Source: Gore thinks Clinton unstoppable

[wyldwolf]

A source involved in Gore's past political runs told CNN that he definitely has the ambition to use the peace prize as a springboard to run for president.

But he will not run, because he won't take on the political machine assembled by Sen. Hillary Clinton, said the source. If the senator from New York had faltered at all, Gore would take a serious look at entering the race, the source said. But Gore has calculated that Clinton is unstoppable, according to the source.



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/12/source-gore-has-prez-ambition/

[NYCGirl]

1. That Mr. or Ms. Source sure gets around. I've seen the same person quoted on

HUNDREDS of articles lately.


:evilgrin:

[xchrom]

2. unnamed source is no source at all.

[depakid]

5. That of course doesn't matter to many people

provided that the unnamed source" says something they want so badly to believe in.

[xchrom]

34. hmmm -- i think i agree with you. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

3. WTF? Do you HRC adorers here at DU take turns posting BOGUS threads?

SOURCE? What source? Sweet whispers? :eyes:

[FlaxieB]

12. Yes they do. They think the voters are that stupid to believe this

Shit. Wolfe had Gore on today. If this would have been a fact they would have asked Gore. They didn't therefore this is not a fact.

[William769]

13. There is a link.

You may not like it, but it's there.

[redqueen]

23. Yes, there is a link to a blurb about the "unnamed source".

Not so much what they were looking for.

:hi:

[William769]

31. I find it funny that she would even ask after what she said in this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3599091&mesg_id=3599300

Where nothing was verified not even a link. Also I finally got the original Op to admit he posted something that was not factual, so it stands to reason if any of it was.

[ShortnFiery]

43. "apples and oranges" But you know William, you've sunk lower than I could have imagined.

It's that important TO WIN, at any cost. To step on people - plow them over. That's just plain sad. :(

[William769]

44. I find it strange that you want sources from one and not the other.

Now thats sad. It also shows what you are all about.

[ShortnFiery]

45. No, you conveniently *confuse* a member's opinion with a so called Official Source re: a candidate.

The two threads are NOT even comparable. Again, "Apples and Oranges" = "Opinion of a Member and Published News Story."

But you are bright William, you knew that not only is this thread bogus, but your strawman argument also crumbles on face value.

Obfuscation, it don't look good on you. ;) :hi:

[William769]

48. Maybe to you.

With the original op admitting the were falsehoods in his statement was enough. Of course you took it hook line and sinker. Either you are gullible or...

[ShortnFiery]

61. "Either you are gullible or..." How about you play this one-ups-man-ship game into absurdity?

:shrug: You crack me up. :crazy: :(

[William769]

62. That thread definitely shows who is the gullible one.

But then again you are known for showing support for people that can't tell the truth.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. You've never heard of an unnamed source?

they've been around for decades. Centuries, even.

[redqueen]

51. Are you being serious? Of course I have!

And they're notoriously used to spread... um... falsehoods. Not that that's always the case! But... if someone has a problem with a story and that story is based in large part on comments from an unnamed source... well, people who disagree with that story are going to jump all over the anonymity of the source. That fact has *also* been around for centuries.

:hi:

[ElizabethDC]

14. It's from CNN, if you actually read the OP. n/t

[redqueen]

25. The CNN piece quotes the "unnamed source".

Not exactly informative. :hi:

[ElizabethDC]

58. Just because they're unnamed doesn't mean that they aren't real source

I think it depends on the news source that it comes from, but a lot of sources don't wish to be revealed because they could be fired from their jobs for revealing info (which is often purposefully leaked to begin with.)

I have no idea whether or not this story is true, but I wouldn't automatically discount a story just because the sources are unnamed.

[ShortnFiery]

27. I do. CNN and all the M$M are compromised - Corporations (FIRST) News Network.

"UN-named Source"?!? Oh how BOGUS. :puke: :thumbsdown:

[MethuenProgressive]

30. CNN isn't a good source?

:eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

33. No, if you haven't noticed, it's these SAME Military Industrial Complex sponsored Media WHORES

who pushed this criminal Administration's LIES for War.

We had the LARGEST protest in the history of The World Community, but The American People followed the LYING M$M and Bush into an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a sovereign NATION. Why? A good portion of the answer is that OUR MEDIA LIES to the people. :(

Now tell me it's a stretch to conclude that these shameless pseudo-journalists from "large corporate" sponsored M$M outlets -
LIE TO US EVERY DAMN DAY FOR THEIR CORPORATE MASTERS?:grr::nuke:

[MethuenProgressive]

So, what's with all the pro-Gore stories today? Planted by the RW?

[ShortnFiery]

38. If you watch The Cable News, "the spin" is not exactly positive by the illustrious punditry class.

:puke:

[MethuenProgressive]

49. Ah, so I need to watch with prejudice?

And selectively condemn and/or praise that which does/does not fit into my comfort zone.

[Forkboy]

56. It's sad that you need to ask that.

Some people never learn.

[niyad]

4. how many times is this unattributed c*** going to be posted here today? sheeeesh.

[texastoast]

6. She's got about 30% of us, right?

Does that mean 70% of us want someone else?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

8. no, more like 51%

[texastoast]

11. Link? n/t

[wyldwolf]

20. Sure

Washington Post-ABC News Oct. 3: Clinton 53%, Obama 20%, Edwards 13%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202365.html?hpid=topnews

Clinton increases her advantage over Obama this week and now is preferred among Democrats by a 32 percentage-point margin (50 percent to 18 percent), up from a 19-point edge a month ago. Edwards is third at 11 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301222,00.html

Two polls, both results 50% or above.

[FlaxieB]

7. Bull shit Post.

[William769]

9. DUCK AND COVER! INCOMING! INCOMING!

[redqueen]

10. Wow... again?!

:rofl:

[Kurovski]

15. Yeah, could be.

I think it might depend on how much Gore trusts Clinton to work seriously on the issue of climate change. I really do.

[musette_sf]

16. "A source involved in Gore's past political runs"

Rahm Emmanuel?

James Carville?

Hillary Rodham Clinton?

[William769]

17. Tipper?

[musette_sf]

21. i didn't know Tipper

was involved in the DLC.

[William769]

24. My guess is as good as yours.

I would find it hard to believe that Tipper did not help her husband in any way in his elections.

BTW, did you know Gore was?

[musette_sf]

28. and Robert Byrd

*was* (operative term WAS) in the Klan.

so what's your point?

[William769]

32. Point being

You rattled off some names, so I rattled off one. Did I hit a nerve?

[musette_sf]

35. no, no nerves.

i can't stand any of the DLC-ers. i think Vice President Gore has detached himself sufficiently from that cabal.

[William769]

39. So I guess there was no point to your post then.

[musette_sf]

42. huh?

my point being that i think active DLCers and Senator Clinton's machine are the "source" translates to you as "no point"?

if you think that's "no point", then do you fall under the former or the latter category above?

[Cassandra]

22. Donna Brasille?

[kimmerspixelated]

18. This UTTER BULLSHIT MACHINE NEEDS TO STOP!!!

"Source"???!!!!! This is terrible reporting. Until I hear Mr. Gore speak these words himself and/or shut down Draft.Gore.com and tell them all to go home, I will not believe BS like this!!!!!!!

[redqueen]

29. Yeah, well... it won't.

Sorry. We can look forward to lots more, I would think.

[zulchzulu]

19. A source tells me this is a load of crap

Tag. You're it.

[William769]

37. Who was that source on Russ Feingold endorsing Obama on October 15th?

Tag your it.

[davidwparker]

26. I know 'source' and from first hand experience, he's a liar.

[saracat]

36. This is the 5th time this has been posted. Some seem to be "desperate"

that this junk be viewed as true.Posting it 5 times doesn't make it any more credible.

[musette_sf]

40. ....unless you are taking your playbook

from Karl Rove.

[redqueen]

46. ouch!

:o

[musette_sf]

50. ya didn't think he was really

"spending more time with his family", did you? as far as i'm concerned, the DLC and the RNC have formed the Coalition Of The Corporate Status Quo, and are behind every "Hillary Is Unstoppable" meme.

[MethuenProgressive]

41. Nice Elizabeth Edwards pic in your post.

"Some seem to be "desperate" thast this junk be viewed as true"

Not quite as desperate as those who attack any and all mention of a candidate they do not support...

[saracat]

55. C'mon.Someone needs to check for dupes.This has become silly!

[oasis]

52. Gore is the "Global Warming Guru". He knows nothing of the tidal wave of support at DU.

:wow:

[Raejeanowl]

54. Maybe

Maybe he's that out of the loop? No, I really doubt it. And everywhere he goes, he sees similar reactions; the run, Al, run stuff.

[Raejeanowl]

53. That Would Be A Shock

If there's a reason other than simply wanting to avoid having his efforts handed back to him, AGAIN, it's crossed my mind that he considers it disloyal or dishonorable.

If anyone would have (albeit, misplaced) scruples about running against his former Commander-In-Chief's wife, wouldn't it be Al? Think of how it could be twisted as a character issue.

And now I've really made myself depressed.

[Samantha]

57. and what exactly would YOU say today is you supported Hillary

I am getting so tired of hearing this said, and I cannot believe anyone actually believes it. No offense to you intended ....

Sam

[Colobo]

59. The "source" probably comes from the "X" campaign...

[Pastiche423]

60. Methinks some people here

are a bit upset that their queen could be dethroned.

Sucks to be them, eh?

[ginchinchili]

63. She might be, but it's still a grave mistake that Democrats will pay for for years to come