Another "Gore is the solution" article

[rodbailey]

Just saw this in a post over at www.algore.org:
http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid60249.aspx. Here are a few
comments from the article: "Therefore, if the Democrats want to have
their best chance to win an election in November that six months ago
it looked like they couldn't lose, they may have only one option at
this point: they can turn to Al Gore."

"In truth, Gore would be a stronger candidate in November than the
two front-runners. He knows what it's like to run in a tough
presidential campaign, which, as we're finding out with Obama, is a
huge advantage. He is, after all, a Nobel Prize winner; he has the
advantage of now running from outside Washington even though he's as
experienced as John McCain; and he might be able to pick off a
Southern state or two. He's already won once — with an asterisk. And
he could put the electoral focus back on the economy and the
Republican record of the past eight years — a record likely to
continue as long as Clinton or Obama is the nominee."

"Several things would have to occur — and quickly. First, some senior
Democrats — with the help, perhaps, of a former presidential
candidate, such as John Edwards — would have to publicly urge Gore to
make a run. It would help matters enormously if this group included
former supporters of Clinton and Obama."

"Second, though not required, a write-in campaign could be mounted in
one of the remaining states, such as Kentucky or Oregon, on May 20,
or Montana or South Dakota, on June 3. The advantage of Oregon is
that, historically, at least one candidate — Jerry Brown in 1976 —
ran a strong third there as a write-in."

"Third, a bloc of superdelegates would have to declare for the
putative candidate. Again, this isn't impossible. There are about 25
Edwards delegates still out there that might be persuaded by Edwards
himself — so that's a start. Plus, there are enough horrified and
disgruntled party elders who would welcome an alternative, if they
thought they wouldn't be making fools of themselves by going out on a
limb for a candidate with no chance of being successful."


Just to add a brief note to this, there is going to be a concerted effort to get primary voters in Montana to write-in Gore's name. No matter what that results in, he'll at least come in 3rd. And, if it is successful at all, he might beat Hillary. Just think of the news coming out after that.

[Texas Hill Country]

1. a gore write in would only hurt Obama imo

[Andrea]

5. I'm interested in knowing your reasoning on that.

Could you elaborate please?

[LWolf]

60. That would be the point, yes.

I am an Oregon voter. I've been considering tossing HRC a vote.

Not because I want to see her as the nominee; I don't. Because I wan't it close enough to force that brokered convention, and I have every intention of lobbying to nominate someone other than Obama and Clinton.

This is a good idea, though. Perhaps I will write in Gore.

One thing I know I will not be doing: voting for Obama.

[midnight]

2. Gore always was the solution. We made it known in 2000.

[Liberal Gramma]

3. How many times does Gore himself have to tell you

He's not interested! We have two nominees. One of them will be our candidate.

[rodbailey]

4. Actually,

Gore has never said he's not interested. In fact, quite the contrary. In the CNN interview after receiving the Nobel, he said if he ever got back into politics it would only be at the presidential level. Besides, a draft or a write-in means the people are asking him kindly to consider the top job. At that point, if he wants, he can always say no. If he doesn't say no, that means he's interested. Back in 1952, they had to draft Ike. Guess he didn't say no, did he.

[Tesha]

12. And John McCain will be the 44th United States President.

> We have two nominees. One of them will be our candidate.

And John McCain will be the 44th United States President.

Frankly, I think we could do better.

Tesha

[chimpymustgo]

57. OMG Al Gore will kick McSame's ass all over the country!!

[Andrea]

6. Yes, he won before

and he can win again.

Re-Elect Gore!

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. A far superior choice than we have now. Put Edwards on the ticket!

[Andrea]

13. I would love that ticket,

but I'll take Gore plus anybody.

[Tesha]

14. Edwards folds too easily.

(And I say that as a NH Edwards supporter)

Put Obama on the ticket as the Veep so he's fully
armed and ready when Gore finishes in 2016.

Tesha

[LWolf]

61. Gladly.

Get me Gore, and I'll gladly support Edwards on that ticket.

[JoFerret]

56. True

the world we never had. Sigh.

[predfan]

7. If Al Gore was 6 months away from leaving office, and by extension

leaving this country in the shape Bush is leaving it, he'd be impeached, and with good reason. Thanks again, Ralph Nader.

[Andrea]

11. You know what is disgusting?

I don't think Ralph Nader has ever admitted, even to himself, that he is complicit in the whole Bushco tragedy.

[invictus]

8. This is unproductive. Obama has already won and he is the better candidate. n/t

[Andrea]

15. No, he hasn't

In order to win, one must obtain 2024 delegates. It is mathematically impossible for either Obama or Clinton to achieve that number through pledged delegates. No one has achieved that number to date, so no one has won.

[cali]

23. i have a question for you

if, in the coming weeks, Obama gets that 2024, will you continue pushing this scheme?

[Andrea]

24. He can't get that number through pledged delegates, but

if he got it through super delegates that declared for him and they were definite, no I wouldn't continue. As we've been very clear about, we are proposing this as an alternative to a deadlocked convention. If circumstances became such that there would definitely not be a deadlocked convention, it would be moot. I really doubt that will happen, but it is within the realm of possibility.

I've answered your question, so could you please answer my question downthread about where else this article was posted? I did a couple searches and couldn't find it. Thanks!

[cali]

51. Yes,of course he can only reach 2024 through SD endorsements

But 2024 is the number no matter the composition of the delegates. Thanks for answering. And I'm glad to hear that you'd consider Obama the nominee should he reach that number. I find it amusing that you think a deadlocked convention is more likely than Obama or Clinton getting the requisite SD endorsements, given that the message that this won't go to the convention has been signaled repeatedly by Reid, Pelosi,Dean, Van Hollen, Frank, Corzine and many other prominent dems. Also, do understand that Obama now needs less than a third of the remaining SDs? And what do you mean as definite? Either SDs endorse someone or they don't. I don't think you have too great an understanding of what's going on here if you believe a deadlocked convention is more likely than the SDs endorsing someone at the end of the primary process.

In any case, I had no problem finding the thread you asked about, Andrea. Here it is.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5662115

[Andrea]

53. Definite, as in not "leaning" or "considering" or

"rumored to be".

You have a real problem controlling the snark, don't you? I politely answered your question, but you find my opinion "amusing". You must be very amused lately, considering how much press this story is getting.

Thanks for the link. I was searching with various combinations of Phoenix and Boston Phoenix, since that is where it was originally published. I din't know RealClearPolitics had picked it up as well.

[LWolf]

62. No, he hasn't, and No, he isn't.

He has not achieved the required number of delegates, and he's an unacceptable candidate.

I will happily support almost any democrat over Obama.

Except for Clinton; they are equally appalling.

[cali]

9. this dishonest article has been posted already

this is ridiculous. SDs are endorsing Obama in increasing numbers. It is not, as the author claims, a deadlocked contest. Not even close to deadlocked. It'll be a relief when this thing is done in a few weeks, though I don't expect your efforts to try and undermine the presumptive nominee to end even after that. Good thing it's so feeble, this Gore movement.

[rodbailey]

18. In my view,

if it were all that feeble, you wouldn't feel it necessary to "trash" even the suggestion that there might be an effort to draft Gore so we can have a winner in Nov. The way Hillary and Barack are going at each other, and the way the exit polls came out from PA, I'm not sure either of them can win against McCain. And four more years of Bushco would be a disaster for this country and the world.

[cali]

19. no, sorry. it's simple. one of my pet peeves is the delusional

fog that so many posters are in. I don't think there's any possibility of a Gore or anyone else draft suceeding, and you should pursue it to your heart's content. That doesn't mean I and others will buy into your delusion. I'm not sure either Obama or Clinton can win either. But then again, under the circumstances you advocate, I think Gore has no greater of a chance.

[rodbailey]

20. If neither Obama nor Clinton can win,

where do we turn as Democrats to find a winner. Seems like you rah-rah for Obama is fading a bit. Why not join us in our delusions and help get a guaranteed winner on the ticket for the Dems. Wouldn't hurt to try.

[cali]

22. Ever hear of Pema Chodron?

As she says "Start where you are". In other words, live in the real world, in the present, and where we are is with Obama as the likely nominee, with Hillary having an outside chance of winning. You neglected to notice that I said that I think installing Gore would be a disaster and that he has even less of a chance of winning than Obama or hillary, under your scenario. My support for Obama is stong. I don't go for the nonsense of knights rushing in to save us, and much as I like Gore, he was not a good campaigner.

[Andrea]

26. A quick perusal of Bartlett's will find many

relevant quotations regarding trying for the best, not giving up and so forth. I like this one the best, I think:

Some look at things that are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

(George Bernard Shaw said this first, RFK quoted him.)

[rodbailey]

33. No one's talking about

"installing" Gore. Presumably if enough super deletages were worried about the chances of the top of the ticket winning in November, they would be looking for a winner. Remember, many of these super delegates are running for re-election in November. They want the top of the ticket strong so their chances further down the ticket are better. I think we all would like to see a Dem. in the WH, and a filibuster proof number in the Senate so the Dem. agenda could move forward. If all these super delegates really thought Obama had it locked up, they would be flocking to him like bees to honey. But, until and unless they do, that indicates some real nervousness on their part. So, rather than "installing" Gore, they would be turning to him, presumably with the tacit agreement of Obama (if he has the largest number of pledged delegates) for a possible draft so their chances of winning in Nov. would be enhanced. No "installing," just realistic politics on their part. All we want to do is let some of these super delegates know that we think that would be a really wise path to follow.

[cali]

34. no. wrong again. the SDs aren;'t endorsing him en masse at this point

because they don't want to alienate a large segment of the dem base. they don't want to be seen as bullying or forcing out Hillary. They have been endorsing though- over 80 for Obama over the last 2+ months. And there isn't a scintilla of evidence that the SDs are remotely interested in anyone outside Obama or Hillary. Obama only needs less than a third of the remaining SDs. And if you think Obama, after winning the most delegates, raising huge amounts of money from over a million people, is just going to toss it all aside, you really aren't in touch with reality.

This is mind boggling to me. Fascinating though. Folks who are this far from the real world always interest me.

[Andrea]

36. I was wondering

what happens in your head when you read an article that doesn't conform to your world view? Do you dismiss it just as easily as you do any comment made here that doesn't conform? Seriously, how do you handle that?

[cali]

39. not at all. But I do place a premium on political articles being reality

based. I'm not, for instance, big on most conspiracy theories. You don't seem to have much interest in reality based politics. I do. It's one reason I could accept that impeachment wasn't going to happen much as I wanted it.

[Andrea]

47. And how do you define "reality based"?

Because truthfully, what you said about me above is very much how you seem.

[rodbailey]

41. I realize it's a small sample, but

I know of at least 2 Representatives/super delegates who have talked about the Gore solution. Not that they were ready to go that way, but they realized it was being talked about. Now, why would these folks, as well as others within the party and commenting both in print and on TV mention this option unless it was being talked about in circles that I don't rub elbows with, and I'm assuming you don't either. I think they all realize that, yes, a lot of folks have invested time and money in both Obama's and Clinton's campaigns. But, one of them is going to be the loser, so right there there are millions of dollars and thousands of folks who, you could say, are being pushed aside. If Obama was facing a possible coup by the Clinton's by their putting extreme pressure on enough supers to swing the thing her way, even if he had the most pledged delegates, etc., do you think he'd rather be pushed completely out of the picture, or perhaps take the VP slot, knowing he'd have a really good shot at Pres. in 4 or 8 years. Seems like he might take the longer term view.

[cali]

52. People talk of all kinds of things theoretically and as you

say, they weren't ready to go that way. Look, if it turns out the convention is deadlocked, the delegates- pledged and SDs alike will have to deal with it; on that we agree. And really, there's very little discussion of this, at least publically, by party members, and not much by political journalists or analysts. People are used to losing to the winner in campaigns. That's a firm part of the equation. What they don't cotton to, is haveing it taken through a move that's seen as illegitimate. As to the Clintons putting pressure on SDs, that's what they've been doing for months with virtually no success. Obama has received over 80 SD endorsments since Super Tuesday, she's received 9- and she's lost 4 who defected to Obama. In addition, the only way that I can see the SDs going to Clinton in numbers that push her over the top is if Obama implodes and underperforms badly in the remaining states he's expected to win: NC, OR, SD and MN.

[Andrea]

21. I tried to find another post for this article and couldn't

Could you direct me to it, please?

TIA.

[depakid]

27. Wishful thinking on your part

Maybe it will come to pass, maybe not.

Bottom line is that Obama looks weak in the fall, based on key states and constituencies that he likely will not carry- and will probably lose rather handily to McCain.

I know that doesn't matter much to true believers, it's Obama or bust.

[Andrea]

28. It's his weakness against McCain that I think will prevent

him from picking up enough SDs to get the nomination on the first ballot. Those people are professionals and their main concern is winning in the fall. This is why we see so much press about them being worried or concerned or hesitant.

It's not some attempt to show disrespect to either candidate, it's just the current reality.

[malik flavors]

16. I'd only support it if it was Gore/Obama. I could live with that Co-presidency.

[Andrea]

17. That's the most likely ticket

Obama will need to be party to any agreement. He has more delegates than Clinton, and Clinton and Gore do not get along. So, I think it is most likely that the VP would be Obama.

It would be something like a Co-Presidency, I think, because Gore was a strong VP and he would continue that and increase it. That would set up Obama perfectly to follow Gore into the White House in 4 or 8 years.

[democrattotheend]

25. Same here

I'd only be okay with Gore jumping in if Obama was his VP.

[IDemo]

35. I'd only support Obama/Gore

Or Obama/Richardson
Or Obama/Biden
Or Obama/Edwards
Or Obama/...

See a pattern developing here?

[road2000]

29. Forbes: Positives/Negatives and Hypothetical Tickets

http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/22/forbes-tracker-appeal-oped-cx_daa_0422appeal.html



"For the first time this month, Forbes and E-Poll Market Research also examined the total appeal of 14 different potential president-vice-president tickets. For Republicans, the most appealing is McCain teamed with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while the least appealing is McCain matched with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"On the Democratic side, the most appealing ticket is the very hypothetical one of former Vice President Al Gore on the presidential line with Obama as vice president. This is followed closely by an Obama-Clinton pairing. A Gore-Clinton ticket came in third, but all three outpolled the most appealing Republican matchup of McCain and Rice. A pairing of Clinton with New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg came in last on the Democratic side (though ahead of McCain-Romney)."

[Andrea]

32. I read that article, too

It was very interesting. I just wish they would have shown the complete list of tickets they polled on.

[bhikkhu]

30. Just to interject this into the conversation -

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr24.html

As things stand, without the support of wrapped up nomination, with all the baggage of the last few weeks, Obama beats McCain in the electoral college projections. That is, McCain is projected to lose before anyone has even campaigned against him.

[Andrea]

31. thanks for posting that

That's a very handy site. It does show Obama beating McCain by 5 electoral votes, as it stands today. It also shows Clinton beating McCain by 40 electoral votes, as it stands today. If you go back to April 18th, it shows both of our candidates losing to McCain.

With a less than stellar performance by both of these candidates, combined with Clinton doing notably better than Obama, it's no wonder that many super delegates are holding out. They don't want to give the nomination to Clinton when Obama is ahead on delegates. They don't want to give the nomination to Obama when he looks weaker in the fall. They want a candidate with a more assured margin of victory, especially given the Republicans propensity for stealing elections. I think it's very understandable that they are hesitant to endorse either at this time.

[FourScore]

37. Thanks for posting this. n/t

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

38. Is it just me?

Or would this be a coronation? It just seems SO undemocratic. I mean we go into the convention arguing over who has the most votes and we nominate someone who has the least votes? AND has said repeatedly that he doesn't want to run? Not ONLY that but, isn't he finally making tremendous progress in the enviornmental movement? On top of that, the party wastes hundreds of millions of dollars on primaries and caucuses for NOTHING?

I understand everyones devotion to Al but, I think he's right where he needs to be and right were he WANTS to be. At the forefront of the fight against global warming.

[cali]

40. ack. the people possting this stuff think that Obama and Hillary

would go along with it and thus it wouldn't be undemocratic- or something like that. And I'm not devoted to Gore. I like him. I appreciate his focus on climate change, but he's just another politician, not the savior of the world, and not the next dem nominee.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

43. It just makes me wonder sometimes.

Every time I see these threads, is this really something this person thinks could happen or is it just posting a dream. Like, wouldn't it be nice if this were possible kind of thing. Gore, much like Kerry, is very intelligent but, can't seem to get his message out in the 15 second sound bites that Americans seem to be able to focus on. He just never connected with Americans that way. I just can't see how going back to the Clinton presidency with Gore would be all that much different than Hillary in the American psyche. Not that I'm saying that Gore is just like Hillary, but most Americans just aren't into politics the way we are. In the Non-political junkie world, a place we all forget exists sometimes, it would be, well, just totally ridiculous. All of this drama, all of that money, for that? I think it would leave everyone saying WTF?!

But, what do I know? I'm just a political junkie on a message board! :silly:

[Andrea]

46. Well, for those of us here who are

political junkies, it can be hard to assess what the "regular" people would think. I do think it would raise the interest level because so many people are unaware of the way the process is set up. They might want to find out.

I think most people, when it comes down to it, walk into the polling place and choose the person they think would be best without regard for whatever cases might be made by people here. That's why you have an incredible amount of discussion here about how upset people will be if the super delegates give the nom to Clinton when Obama has more pledged delegates, but at the same time you see current electoral college projections showing Obama beating McCain by 5 electoral votes, compared to Clinton beating McCain by 40. The people polled for those projections don't care about all this "inside baseball" talk. They just pick who they think is best out of the match-up presented to them.

Also, I think you're looking at Gore's public persona circa 2000, when he was part of DLC and they pushed him to campaign their way, rather than his persona now. He has higher favorable ratings than both Obama and Clinton, and he's the only one of the three that has higher favorable ratings than McCain. He is not the person he was in 2000 and it really shows.

And as far as what you are wondering, I can't speak for everyone that posts in these threads, but I know Rod and I know he is serious, just like I am. We have both done a lot of research on this whole matter. We know the process, we keep up on what is in the press and what the poll results are and we know this could happen. It may or may not happen, but it certainly could.

[Andrea]

42. The whole nominating process is very undemocratic.

It's not the same type of thing as a general election. It is a process the party puts in place to determine the best candidate to win in the general election.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

44. Yes, BUT,

Al Gore wasn't a choice that anyone was offered. Nobody got to vote for him nor did he have to run against any of the candidates. He's never presented a platform. He never participated in the process that the party puts in place to determine the best candidate to win.

[Andrea]

45. I'm not sure how familiar you are

with the rules. I don't want to insult you or waste your time by explaining something you already know. The bottom line is, we get to vote but that is just a relatively recent addition to the rules and in no way meant to supersede the purpose of the process, which is to select the candidate best able to win in November.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Say that at some distant time in the future some candidate runs for president (this doesn't represent any particular real person) and gets a significant majority of votes and delegates, and reaches a majority two months before the convention. This candidate is declared by everyone concerned to be the "presumptive nominee". There is no controversy, the other candidates drop out. The next weekend, this candidate goes on a drunken binge and shoots out all the streetlights in their home town and paints obscene graffiti all over the convention center. There are several witnesses and the whole thing is caught on tape.

Would we still keep this candidate as our nominee? Of course not. But they got the most votes, and a majority of pledged delegates. Isn't this undemocratic? Sure, it's undemocratic, but it's not against the rules., and it's in the party's best interests.

Keep in mind that there are huge numbers of voters in our party who did not get to vote for the candidate of their choice because two candidates had a lot more money and almost all the media coverage, so everyone else was out by the end of January. How democratic is that?

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

48. These are all hypotheticals that haven't happened.

Nor are they likely to. You also assume that Al Gore WOULD do it. I'm not so sure he would. He has an obvious calling, and to me, is better suited to do what he's passionate about. His mission is just SO important. His new ad campaign is brilliant and will definately make a difference. Why stop now?

"Keep in mind that there are huge numbers of voters in our party who did not get to vote for the candidate of their choice because two candidates had a lot more money and almost all the media coverage, so everyone else was out by the end of January. How democratic is that?"

It's not that they don't get to vote as much as it has already been decided. The primaries still take place. Undemocratic, yes. But, there was a vote. Installing someone, regardless of who, is more undemocratic, if ya ask me. Now if you said everyone should vote at the same time, that I could definately get behind.

But, negating the whole process, would be chaos. Especially this far into it. Too many people are far too invested in their candidates, in time, money and emotion.How many volunteers do you think would volunteer for a candidate, only to have their hard work thrown in their faces for someone who hasn't spent a dime or a minute for the nomination.

[Andrea]

49. Thanks for having a serious discussion about this.

Even if I don't agree with you on everything, I definitely appreciate your willingness to discuss it in a rational way.

I'll just respond in the order of your post.

First, regarding Gore's willingness, I have several reasons to think he would be willing. First, he has been very deliberate in all his comments the last several years not to rule it out, even when asked very bluntly. He has ruled out any other involvement in politics, very specifically, and said that the only way he would become involved again is as a candidate for president. Then there is this: in all his recent interviews since the big ad campaign was announced, he has emphasized his opinion that the only way to make a real change on the global warming issue is to change the laws. He says it's important to change the light bulbs, but more important to change the laws. What better way to do that? Another reason is that I believe, and I've heard this several times over the years from various pundits, that a person who wants to be president never stops wanting to be president. He or she may very well stop wanting to campaign, but they don't stop wanting to serve the terms. If he were to be drafted at the convention, he would be looking at two months of campaigning, and I think he would put up with that. Also, he has not endorsed. There are many possible explanations for that, but one explanation is in order to keep this option open. Another thing is, we are not talking about him openly lobbying people to make him the candidate. We're talking about him agreeing to accept the nomination if asked.

I think we just have an honest difference of opinion on this "what is more undemocratic" thing. The primaries still take place under this scenario, and they are no more meaningless than they are now. The whole nominating process is completely insane. I think we need to set up the process so it is more likely to produce the outcome it was created for in the first place, which is to determine the best candidate to win in the general. Many people think that the main goal of the nominating process is to let the people decide who will be the candidate, but that's just not the case. The way it is set up now, in a hodge podge of primaries and caucuses held under different rules from state to state is the result of incremental change over the years and trying to keep certain states happy for who knows what reason. Regardless of the outcome of the election, we as a party need to revamp the whole process. My personal preference would be to eliminate all caucuses and have a closed primary in every state. Have instant runoff voting in every primary. Conduct the primaries according to the schedule in the Delaware plan. Make every primary winner-takes-all. The main advantage I see to this structure is that we would truly come up with the candidate most likely to win the general. The side benefits are that it would be more democratic than what we have now and it is simple enough that most people could understand it. There would be no need for super delegates under this plan, either. In fact, there would be no need for a convention unless something unexpected happened (such as in my hypothetical above).

But, the thing is, we don't currently have such a nice, reasonable plan and we need to make the best of our current situation. Since we are likely to end up with a deadlocked convention, I'm in favor of having a plan to deal with that contingency and to end up with the best possible candidate.

As far as people being invested in their candidates, I think that too many people are too invested in their candidate, to the point where they think some idea of "fairness" and "look at all the work I did" outweighs the need to beat McCain. No matter who ends up as our candidate, their supporters will be a minority of the total populace of volunteers. Again, I have to say, remember all the people out there who supported Kucinich or Edwards or Biden and so on. Put those people together with Clinton's volunteers and you have Obama's in the minority, put them together with Obama's volunteers and you have Clinton's in a minority. Someone is going to lose. That's just the nature of the beast. It's up to their current candidates and the rest of the party leadership to put together a winning coalition that people will get behind. Now, you are an Obama supporter. If it comes down to a deadlocked convention, would you be more likely to get behind Clinton if she ends up with it (especially considering all the mutual animosity), or to get behind Gore when Obama stands up and says, "I believe this is the best thing for the party and the country and I urge my delegates and supporters to get behind Al Gore."?

Now some will say it won't happen that way, but that is precisely how it would happen because it's the only way it could happen. Agreements are made and the people involved have to follow through on them. The agreement would most likely involve Obama as VP, and obviously that would be off if he didn't get behind it. Now, it could happen as it has in the past, ballot after ballot of indecision and animosity (103 ballots in 1924), but I think Gore on the 2nd or 3rd ballot is a much better outcome.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

54. I Agree, that we disagree

Actually, I was for Biden first, then Edwards and now Obama. I would think that Biden or Edwards would be more likely to have that outside chance that you give to Gore but, that's just my opinion. ;)

But, lately, I wonder to myself if it now came down to Edwards, Biden or Obama, who would I choose? Things have changed for me, and Obama has grown on me. So much so, that I question my first choices!I think that in the beginning, I just never thought Obama would have a chance. Boy was I wrong! I underestimated our country and it's desire for change. I mean I knew it was there but, underestimated it's strength. In my opinion, the Clinton campaign did too.

I am a fairly rational person and try very hard not to get too emotional on my choices. Not easy these days!

I do admire Al Gore, even more so now than I did in 2000. Mostly because he has been so dedicated to the crisis of global warming. He has done something I never thought possible, brought conservatives into reality regarding the environment. To me, that's practically a miracle!

Anyway, thanks for answering my questions on this and I would never attack a fellow DUer, even when we disagree. That's just crazy, we're on the same side! I know how "old fashioned" of me. Been here since 2004, and I miss the old DU. I know we'll get back to it after we have a nominee, but, man, it seems like forever until then!

:hug:

[Andrea]

55. I miss it too

I do hope we get back to it. I find the depth and breadth of hate-mongering around here lately to be quite embarrassing.

Thanks again for the reasonable, civil discussion!


:pals:

[LWolf]

63. Please don't pretend that there is anything "democratic"

about the current primary process, and the '08 primaries in particular.

[OneBlueSky]

50. the longer the pissing contest continues, the more likely it is that a new candidate . . .

will have to emerge if the Democrats want any chance at all of winning in November . . . other than his lack of interest, Al Gore is the perfect candidate, the only one who will focus the campaign on the REAL issues, i.e.

- war and peace
- upholding the Constitution
- economic, racial and social justice
- protecting and preserving the environment

every other issue is contained within one or more of these . . .

with thanks to Bruce Springsteen for summarizing the REAL issues so neatly and compactly . . .

of course, the dirty little secret that no one is talking about is the fact that, for the most part, senators and members of Congress don't really care who wins the presidency as long as that person preserves the status quo that keeps them in office and free plane rides . . .

[rodbailey]

58. You've certainly hit the nail on the head.

Your list contains the big issues that Gore would/could address better than Hillary or Barack. In fact, he's addressed several of these in his little one minute videos on current.com several months back. As I recall, he talked about health care (universal/single payer system), the Iraq war and bringing the troops home, the abuse by the administration of its power, and the issues surrounding gay rights (there might have been another one - it's been a while since I looked at them).

With respect to you point about members of Congress not really caring about who wins the presidency, I think there may be some truth to that, but they will get concerned if it looks like the person at the top of the ticket is going to cost them their seat in Congress. That's why I think some of the super delegates (the Congressional ones) may be holding back now to see where all the pieces are going to fit before endorsing Obama (or Clinton). We've seen stories about Obama having a couple of new endorsements a day lined up from now until NC/IN in May. Whether that might have been true or not, I suspect some of them might be having second (or third) thoughts after the results from PA.

[KoKo]

59. kick

[LWolf]

64. I hadn't thought about writing him in on my ballot next month,

but that is certainly more palatable than throwing a vote to HRC, trying to keep it close enough to go to the convention.

A write-in campaign is a better alternative.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: