The silence from Gore and from Edwards

[question everything]

After watching Edwards, again, on Colbert rerun yesterday, I think that I finally figured out why both he and Gore have not endorsed anyone.

I think that both of them, as well as many of the old time Democratic "leaders" cannot stand Hillary and Bill. And they are especially angry that Bill has been the first Democratic President to be re-elected since FDR. And a very popular president, certainly more than members of Congress.

Yet they do not see Obama as a Presidential material. They, like many of us, see a lot of hype and no substance. A Teflon candidate with a blank slate on whom each of his supporter can see what he wants. They can see a weak President who will do what his advisers tell him, about specific policies about, yes, executive decisions.

And by the time people will start asking specific questions as, yes, Gibson and George S. did last week - it will be too late.

In short, nothing "crawl up their legs" when they think of Obama.

If you remember, in 2004 Gore was among the first to endorse Dean.

[MarjorieG]

1. Many substantial thinkers have enndorsed with real excitement and trust.

Wondering if more of them needed to be out more, or ads utilizing them more. Media has prolonged this, in time for Hillary to linger, all of them creating more ad revenue.

There is nothing in Hillary's experience to prove she is anymore ready, or to be trusted. She hasn't made that case.

[PoliticalAmazon]

55. I think Gore and Edwards are just disgusted. n/t

[Andrea]

64. Probably

I for sure am.

[Diamond Dog]

2. Because Hillary's substantial. In fact, she's so substantial that...

... she's The Decider.

[DJ13]

3. in 2004 Gore was among the first to endorse Dean.

I think Gore felt burned by that more than he doesnt endorse Obama because he sees him as weak.

Gore (and Edwards, though his importance is in his own mind) has been elevated up onto a very high pedestal by the party, and much like the other party leaders (Pelosi, Reid, Dean) doesnt feel he should influence the vote by endorsing.

[rox63]

8. It's well known that Gore can't stand Hillary

There was a very telling article in Vanity Fair last fall about the bad blood between Gore and the Clintons.

[FrenchieCat]

4. I think that your post in assinine........

And the only part that you got right is that Democratic leaders cannot stand Hillary and Bill, and so do many rank and file Democrats. They know that the Clintons would rather lie than tell the truth.

[Bake]

35. If that's all it is, then why haven't they endorsed Obama?

Answer that one.

Bake

[calmblueocean]

72. Different answers for each one.

Gore knows that he is the single biggest figure in the party today, and that if this goes to the convention, he is in a rare position as a former member of the Clinton-Gore administration to help the party embrace whoever the eventual nominee is. That endorsement after the nomination is more valuable than his endorsement before the nomination. I also suspect that there is some professional courtesy being paid to Bill for their term together, and a lot of reluctance to spoil his new aura of being "beyond politics" by getting pulled into a primary fight.

Edwards, I think, felt snubbed by Obama when Obama mocked his debate answer about his "biggest weakness", and never felt Obama properly apologized or showed him enough respect. But he can't bring himself to endorse Hillary either, despite all her entreaties, so he's sitting this one out.

[rodbailey]

88. OR,

he's waiting to be drafted by the super delegates. Endorsing now would nullify that opportunity.

[Bake]

110. Maybe Obama should't have mocked Edwards.

You know, "new kind of politics" and all that ...

I think you're right about Gore. Plus, if he backs the losing horse, his standing in the party diminishes, so I don't blame him for waiting it out.

Bake

[knixphan]

81. see #3

[DebbieCDC]

5. If you think those "specific questions" about lapel pins

asked by ABC's toads were meant to enlighten the electorate in any way, I have some nice Florida beachfront property to sell you.

[question everything]

42. Not to enlighten the electorate but more to expose the upcoming attacks

If Obama is the nominee, these will be major issues from the Republicans. Perhaps not out in the open; I think that McCain wants to be above such petty issues. But leave it to small rural areas and, yes, small towns where: grown up in Indonesia, perhaps Muslim background, no lapel pin, no hand on the heart during the national anthem, being not only bi-racial but also bi-nationality, and you "come up" with someone who "is not one of us."

The Obama campaign understands it as Axelord is being quoted in this issue of Newsweek that "Obama will not be Swift Boated."

[Uncle Joe]

46. It's not the corporate media's job to expose upcoming partisan attacks, it's their job to enlighten

the American People as to the issues, the candidates stance on them and any inconsistencies or shortcomings regarding their positions on the issues that matter to the people. When they fail in that regard, as Gibson and Stephanopolous did so miserably, the American People are short changed and we end up with corrupt incompetence such as the current administration.

It would be natural for the Republicans to try partisan divide and conquer tactics against the Democrats, but when the corporate media join in with their one way megaphones, it's just propaganda.

[zalinda]

6. Honey, the Clintons have been hated

from the first foot that they stepped in DC. No one wanted them there. Why do you think he was impeached? He was considered a carpet bagger, and still is. The status quo dems want nothing to do with the Clintons, and never have. I mean, how dare them come from a no name state like Arkansas and become President.

zalinda

[cali]

17. what nonsense. Hill and Bill are as status quo as they come.

Furthermore, the dems didn't impeach him. hill isn't owed the nomination, and some of the most progressive dems in the Senate endorsed Obama.

[Texas Hill Country]

28. well, i would say two things to that...

1. Hill and Bill are hated because they put their platform and goals over party and ego... translation: they dont play partisan politics. isnt that what you guys want? duh...


2. Most of the Democratic Party is not "progressive", they are moderates.

[northzax]

126. shhh

when the Clintons reach across the aisle and get things done, they are selling out Democratic Party principles. When Obama promises to do it, it's called post partisanship. Yes, the Clintons disappointed the left wing of the party that thought they would roll back the damage done to the leftist agenda completely, and they didn't. Instead, Bill governed from the left-center and was brilliantly effective at it. Why did republicans hate him so much? because he was effective at peeling off moderates, they HAD to demonize him. But somehow this won't happen to Obama, he'll just be a post-partisan leader. I think that people are really going to like it the first time he turns away from the left wing that brought him to the dance, don't you?

[QC]

34. They weren't status quo in 1992.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm

[question everything]

40. And, in fact, before Bill got real deep in this campaign

the Obama groups compared him to Bill including, among other attributes, him not being part of the establishment.

[QC]

41. Yes, Obama reminds me a lot of Clinton in 1992.

Very similar campaigns, for example.

[cornermouse]

59. They weren't status quo when they first went there

after Bill was elected. How many democrats did you hear coming to the Clinton's defense when the neo-cons were accusing him of personally committing murder?

[blm]

74. How dare he get into office and DEEP-SIX the very investigations into GHWBush that GOT HIM THERE

Gee - you think the DC Dems who risked their lives and careers to uncover and investigate BushInc's illegal operations in IranContra, Iraqgate and BCCI might be a little NOT HAPPY that Bill swept all the outstanding matters under the oval office rug for Poppy Bush and his cronies?

And let's not forget that Bill's benefactor in ARKANSAS is the same man who BROUGHT the terror bank BCCI into this country - poor little ARKANSAS BS only fools the UNINFORMED.

[KoKo]

89. Maybe he was going to do it....but was stopped when Hillary was accused of murder.

Who knows what was done. Maybe the Dems in Congress didn't want it investigated...just like "impeachment" is off the table with our Dems now...that we worked so hard to get back in power. Why is it our Dems in power now won't pass Election Reform? Why is it they put Mukasey in power who has done nothing to investigate Bush/Cheney or honor their subpoenas.

Do we really know what went on? Who can we really trust to ever investigate the BushII/Cheney? Will Obama do it? Why should he. Why should he have his legislation go down the tubes by starting a fuss. If Nancy and Harry won't do it..why should any new President?

That's my worry blm. What do we really know about the truth of anything with our politicians? Even the ones that try to make change are always thwarted, bought out, or threatened.

Doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying for change, though. And if Progressives think they can "run" Obama and shield him from the same forces that have gone against every Dem President and destroyed them either in trying to impeach or by reputation...then we have to try.

[blm]

96. Dems had far more power in 1993 than ANY Dem has now. The dog and pony shows of the 90s

certainly fooled too many Dems.

By making ridiculous charges like Foster's murder the REAL coverups were going on and not getting ANY attention from the presscorps.

Clintons protect BushInc - always have and always will. Some Dems have a vested interest in seeing it continue. Honest citizens want BushInc and their fascist enablers stopped.

[KoKo]

97. The citizens will have to do it on their own...Through outside action groups.

The Congress: Both Dems and Repugs have been involved in all of the same covert actions for so long they only protect themselves. Our '06 Congress proves it...and it was up to the Congress to investigate Iran/Contra and the rest....and finish it in the Administration that did the deeds. But, coming off eight years of Reagan and then Poppy....our Dems were too involved and too weak. The CHANGE and HOPE Clinton's promised had no more chance of investigation than Obama or Clinton II..will. They will all "move on."

We have to change Congress while changing our President.. And, what about those Imperial Presidential Powers Bush/Cheney have installed? Will Obama or Clinton ever give away those enormous powers back to Congress? Hard to give back that kind of power once you see how it can be used. Even if you think you will do good with imperial powers and not the evil of your predecessor.

Ayyyy....it's going to take so long to sort all this out.

[Andrea]

99. It's a huge problem and we must resolve it

I think one of the first things that MUST be done is to rescind those imperial powers. We need someone in office who truly respects our system of government, our constitution and our citizens.

Then we need an in-depth, no holds barred investigation of ALL the corruption. I think we need an independent commission and a president that will support the findings of that commission.

[question everything]

113. I am hesitant about too many investigation

I think that most voters agree that we are on the wrong track, on the economy, health care, Iraq, immigration, transportation, etc. We want our representatives to actually get something done, that directly affects us, that can make a difference in our daily life.

And investigating corruption, like investigating baseball players, appear completely irrelevant, compared to what should be done.

[Andrea]

123. Valid point

That's the reason I'd like to see an independent commission. They can do the investigation and leave the representatives to straighten things out. I think it's important to expose everything, to show that the government is being cleaned up and to restore trust.

[TragedyandHope]

7. Deafening

My opinion is that if Obama is to be they nominee, they want him to get it without their influence. That way, it will be clear that he earned it fair and square and he is the unquestionable choice of the American people, rather than his nomination being the result of two of the most influential party elders leaning on his opponent and forcing her out of the race. (Maybe they wouldn't mind if others in the Democratic leadership do that, but they just don't want to do it themselves.)

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Interesting theory...We wouldn't want Obama to be seen as the first

"Affirmative Action" President.

I like that theory.

[question everything]

44. Oh, I would put Kennedy and Kerry way ahead of Edwards in terms of

"influential party elders."

And I would think that Kennedy and Kerry, had they not jumped on the Obama wagon early one, would have been now in the perfect position to lean on Hillary to quit.

More so than Gore who, as mentioned above, cannot stand Hillary and probably still holds Bill responsible for his defeat. And Edwards, yes, he was on the ticket in 2004 but has never been an influential leader. His endorsement is sought because he was really the conscience of the party this campaign, the first to talk about health care, the only one to talk about poverty. He is still loved by many of us.

[JoFerret]

49. And gore and Edwards have the integrity

to let the process play out.
I do surmise that they are not entirely taken by Obama. And that is a piece of their holding back.

[psychopomp]

109. I think you are right about that

and perhaps they think that he ought to earn it by toughing it out with Sen. Clinton. I actually think the same: we need to see Sen. Obama put through the paces because he is about to be entrusted with a tremendous amount of power.

Remember, only eight months ago Sen. Obama was not even on most of the public's radar at all. Sen. Edwards and Al Gore probably think that Sen. Obama and the Democratic Party will be able to beat Sen. McCain in the fall and they want him to get through this Primary process on his own merit.

[cali]

9. I think you're no mindreader

utterly ridiculous and pathetic post. Perhaps, genius, Gore regrets having endorsed so early last time. In any case, my Senator, who is far more popular here than Clinton ever was, endorsed Obama.

And now every SD has seen hilly's idiot blustering about Iran. That won't go over well. It's getting terrible press across the globe.

[Beregond2]

11. Uh huh.

Why is it that Clinton supporters are always saying there is no "substance" to Obama's policy positions when they are virtually identical to Hillary's? Why do they imagine him as weaker and more malleable, when it is Hillary who has shifted with every political wind that blows?

If people like Edwards and Gore really wanted a candidate who would be easy to manipulate, they would be endorsing Hillary.

I think Gore is staying out of it, because he wants to be able to have the ear of whatever candidate wins. Edwards wants a cabinet position, so can't afford to piss off either one. It's very simple really.

[IsItJustMe]

60. I think it is because Hillary says she will Nuke Iran. Her supporters appearently like the idea.

[goldcanyonaz]

12. I believe that both Gore and Edwards wish to be viewed as the parties elders.

They know we're divided. We've never had anything but white men running for President.

[maximusveritas]

15. Exactly

That's also why they don't want to be seen as trying to force Hillary out prematurely. Nothing worse than the white men coming in to tell us who won. They'll probably wait until after NC/IN if everything goes as planned

[Straight Shooter]

32. "We've never had anything but white men running for President."

1972 campaign slogan: "Unbossed and unbought"





Unfortunately, McGovern beat Chisholm, and we know what happened from there. Imagine if she had made it all the way to the GE. What a woman!

:hi:

[Raine]

39. My mother just loved Chisholm...

THANKS for the reminder and the picture. :-)

[NC_Nurse]

58. Mine too! She fucking ROCKED. Too bad this country wasn't ready to get

their heads out of their asses.

[Straight Shooter]

70. One of the absolutely greatest women of all time.

Imagine if she'd been elected president 1972 and served 1973 through 1981. :woohoo:

[karynnj]

79. Edwards has no real claim to party leader

He won exactly as many primaries in 2 years as Dean and Clark did in one. He is a one term former Senator. He may in the future be one - but more than others it will depend on defining a role and doing it.


Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry are the 4 with the most claim.

[Selatius]

13. Personally, I think they're quiet because they're deferring to the voters themselves.

The primary season has proven divisive, and they'll be damned if they helped overturn the Super Delegate system by voting against the popular will of the base. If they did overturn the popular will of the base, it is likely guaranteed that in the future the Super Delegate system will be junked permanently by a revolting base angry the party leadership overturned their choice.

[Lilith Velkor]

73. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. n/t

[democracy1st]

14. Stop with your BS

you talk like this party is some great juggernaut,this party is weak and needs to be rebuilt. The Democratic party has had problems getting certain segments of the population to vote its way. You act is if the Dem's are on a 10 game win streak. Not presidential material BS,tell us how u really feel.

[Saturday]

16. To tell the truth...

I think Gore has a higher calling...to save the planet and is totally into that life. Above politics so to speak. And I think Edwards likes one of them and Elizabeth likes the other and he has just decided to stay out of it for that reason. Totally my opinion from my gut and I have no links to back me up. :)

[Andrea]

18. I think it's pretty straightforward

Both Gore and Edwards see that neither Obama nor Clinton is a particularly strong candidate. Neither has been able to close the deal thus far, and neither looks particularly electable in the fall. They wouldn't want to be seen as partially responsible for either of them getting the nomination. It's hard to say what will happen at this point, but I doubt either one endorses until after we have an actual nominee.

[Hola]

19. Gore

Ya right, Gore is upset at the Clintons because Bill & HE got re-elected in 1996.

uh-huh...

[Pastiche423]

36. Here, please educate yourself

unless you want to continue looking like a fool. Read this article in its entirity, then come back here and tell me that Gore was not upset w/the Clintons.


http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711?currentPage=1


A tiny except:

- snip -

Before Hillary officially established her exploratory committee, she began directly competing with the vice president for money, sometimes even at his own fund-raising events. When Tipper's friend Melinda Blinken and a group of women planned a Gore fund-raiser in Los Angeles, Hillary insisted on being invited—over the objections of the event's organizers. Hillary then shocked the vice president's supporters by soliciting donations for herself in front of Tipper.

Having re-read the article, I am once again seeing red. Both of the Clintons make me ill.

ABC is the way to go if we want unity in our party and in our country.

[question everything]

47. But Gore lost in 2000 partly because of Bill

He should have been carried on the waves of the (still) expanding economy and the increase in wages across the income levels. But the Monica and impeachment affairs, and Bush running on "restoring honor to the office" - or something like that, Gore decided to distance himself. I don't remember Bill actively participating in the campaign.

[Shakespeare]

20. I think they're waiting until their endorsements are NEEDED.

In other words, they know how close the race is, and I suspect they're both watching cautiously until it looks like the race truly belongs to one candidate--given how close it's been, it'll probably take a powerhouse endorsement like theirs to end this once and for all in the next few weeks.

[saracat]

21. Don't know about Gore but edwards was very clear that he "won't' endorse anyone that doesn't have

his health care plan and barack doesn't. Elizabeth was said to be leaning toward Obama but she has been everywhere saying the Clinton healthcare Paln, which is basically Johns's is the better one. I think they are only interested in the issues and I doubt John will endorse till we have a nominee.My opinion, which is worth nothing , is that the Edwards don't really like either. John probably preferred Obama till he stabbed him in the back with his snark during their last debate and then hasn't done squat about the issues that matter to John. Obama lost Liz with the healthcare issue.Just my take.

[chimpymustgo]

27. Saracat, I think you nailed it. They're not satisfied with either. Gore/Edwards 08!!

[Andrea]

30. Hear! Hear!

:thumbsup:

[question everything]

51. Yes, this would be a winning ticket (nt)

[rodbailey]

87. Certainly Gore at the top of the ticket.

The way the party is getting fractured, and based on some of the exit polls from PA, we are headed for 4 years of McCain if either of the current jokers are at the top of the ticket. Lots of Hillary voters will stay home or vote for McCain; a smaller number of Obama voters would do the same. What has happened to the Democratic Party. And, unfortunately, some of the Hillary voters said they would not/could not vote for an African-American. We may not have progressed as much as we thought. It's got to be Gore. Let the super delegates know that you want a winning ticket in November.

[stray cat]

29. Edwards won't endorse anyone who isn't Edwards then.

[saracat]

33. He was the best choice!

[question everything]

83. And now we hear that Elizabeth may campaign for Hillary in NC (eom)

[Andrea]

90. I didn't hear that

Can you tell some more, or direct us to a website? Thanks.

[question everything]

115. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5634381

[Andrea]

124. Thanks! n/t

[LibraLiz1973]

101. I agree Sara

I think that John (like a lot of us) is not taken in by either candidate.

[nancyr]

22. They're just waiting......

to see who wins, before they stick their necks out and support one of them. They certainly wouldn't want to voice their convictions, now would they? This is what politicians do. They have to keep the door ajar for any possibility.

[FSogol]

23. I think your analysis is way off.

Both Edwards and Gore are politicians. Politicians attempt to stay on friendly terms with everyone, especially the people (and high ranking people) in their own party. They are waiting for a clear cut decision and will throw their weight behind the winner. They have probably held off endorsing Obama out of respect for the Clintons.

[Kokonoe]

24. All these states are generating new voters, its a nice warm up. nt

[ShortnFiery]

25. Wow! That's one of the most "logic challenged" posts that I've read here.

Through The Looking Glass? Indeed! :crazy:

[unc70]

62. Many Edwards supporters have issues with Clinton and Obama

I have limited my participation at DU since Edwards suspended, tried to stay agnostic, but will probably make a choice in two weeks in NC. As a populist NC Dem (Wellstone, Edwards), I have serious issues with the more corporatist styles of both Clinton and Obama. The Obama campaign also played rather dirty against Edwards in several early states, playing on both race and other issues in under-the-radar methods.

It almost seems that the electorate, collectively, prefers stalemate to choosing Clinton or Obama; just when one gets an apparent lead, the polls show a pull-back. Same goes for McCain vs either Dem. None of the above is the choice of many.

BTW I have been struck by the disconnect between the national/net/MSM story lines and the email/whisper/local view of things here in NC. While the former has focused on Clinton lying, the latter has been taking Obama to task. This effort seems to mostly be coming from the RW and not from the Clintons, based on who is forwarding the emails and passing on the gossip. The attacks on Clinton are still around, but they are mostly the same as always.

At DU and elsewhere, it is too easy to dismiss the Obama attacks as outrageous and totally without merit; we should not ignore them. Let me give you an example of how these attacks have changed over the last few months. We have all seen one of the "Obama is a Muslim" emails. Early ones were over the top, Obama denied them strongly and denied that he had ever been a Muslim. The newer emails discuss his attending religious training in the public school in Indonesia and being listed as Muslim on his registration form and site press reports of Obama attending prayers with his stepfather and schoolmates who remember him studying the Koran. If there is any truth to this modified version, then he has a big problem and so do we. Since We know he took some liberties with his family's and his life stories, it only takes a couple of more things to support the meme that Dems are liars.

[Andrea]

65. Thanks for reporting this information

I'm largely out of touch with the mainstream and it is valuable to know what they are saying.

[question everything]

84. And this is why I think it was important to raise these questions

in last week's debate.

Because no one is going to say that Obama is a Muslim, or that he is not a patriot because of the lack of the flag lapel pin or his association with Rev. Wright and with former Weather Underground Ayre.

But there will be whispers and innuendos and Obama and his campaign will have to face them, even bring them up if the other side does not. Certainly the people who brought the Willie Horton ads in 1988 are all ready.

Indeed, his campaign manager in today's Newsweek admits that he was not ready for these questions.

And I am quite sure that Edwards is bitter about Obama. The race was going to be between Hillary and himself. Iowa and SC should have been his. He spent a lot of time in Iowa since he lost in 2004. And all of a sudden a complete unknown came from nowhere, but with Oprah in tow, appealing to the super liberals who would just love to vote for a black man to show how liberals they are - never mind the specifics that Edwards had - and Edwards was left behind.

I was just thinking today: had Edwards knew that the race would not be over after Super Tuesday, would he have stayed?

[Andrea]

91. It's ironic

Because Edwards was the one with the true liberal message.

[Window]

26. It's more likely they were asked by Dean and/or Pelosi to wait,

along with a slew of other SDs, in case Hillary needs some serious convincing to get the hell out of the way so we can go to work on McWar.

[donheld]

31. Why then, did they not back someone else

Seems if they wanted to win, they'd have urged someone they could believe in to run, Instead of just sitting on the sidelines entirely.

[Andrea]

37. Well, presumably Edwards favored his own campaign.

But as far as Gore, you've posed an interesting question.

[McCamy Taylor]

38. Might be healthcare for Edwards and nuclear energy for Gore.

Obama's position on these two issues is why I am remaining neutral and not supporting either candidate. I will support whomever the Dems nominate. I believe that supporting Obama now would be renouncing

1. My support for universal health insurance

2. My opposition to nuclear energy (except fusion)

I can not do either.

As long as I keep reading Obama as all good and Hillary is all evil at DU, I will keep offering contrary positions.

[question everything]

53. I think that nuclear energy should be debated

I am not a nuclear physicist, far from it. But if we want to develop alternatives to oil, and bio fuel is causing food prices to rise, why not take a comprehensive look at nuclear energy, including, of course, disposal of waste?

[zulchzulu]

43. I'm glad Al has stayed out of the crossfire

He has his own thing now...as for John Edwards, I don't see much value in his endorsement at this point. If he endorses someone, great! But if he doesn't, the World will still spin.

[JoFerret]

45. It's a very reasonable hypothesis.

.

[nichomachus]

48. What in the world do you base this "analysis" on -- besides your own prejudices?

[JoFerret]

50. It's a very plausible theory.

.

[nichomachus]

54. Not really

You'd have to explain why they would think Obama weak. He's no weaker than either Gore or Edwards when they first ran. And, in fact, he can be a "rainmaker" for the party, bringing in new voters and previously disaffected voters, which was more than either of them could do. As far as doing what his advisers say -- well, duh -- why do you think he has advisers. Presidents can't be experts on everything, and I would hope they do what their advisers recommend.

In fact, I judge a candidate by the people with whom he/she surrounds him/herself. Those are the people who signal the direction the administration will go in. That's what has dismayed me about Hillary. I think she has surrounded herself with some dismal advisers and has allowed them to screw up her campaign - perhaps fatally.

The political world is far more complex than the OP imagines. Gore and Edwards, in not endorsing Hillary, have spoken volumes. To suggest that their silence means they are being neutral, like Switzerland, is just fantasy, because in this race there is no neutral territory for power players like them. It's going to be one or the other. What is their message? We don't want a candidate at all? That's just silly!

By being silent, it could be that they are tacitly endorsing Obama, but not openly dissing Hillary and, thereby, not burning any bridges. After all, both are potential candidates for cabinet posts and/or the Supreme Court -- with Al probably just the Supreme Court. With the Clintons, you don't get very far by opposing them openly. They might overlook a lack of endorsement, but they would never get over them endorsing Obama.

My guess would be that Gore and Edwards are hedging their bets.

[Andrea]

63. Relying on advisors -

that worked out really well with our current pResident, let's give it another go.

:sarcasm:

As far as Gore on the Supreme Court - that's very doubtful. He's not an attorney (another thing I like about him).

I DO think it is valid to judge a candidate partly by whom they surround themselves with, which is part of the reason that I don't support either of these two. Of course, it goes without saying I will vote for the nominee regardless.

[nichomachus]

69. Well, it worked out the way they wanted it to

but the people with whom he surrounded himself did presage the direction of the administration.

They wanted to invade Iraq, destroy civil liberties, turn the US into a third world country, weaken Congress, and install corporate lobbyists on the Supreme Court. So, I think it worked out pretty well for them.

The only thing they failed to do was to destroy all social programs, but they're still working on that.

[Andrea]

76. Yes, judging by their measures

they've been pretty successful.

[JoFerret]

80. Not a plausble theory in some aspects.

Gore for SCOTUS?

Not likely.

But some fine points.

[nichomachus]

86. I just assumed he was a lawyer

There's a real gap in my education. But, there are ambassadorships, etc, where he would do well. I could see him at the UN -- he's so well respected world-wide.

[Andrea]

93. I could see him as President

He could unite this party and pull in the independents. With him as a candidate, the whole script of the fall elections would change. The Republicans are all primed and ready to swiftboat either Obama or Clinton (and they've both given them plenty of ammunition). Introduce Gore at the last minute through a draft by the super delegates and the Republicans are left standing there with that "deer in the headlights" look. Let's see, no personal scandals, war veteran, won the popular vote in 2000, Nobel Peace Prize Winner - try and swiftboat this guy. Not to mention all the people out there that profoundly regret not voting for him in 2000, because they are complicit in the last eight years of tragedy.

This is the way to go. This was supposed to be our year, we can reclaim it this way.

[nichomachus]

95. Interesting idea

I suggested a day or so ago that the GOP might pull a bait-and-switch and swap McStain for some new, unvetted face to do the same thing to the Dems. I got a lot of ridicule for that.

But how do you see this playing out on the Dem side? Does someone convince both Obama and Hillary to step aside. How would that work? I just can't see that happening. I think my GOP idea has more plausiblity.

[Andrea]

98. The basic scenario is

We reach the convention with neither candidate having the 2024 pledged delegates needed for a first ballot nomination. This part is a given. At this point, it's impossible for either of them to win that many pledged delegates, even if one or the other took every remaining state with 100% of the vote. So, it comes down to the super delegates.

If enough super delegates sit out the first ballot (it will probably take about 100 sitting out and as of now over 300 are still uncommitted), neither candidate will be nominated on the first ballot.

After the first ballot, all the delegates become free agents. The party leaders, including Obama and Clinton, will be discussing how to resolve the situation. Other people can be nominated. Even though the delegates are free to change their votes, most of the pledged delegates will remain loyal to their candidate. Wanting to avoid a long and party-damaging impasse (in 1924 the convention went to 103 ballots), everyone will try to reach a consensus. The consensus choice is likely to be Al Gore for many reasons (stature, experience, respect, electability and so on). The agreement will be hammered out in such a way as to get Obama and probably Clinton on board, so that they will direct their delegates to vote for Gore. The agreement will probably include something like an agreement to make Obama the VP and Clinton the first Supreme Court appointment, but these details could vary. With the endorsement of Obama and/or Clinton, plus the super delegates lining up for him, Gore wins on the next ballot after the agreement is reached. And goes on to crush McCain in November.

Your idea about the Republicans doing the same thing is intriguing, but I don't think it's likely to happen. I don't know Republican party rules very well, but I assume that McCain has sufficient pledged delegates to win on the first ballot and that they can't or won't defect. There must be some kind of "escape hatch" built in over there, too, though. If something completely unexpected happened - say he went on a methamphetamine binge and shot up a small town (I'm not seriously suggesting that - just giving an example), they would need to have some way to get out of nominating him. I know there are a lot of them wishing they had a better candidate, but I think they are kind of stuck.

If you are interested in learning more about the Gore solution, click on my signature line and read some of the stuff over there.

[nichomachus]

100. I guess that could work

But there are problems. Both Obama and Hillary are strong people and not likely to step aside easily. Also, SCOTUS for Hillary wouldn't be a done deal, as she'd need confirmation -- and that would be a tough fight.

One note though. Delegates are already free agents. There is no law or party rule that requires them to vote for the person they are "pledged" to on the first ballot. The only thing binding them, as you note for subsequent ballots, is their commitment to the candidate. They are technically free to vote for whomever they want on the first ballot.

Bill is also a factor. It's not clear what he wants here. He may want Hillary to be president, but I have my doubts about that, which would account for his passive-aggressive sabotage of her campaign. If he does want her to be president (making him de-facto co-president) then he's not going to go quietly. If he doesn't really want her to be president (something he may not even realize) he may go along. But he is a key player in this.

The biggest fly in the ointment is whether Al wants it. He's got a good life now -- why would he stick his balls in that meat grinder again?

As far as my GOP scenario, a McCain drop-out could be engineered before the convention -- medical reasons, maybe. Or, it wouldn't take much to provoke McCrazy into a meltdown that would require "cooler heads" to choose someone else. Also, rules are for fools -- at least as far as the GOP is concerned. There were no rules covering a Supreme Court appointment of a president. That didn't stop them. They can do whatever they want. Failing anything else, there is always an unfortunate aviation accident. if they pull a swaperoo in September, the Dems now face a new person, unbloodied by the primary, with low negatives, and someone who can't be examined properly in the eight weeks remaining -- especially with the cable chatter channels coo-ing over him 24/7.

[Andrea]

104. The deal might have to be very complicated

You are right that neither would step aside easily. That's why the deal has to be good for both of them. Also, if necessary, the leaders could play hardball. Since neither has enough delegates for a win in this scenario (with the super delegates sitting out initially), they could say, "Well, that's the deal, take it or leave it, but you aren't going to be nominated period." I hope it wouldn't come to that, but if it did, it would be behind closed doors. As far as Clinton getting on the Supreme Court, as long as we retain a majority in the Senate (if we have a winning candidate, we'll probably build on our majority), she'll go through. The senators will fall in line knowing this is part of the deal.

Bill is a key player, but he's lost his influence because Hillary is one of the candidates. He doesn't have much influence beyond what any super delegate has now. He could make things go smoother by convincing Hillary to go along, but her couldn't stop anything from happening. (BTW, I think you are right that it is somewhat questionable whether he wants her to be president. I saw him interviewed before she declared, I think it was on 60 Minutes, and he said for the country's sake, he hoped she's run, but for their family's sake, he hoped she wouldn't.)

You are right that pledged delegates could technically switch their vote, even on the first ballot. That's another "safety hatch" provision. It's pretty much not done, though. After the first ballot, they can do it freely if they want.

Regarding Al wanting to run, I think he would agree to it. What he has said is that he doesn't rule out returning to politics, but he would only do that as a candidate for President. I don't think he would volunteer for this, but I think he would accept a draft for the good of the party and the country.

I wasn't thinking about the Republicans doing something so far outside normal operating procedures in terms of getting a new candidate, but you are right. They could do it. They wouldn't draw a line if they thought it would give them an advantage and they do think that "rules are for fools". Our advantage would be that their convention is first, so we would know what they were doing before they knew what we were doing - if it ended up that both parties made a switch.

[nichomachus]

108. I think you're confused on convention dates

Theirs is in September -- which is why my idea would have such an impact. It would leave the Dems only eight weeks to regroup and fight a GOP switcheroo. They would have five months to counter a change by the Dems.

[Andrea]

111. You're right, I was thinking it was in July.

Their's is the next week after ours, so each party would have essentially the same amount of time.

[question everything]

116. Fascinating scenario. Thanks (eom)

[Political Tiger]

52. You may be right

But I still think it will be sooner before later that Gore will endorse Obama, at least I hope!

[stillcool]

56. It has been interesting watching..

the sides line up..the DLC vs the Democratic Party. I'm glad that they stayed out of it. But I think their decision has nothing to do with your back-handed, condescending, derisive slurs, so prevalent in the campaign season.

[NC_Nurse]

57. I think it's because they are waiting to see who can rise above all the BS.

I know who I think it is, but they are being cautious.

I loved it when Gore endorsed Dean. Too bad it didn't matter much in the end.

[Uncle Joe]

61. Actually I believe

it was precisely because Al Gore endorsed Dean that the corporate media went after Dean, this was their second chance at trashing Al Gore by proxy.

[Usrename]

66. Gore did endorse Dean.

And Dean has been the best thing to happen to this party in at least a decade.

[Johnny__Motown]

67. They just don't want Carville to bite them

[last1standing]

68. Wow! That was sublimely stupid.

Just another excuse to insult the candidate you don't like while trying to act above doing that very thing.

Complete fail.

[rucky]

71. Maybe they're just waiting to back the nominee?

:shrug:

[crispini]

75. They are waiting to see if they have to be the 'party elders'

in a brokered convention scenario.

Your OP is silly hypothesis.

[Andrea]

94. There will very likely be a brokered convention

Neither Clinton nor Obama can reach 2024 pledged delegates. It's impossible. Neither one looks like they will drop out.

That leads to a brokered convention and a chance for us to end up with a winning candidate and achieve unity in the party.

[LibraLiz1973]

102. Keep praying for this because it is the ONLY way out of this

Both of them are horrible candidates

[Andrea]

106. I'm in complete agreement

I've been really appalled at the stupid mistakes both of them have made. Furthermore, neither of them has any platform that resonates with me.

[madrchsod]

77. gore does not like the clintons

edwards was wise to stay out of the endorsement issue

[OzarkDem]

78. Jealous of Bill Clinton? Very possible

Doesn't speak well of our Dem leaders does it?

[JoFerret]

82. I think they were jealous and then found

other other reasons to stab him in the back.

No loyalty.

[rodbailey]

85. Perhaps Gore doesn't want to endorse,

because that would totally close the door on his accepting a draft at the Convention after Hillary and Barack have bloodied each other so much that neither can win in November against McShame. And, at this point, I suspect a number of the uncommitted super delegates are sitting on their hands because they can also see that Barack may not be able to win a lot of the blue-collar/Reagan Dems (who will either stay home or vote for McShame) and Hillary's negatives are starting to climb to numbers that mean she couldn't win in November. A lot of these folks have their own political hides to protect and they are going to want a definite winner in November - and that winner would be/could be GORE. Believe it or don't.

[question everything]

118. This may be the clearest suggestion that he will be open to be drafted

even though, of course, he has been denying it.

And I think that the only way the delegates will not rebel is if Obama gets the VP post (though I wish it were Edwards)

[Andrea]

125. He hasn't denied it, really

He has said he has no plans to run again and doesn't expect to. He hasn't said he won't. He's been very clear that he is not making a "Shermanesque statement". He has said that he won't rule out being involved in politics again, but if he does get involved it will only be as a candidate for president.

[LWolf]

92. In other words, they see the same non-choices

that I do.

As long as it's still possible, I'll hold out for a brokered convention that will result in a candidate I CAN support.

The big question: Will either of these two men, or both, fill that need?

[LibraLiz1973]

103. Praying that one of them will. In an ideal world, both of them

together would make our world a MUCH better place

[IndependentDem]

105. i have a strange feeling that Edwards is going to support Clinton in NC...

and i have a feeling that it wont be John.

[question everything]

119. Last night it was suggested that Elizabeth will

I don't know what has happened since..

Here is the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5634381

[IndependentDem]

122. seems like just speculation...

but we should know for sure pretty soon. I have a bad feeling that something really big/bad is going to happen in NC, hopefully I'm just paranoid.

[Harry Monroe]

107. And oh what a "dream ticket" that would have been!!!!

Gore/Edwards. That's a ticket that would have unstoppable. One can dream, can't s/he?? Alas, what could have been!!

[Andrea]

112. It's still possible

Don't give up hope!

[ruby slippers]

114. Is Elizabeth still going to endorse Hillary then?

I heard she was. That will be a sad day. I used to like her, too.....

[mb7588a]

117. also,

they have to be able to come in and clean up a mess at the convention if necessary...

[NoodleyAppendage]

120. I think your hypothesis is nothing but a Hillary shill/plant to cast doubt upon Obama.

Nice try, jerk off. Many of us can see through the false concern...this is just another thread in the litany of threads that are meant to plant the doubt the "Obama can't win the general." A bullshit argument.

J

[wisteria]

121. The problem with your theory is that Senator Obama has substance.

He has more Constitutional law experience than Clinton.
He has served in a the house and Senate in ILL and has been a state and US Senator longer than Clinton has been a Senator.
He wrote and had passed one of the most sweeping anti- corruption bills.
He was a community organizer who was an effective and strong advocate for the less fortunate in Ill.
He ran for office and risked losing for speaking out about the Iraq War Resolution and the folly of going to war with Iraq.
He worked himself up from nothing. His father left the family when Obama was two years old.
He has shown in his votes while in the US Senate that he uses sound judgment in voting for or against legislation.
One think that stuck out for me was the Bankruptcy and credit card bill that he voted against and Clinton voted for.
A vote for this bill was an easy one for those who liked taking money from the Banking lobbyist. In this case this bill appeared damaging to the middle class ( it has turned out that this is very much the case) an Obama for-saw the outcome of passage so he voted against it. Clinton on the other hand sided against the middle class and for the banking industry.
Finally, I think we can trust Senator Obama to surround himself with good strong leaders. He has shown wise judgment in the past and I think he will ask for and have the best people serve as his cabinet.
I hold out hope that Gore will endorse him. Edwards is just playing games for attention, IMO.