Gore Will Run, His Backers Say

[whometense]

For what it's worth. I don't know this guy, but Alterman linked to him today. http://ostroyreport.blogspot.com/2005/10/gore-will-run-his-backers-say.html

Forget that half-hearted declaration Al Gore gave at an economic forum in Stockholm, Sweden two weeks ago about having "absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again." According to friends, family and political advocates, Gore's playing it coy and has every intention of entering the race. "I'm not discouraged at all by what he said," said one of the Gore backers who's recently spoken with US News & World Report. "He doesn't want to be embarrassed and he won't just slowly tip-toe into the race. He wants the whole thing set up for him and that will be easy to do."

Gore's supporters cite his strong, early anti-war stance and his concern over environmental issues, as well as his successful economic track-record and the fact that he won the popular vote in 2000. Many believe he won the Electoral College and the thus the presidency but had it stolen by the Florida GOP and the U.S. Supreme Court.

His advocates say Gore could get a groundswell of support from high-tech, media and corporate donors.

[Mass]

1. Apparently, it is time to change the subject - So RWers talk about

Dems primaries, and we can count on LW blogs to follow up.

This is a reason why we lose our battles. Rather than focusing on important issues, we take the bait each time (Rathergate, bulge, ...) and let the Bushies change the agenda (not you, them).

[JI7]

3. exactly

i don't remember Republicans talking about their Primary , even during the primary season as much as i see Dems do it years before.

and as you say it usually is right wingers who push the issue.

also look at the way they report on it. they talk about Dem primary by pitting candidates against each other. but they talk about the potential Republican candidates by just talking up their strengths and without any infighting.

[karynnj]

2. This is the strangest thing I've read in a long time

Aside from the fact that it's too early, if he really "wants the whole thing set up for him" - it's not going to happen. He'll have to fight Hillary and likely Kerry and others.

I think he could have won the nomination if he would have gone for it in 2004. He could easily have been the DLC candidate and with not having had to vote on IWR won the Deanies as well. In 2008, he will have a tough fight unless Hillary drops out. (That interaction will not be pleasant.)

Gore ran in 1988 for President and did poorly. He was picked to be VP and did a great job as VP. Unlike Kerry, from people who have seen him - he can be pretty boring because he can't seem to refrain from talking to crowds as if they were slightly slow third graders. Like Kerry, he would probably be better as a President than as a politician running for President. Kerry is a much better debater.

[ginnyinWI]

4. yeah, nothing means anything this early

I always understood that Al Gore was to the right of Kerry. So it is strange how much DU has taken to him. The only explanation is the series of anti-war speeches he's given in the last few years. I am ambivalent about him--he'd be much better than a lot of possible candidates, but I would trust Kerry more.

[sandnsea]

5. "slightly slow third graders"

lol, I thought kindergarten teacher myself, glad to know I'm not the only one who took him that way. I don't think the whole thing is going to be set up for him either, Kerry might be persuaded to step aside, no way Hillary will.

[whometense]

7. My dirty little secret

Is it safe to spill here? Probably not. I voted for Gore, but the way he speaks annoyed the hell out of me.

Of course, Bush absolutely horrified me, so it's not like in a million years I would have voted for anyone but Gore in 2000. But given the choice between Kerry and him?? No contest.

[karynnj]

8. I typed and erased that twice before typing it a third time

I just couldn't think of a way to explain why his speeches annoyed me when heard but not when read. Though it seems unkind - and maybe the mirror image of the southerns who think that northerns (at least from the NE, NYC and Chicago) talk too fast.

I doubt if Kerry would step aside. This is what the primaries decide. Gore's endorsement of Dean over Kerry and Gore's choice of Lieberman after giving Kerry a Kerry 2008 shirt and Gore's publicly rejecting candidates for VP which Kerry said he wouldn't do, might add up to him feeling no need to step aside. Kerry had by far the harder election to win - in fact until late 2003, it was thought Bush would win by a landslide. There's no compelling reason to think Gore would be a better candidate than Kerry - DU to the contrary Kerry ran the better campaign.

[Island Blue]

9. I agree with you about Gore's speech patterns Karyn,

and I'm southern. Of course I can't really listen to him speak without thinking about the SNL */Gore debate skit so that might be part of my problem. The lock box thing still cracks me up. I think Al Gore has a speech pattern all his own - John Edwards certainly doesn't talk that slow. (Of course I'm saying this and what I said below and I actually like Al Gore - just not in '08.)

[karynnj]

11. Neither did Clinton

My NC nieces and brother-in -law don't either. I hope it wasn't offensive - I guess it is just Gore, who I did vote for and read his book.

[Island Blue]

12. No, it wasn't offensive

In my extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) there are about 10 different accents. Some talk slow (though not Gore slow) and some talk so fast that I can't understand them half the time when they get goin'. It's strange. I think it's just Gore. I read his book as well back in the day, and really enjoyed it. I think at the time I was disappointed that Clinton was the nominee and not Gore.

[sandnsea]

10. Not that kind of slow

It was the condescending tone combined with the slowness, seems to me. Southerners talk a different kind of slow, an all the time in the world to have a conversation kind of slow. An actual expectation that you'll be listened to kind of slow. At least that's how my brother in law is. My sister and I, raised in CA, are always looking at each other, "would he get to the point already".

I was thinking if the IWR vote becomes too much of a hurdle and Gore is significantly preferable to him than Hillary, then he might step aside. Not because he would think Gore deserved any preferential treatment. I agree with you on that, Gore blew that in a bunch of ways.

[karynnj]

13. I think the opposite might be more likely

That if it were say, Hillary 40, Gore and Kerry each 30 - Gore would be the more likely to drop out.

I think that Gore's sept 2002 speech suggests that he wanted what Kerry wanted - for Bush to go to the UN, he thought the resolution too vague, but Kerry had some of the same concerns. The problem was that Kerry had to vote on the bill he had rather than the bill he would have wanted. I don't know if Gore was asked how he would have voted in that time frame - I can't tell from the speech.

I also think that if you had a debate between just Gore, Hillary and Kerry - only one has a pleasant voice. (He also has the best demeanor of the 3 both when speaking and especially when not speaking).

[Island Blue]

6. He wants the whole thing set up for him?

Why would he expect that to happen? What has he done SINCE 2000 to deserve that kind of preferential treatment? I hardly think Kerry expects to have the whole thing set up for him, nor do I think he would want that. These next three years are going to be really, really nasty aren't they? I just hope we Democrats don't beat each other up so badly that the Repukes just waltz back into the White House. I guess we can only hope that they bludgeon each other with equal force.