with you guys...

Wes if he runs.

Al if he runs and Wes doesn't.

Dennis if neither Wes nor Al run.

[zulchzulu]

21. I would certainly welcome his candidacy

I don't think he wants to run this time though...but hey, it would make for some interesting politics.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Almost certainly, because I doubt both he AND Clark will run

I am assuming it will be one or the other stepping forward. If somehow I am wrong and both did, I would continue to support Wes Clark, while holding Gore in great respect. But I can say without hesitation that I would feel proud to be among Al Gore's supporters

[Colobo]

23. No.

[proud patriot]

24. yes

:)

[Pastiche423]

25. Hell Yes!

[PassingFair]

26. Support would be a MILD term for it.

I would help him attain the presidency in
every way that I could. From his announcement
to his swearing in.

That would include working on a precinct level,
and on a state level.

Anyone else just gets my vote.

[Kurovski]

45. YES I would support him! And, always good to see you PassingFair!

:hi:

[PassingFair]

61. Likewise!

I don't think we have to guess at who
Dr. Dean would support (at heart),
should Gore step into the ring.

They are allies.

[Kurovski]

66. Listen to this!

Some speculate that he could be chosen as vice-president!

Exciting, but I'm not counting on it.

I'm not counting on a Gore run either, but that damn tree-hugging bastid' had BETTER RUN! :D

:hi: See you around, my dear!

[ellisonz]

27. Without hesitation.

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

28. Absolutely, no question there! n/t

[David__77]

29. At this point I'd say no.

I support another candidate. However, no commitment is less that ironclad, and perhaps Gore would surprise me with a more progressive platform than in 2000.

[DFW]

30. As of now, yes

If he decides to enter this circus (and I don't blame him for not wanting to),
he'd still have to start proving himself against the others, and although I'd
bet his acceptance speech at the convention and his inaugural speech in Washington
would be among the most memorable in history, he still has to go through the
whole grueling gauntlet to get there. I know he could, I'm just not convinced
he wants to, and I don't think he's convinced he wants to, either.

He will if he sees a compleeing reason, or if the draft movement starts to drown
out all other background noise, but so far, we're not there yet.

Then there's the question of a running mate. One of the people out there now?
It won't be Hillary--she'll go for Senate majority leader before she goes for VP,
and, frankly, I think she'd be brilliant at that job.

I don't think Edwards will want to be a VP candidate for 2 different guys two
elections in a row. This leaves, realistically, Obama and Richardson. My bet
is Richardson won't want it. Obama might. Otherwise, I think it'll be down to
Wes Clark (logical choice) or Howard Dean (probably Gore's dream VP, but I
don't think the rest of the party will go for it). Howard promised that if he
became DNC chairman, he wouldn't run for president in 2008. He did NOT promise
not to run for VP. I don't see anyone other than Al Gore asking him, though.

For all this, I still see it as 70-30 against Gore running at this point. I
think he only makes a go for it if Hillary stumbles badly. She still might, but
I think she is assembling a team experienced enough to make sure that doesn't
happen.

Still, never say never.............

[Kahuna]

31. I'm waiting patiently for the Gore-acle to announce.

:loveya:

[jefferson_dem]

34. Nope. He's my second favorite though...

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

37. I don't get the love affair

He wasn't a great candidate in 2000, and he pushed for NAFTA. He still believes NAFTA was a good idea. There's no way I can support that, and I don't care how many public appearances and movies he makes.

[polichick]

38. Yes...

But I'd much rather see him run as the head of a new progressive party ~ a party with long-range vision, wisdom and balls; supported by grassroots donations.

I know people say he won't leave the party ~ I say he shouldn't bother to run unless he does. His life is too good these days to sacrifice it for the same ol' sorry stuff.

[DesertRat]

39. Absolutely!

[Pyrzqxgl]

40. In spite of the fact that I support him on the issues Al's not a good campaigner!

I want someone who can run successful against Republicans & WIN.
I think JOHN EDWARDS is that man.

[Adelante]

41. Yes, if Wes doesn't run

I surely would support Al.

[Uncle Joe]

42. Absolutely with great enthusiasm!

Thanks for the thread Atomic Kitten.

Kicked and recommended

[AtomicKitten]

43. good to know

I'd say 74% at this reading is healthy support.

Al Gore is imperfect, but damned if he doesn't bridge the divide here at DU.

[Major Hogwash]

44. No.

His day has come and gone.

[mzmolly]

46. With bells on.

:hi:

[DaveT]

47. I went from being a Gore Detester to Gore Die Hard when I read

this speech:


http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/5/14301/6133


A few short passages:

Ironically, television programming is actually more accessible to more people than any source of information has ever been in all of history. But here is the crucial distinction: it is accessible in only one direction; there is no true interactivity, and certainly no conversation.

The number of cables connecting to homes is limited in each community and usually forms a natural monopoly. The broadcast and satellite spectrum is likewise a scarce and limited resource controlled by a few. The production of programming has been centralized and has usually required a massive capital investment. So for these and other reasons, an ever-smaller number of large corporations control virtually all of the television programming in America.





It is important to note that the absence of a two-way conversation in American television also means that there is no "meritocracy of ideas" on television. To the extent that there is a "marketplace" of any kind for ideas on television, it is a rigged market, an oligopoly, with imposing barriers to entry that exclude the average citizen.



The news divisions - which used to be seen as serving a public interest and were subsidized by the rest of the network - are now seen as profit centers designed to generate revenue and, more importantly, to advance the larger agenda of the corporation of which they are a small part. They have fewer reporters, fewer stories, smaller budgets, less travel, fewer bureaus, less independent judgment, more vulnerability to influence by management, and more dependence on government sources and canned public relations hand-outs. This tragedy is compounded by the ironic fact that this generation of journalists is the best trained and most highly skilled in the history of their profession. But they are usually not allowed to do the job they have been trained to do.





One of the only avenues left for the expression of public or political ideas on television is through the purchase of advertising, usually in 30-second chunks. These short commercials are now the principal form of communication between candidates and voters.

As a result, our elected officials now spend all of their time raising money to purchase these ads. That is why the House and Senate campaign committees now search for candidates who are multi-millionaires and can buy the ads with their own personal resources. As one consequence, the halls of Congress are now filling up with the wealthy.

Campaign finance reform, however well it is drafted, often misses the main point: so long as the only means of engaging in political dialogue is through purchasing expensive television advertising, money will continue by one means or another to dominate American politics.

If you have any doubts about Al Gore's comprehension of what he is up against as a candidate for the Presidency, check out the full text of this speech.

I am surprised that a lot of bright and perceptive people do not agree with me that it is obvious that he is already running very hard for the Presidency. Hell, I know I could be wrong of course, but there seems to be an underlying logic to every public move he is making in 2007 -- to evade the framing power of the MSM to distort his message and his presentation of himself. If he is running for President, as a recent popular thread made clear, he is doing a fabulous job of it.

And if he is not, oh well. I just don't buy the idea that a guy can get as close to the White House as he did and then say, oh, well -- I can do more good as a private figure without any responsibility or any power.

We'll see in about four or five months.

[polichick]

48. The ultimate campaign, I call it...

Who knows ~ could be!

[Uncle Joe]

49. Check this exchange out Dave,

the whole column is an excellent read.

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/s_511872.html

<snip>

"As if to drive the point home about the superficiality of today's media, Gore recently appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America," where he was interviewed by Diane Sawyer.

She repeatedly harped on whether the book was a campaign salvo. Gore, who says he is not a candidate for '08 at present and will unlikely be one, chided her on her focus on politics rather than substance.

But even after being admonished, Sawyer, like a drunk with a shot glass, couldn't let it go and asked Gore if he lost any weight, since that might signal entry into the presidential race.

"Listen to your questions," Gore rejoined sharply, "the horse race, the cosmetic parts of this."

Touche. No one should care about Gore's body weight. Rather, our nation's future rests on the weight of his ideas and whether they can penetrate an anesthetized public."

[closeupready]

82. Good snappy retort, Mr. President.

:D These media people just make me sick sometimes.

[AtomicKitten]

50. he is running a brilliant campaign

Do people really think the nexus of his movie and book and the cornucopia of awards and recognition falls coincidentally at this particular point in time?

He is re-establishing his presence on the national stage in a big way. He is running outside the mainstream BS system of the traditional dog and pony show, although he will at some point come into the process to run.

I am not 100% he is running but if I stand back and look at the big picture, I am one happy camper. Al Gore is coming on like gangbusters in his own way, in his own time. Even if he ultimately declines to throw his hat in the ring, this has been one hell of a ride.

[huskerlaw]

51. No, but

I wouldn't be completely heartbroken if he won.

However, I've chosen to support Edwards in the primary, regardless of Gore's decision to run (or not).

[Raksha]

52. Absolutely! n/t

[AwakeAtLast]

53. After reading the first 1/2 of "The Assault On Reason" you bet your sweet bippy

That book should be required reading for every high school civics class, if there are still any around!

[AtomicKitten]

54. "bet your sweet bippy" :)

[AtomicKitten]

55. 'puter hiccup

sorry

[AwakeAtLast]

56. That's O.K.

I rarely get more than one reply, so it was nice to see there were two! :)

:hi:

[Downtown Hound]

57. Yes

[kiteinthewind]

58. Much more than support-I will work my butt off to help him!!

Waiting patiently, President Gore! :patriot:

[WonderGrunion]

59. Absolutely

But if he doesn't I'm supporting Kucinich or Richardson, haven't totally made up my mind yet.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

62. He will win and do an outstanding job helping our country survive the idiot's legacy of disaster.

[Morgana LaFey]

63. absol;utely -- with far more passion and excitement than 2000 nt

[sellitman]

64. This Kucinich support would switch to Gore in a NY minute.

And that's no knock on Dennis who I admire more than you can know.

[Laurab]

65. Hell, yes! n/t

[sojourner]

67. If he threw in on the day of the primary, I'd support him.

[flaminbats]

68. Gore had a weak position on healthcare reform in 2000..

as a result I voted for Bill Bradley in the primaries, and against Bush in November!

if Gore supported even something like the Kerry plan, I might support him in the primaries. but if I wanted a darwinist healthcare system, I can always vote Republican!

[rosesaylavee]

69. Absolutely.

And will campaign for him to get him into the WH.

[Lugnut]

70. You bet I would. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

71. At THIS time

Gore isn't prepared to be President.

[OnionPatch]

72. I would support him like

I've never supported another candidate in my life!!! :patriot:

[Cameron27]

74. Yip, if Clark doesn' t run, I'd be happy to support him.

[Zandor]

75. Kucinich guy myself

But I'd happily support Gore in the general.

[Duppers]

76. hell yes! nt

nt

[dave123williams]

77. I'll work for the campaign. This country needs him. Or someone very much like him.

[Mabus]

79. Darn tootin' I would

and I'm already working to see that it happens. ;)

[byronius]

83. With great glee and hope.

The Once And Future President.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

84. Ofcourse

[rep the dems]

85. I'd recommend a maybe or not sure option.

At this point I'm for Obama, but I don't know whether I'd stick with him against Gore.

[RestoreGore]

86. Al Gore is already running a campaign for the planet

Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be important enough to many to support based on its merits. I would most certainly however, support any endeavor he wishes to enter into, but I do not see him running in 2008 because he sees his work now as more important outside a trivial and unreasoned political system, and he can do the work that is crucial to mobilizing us to action at his own pace with many resources including a citizen action network, and access to business leaders and heads of state globally without the BS of the media or the stranglehold of an office too beholding to the interests that would stand in his way.

[BuelahWitch]

87. I will only go caucus next year if he's running

Otherwise I'll spend that Saturday afternoon doing something else.

[AtomicKitten]

88. bumped because 81% of DU is a phenomenon

Yeah, I know it's not scientific but it most definitely is a trend.

w00t

[RestoreGore]

89. 314 votes out of 104,686 registered members is only about 2.5%

And Al Gore has 500,000 members of his website devoted to his environmental work. Now that is a phenomenon.

[AtomicKitten]

90. thanks, Mr. Wizard, but it is a trend nonetheless

[DesertRat]

91. LOL n/t