I'd love for Gore to run and would consider voting for him but we have a strong field for 2008. We don't need Gore as a saviour candidate. That's not to say I wouldn't welcome him running, I would. But, if he doesn't, it's no tragedy.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

If the Democratic party or the candidates had any sense of dignity, they would call Al Gore and say Al, the nomination is yours if you want it. You deserve it.

Gimme a break. No matter how much one likes Gore, it has to be contested and earned in each time, and the candidate has to actually be running to begin with.

I like Al Gore a lot, and always believed 2000 was stolen from him, in part due to the great reporting Josh did on it back then. (I read TPM almost from day one.) I'm also a huge fan of Gore's work on the environment, and An Inconvenient Truth is a very important film. Imo Global Climate Change dwarfs almost every other issue.

But when it comes to presidential elections I want the strongest and most popular candidate to win. If that's Gore, I'd be happy with that, and by all means let him run. Gore/Obama would be pretty interesting. Gore/Clinton would be interesting, but a little creepy maybe.

But owed to him? No.

Gore would have my support and vote. That said, no matter which democratic candidate emerges, the complicit parrots in the socalled MSM will slime, disparage, insult, and/or dismiss that candidate, and find all sorts of fuzzy reasons to cloak, excuse, apologize for, and heap false glories, and partisan hagiography on the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government, - and to whomever those fascists choose to transfer the riegns of power.

Until the Bush government/GOP poll numbers dip into the low teens; wherein a vast majority of Americans (enough to compensate for GOP voter fraud, manipulation, and malfeasance, and the rank ignorance of the 53% of Americans who actually bother to vote) reject in massive majorities the Bush/GOP/fascists and vote a democrat into the WH, and entrench democratic majorities in the House and Senate - the next and all future national elections will be razor close, with last minute slime campaigns, media hit jobs, and unknown unknown events in the field shifting the mecurial hearts and minds of American voters by slim margins and fractions of percentages one way or the other.

Impeachment is the only remedy for holding this criminal government accountable, and the best option for a democrat returning to the WH, democrats increasing their hard won majorities in congress, - and for the democratic party to begin the difficult and daunting process of restoring the rule of law, the Constitution, some credibility to America, and providing the kind of leadership that will honor the core principles upon which this nation was founded, and better secure the future of our children.

"Deliver us from evil!"

Even with the more people watching his back, and as painful as it is to say this, it would be a waste for Gore to run for president. After all, does the person who has become the next Rachel Carson in waking people up to the environmental challenges around the world really need to eat his way through Lexington Market in Baltimore, again?

I can't believe you even wrote this. Gore would win hands down, just like he did in 2000. This time, there wouldn't be the interference of the Green party to divert votes away from him. And this time, there isn't the stigma of the Lewinski scandal hanging over his head.

Gore would become president, which is far more useful for getting the word out about global warming than being an ex-Senator and ex-Presidential candidate. You want to talk about waking people up? There is no better platform for that than the press room at the White House.

Further, Gore could stop talking and finally start acting on reducing global warming. The man has to be sick of putting on the same slide show over a thousand times. Gore knows what needs to be done, is ready to take action directly, and now the rest of the US and the world is behind him. As the most powerful man in the world, Gore could actually save all of human civilization.

It would NOT be a waste for Gore to run for president.

>> particularly since he lost by such a tiny margin.

You meant to say, won by such a tiny margin, right?

Don't be silly. Kissinger was a lame analogy meant to sound bad.

Art Brodsky,

I was a telecommunications reporter back then, and the discussion ranged around tech policy and telecomm, issues in which Gore had taken an interest for years....

My lingering impression was of Gore himself. Ask him a question and you got an answer. Not a recitation of a talking point, but an honest-to-God thoughtful, original answer. He would take some technology and some philosophy and some history and weave it all into a learned discussion of the question. He did this for about an hour, and I came away thinking he was the smartest politican I had ever covered.

It was with some shock and dismay that I tried to figure out who was the halting, awkward imposter in the 2000 campaign trying to persuade everyone he was Al Gore. When was the intellectually rigorous individual I knew replaced by an unrecognizable presence who was constantly portrayed as a congenital liar?

Do you think Al Gore himself has any regrets for the Clinton administration's support of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which deregulated away much of the diversity in media ownership after the fairness doctrine had already been defanged? 

If the Democratic party or the candidates had any sense of dignity, they would call Al Gore and say Al, the nomination is yours if you want it.

Leaving aside the odd juxtaposition of "Democratic Party" with "sense of dignity," who exactly comprises the "they" that would make the call?

If we were back in the day when a handful of party leaders, bosses and such decided the nominee over whiskey, cigars and stacks of cash, there would be a "they." But this is 2007 and "the Democratic Party" is not the kind of collective noun that can act as a singular construction. Significant components of the "the Democratic Party" are themselves running for the nomination.

That said, I would quit my job to work for Al Gore. I am confident that a reasonably united Democratic electorate would elect Al Gore by a wide margin. The right wing will replay all the old smears, but I don't think they will work like they did in 2000.

I think it was back in November last year, sometime about then, that I made a comment that Gore/Obama would be the dream ticket.  I still kinda think so. 

aMike

"One difference this time is that Gore would have plenty of support from voices not around seven years ago." Let's hope. At least since 2000, with Kerry, Edwards, and Obama, Maureen Dowd has gotten into picking on the candidates wives even more than the men.  That makes her, I can hope, more obviously ludicrous. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

According to the President in that administration, Clinton:

"23 June 2006
An Interesting Anecdote About That Bill Clinton Thing I Was at Last Week

...When I finally reached the front, I found myself face to face with him, and I decided to ask my question. “Sir,” I said, “you signed three laws that contained elements that I think are inconsistent with some of the themes [cautions against consolidation of wealth and power, and advocacy of a more humane global community] in the speech you just gave. NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and welfare reform—what, if anything, do you regret about them?”

His response knocked my socks off, not necessarily in its content, but more in the manner of its delivery.

Clinton took the time to methodically take me through each law, citing facts, figures and circumstances of the time, telling me his regrets and allowing me to chime in when I had something to add or ask. Because I didn’t think I’d be talking to him, I wasn’t holding pen and paper, and I didn’t have my recorder with me. So I stood there, arms folded, trying futilely to absorb it all. I have to admit, much of it went over my head. I got some of it, but I couldn’t do the answer justice by trying to relay it to you here.

In a nutshell, he expressed regret over precisely what I didn’t like about those laws. He regrets the “social” impacts of NAFTA. The agreement, he told me, was a fait accompli, but he said he was certain Al Gore would beat George W. Bush and that Gore would fix it. He regrets the media-merger mania that resulted from the Telecom Act and seemed to blame it, at least partly, on the dot-com bust. It was a case of unintended consequences. “I didn’t see that coming,” he said. (I would love to have had time to press him on that one.) And he didn’t like welfare reform’s provision to boot mothers off the dole after five cumulative years. Perhaps that can be altered when the law is reauthorized this year, he said. (Not likely.) ... "

Funny, I thought of Stevenson too as I read the post.  I think it was due to the acknowledement of Gore's intelligence.  But there are some interesting differences between Adlai and Al.  Adlai thought that having a Madison Avenue Ad House running a campaign - advising its client to say what it deduced the public wanted to hear regardless of the candidate's actual position on the matter - was immoral.  Ike didn't mind at all, of course, and we know that advertising works wonders on our nervous systems.  Not to say that Al is not ethical in the sense that Adlai was...but rather that Al is more realistic.  

But let's have some fun with this comparison.  Stevenson had a great disadvantage since Ike was a war hero - running for office after exhibiting great leadership in a war that WE WON!  There's not one potential Republican candidate today that can shake-off the stigma of the miserable failure of Iraq, is there?  So like voters in 1952 & 56 who didn't like smart men like Stevenson may compromise and vote for brains in the absence of any war heros bidding for the Oval Office.

Stevenson's "day was over" after his betrayal by the JFK administration - sending him to the UN to argue the US's "innocence" in the Bay of Pigs.  As a great statesman, it was his Waterloo. 

Neoboho

Gore lost by one vote -- 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court.

You may be right, but the polling results are interesting. This poll only compares Democrats. It does not tell us how a Democrat would match up against a Republican.

According to SurveyUSA poll #12069, taken after the Democratic debate in South carolina, 31% of debate watchers said Obama won. Clinton was second, with 24%. Obama was the overwhelming favorite of blacks. Clinton did better among women than men. Obama did three times bettter than Clinton and twice as well as Edwards amoung South Carolina's independents. Obama and Clinton tied among Democrats. Edwards and Obama tied among Republicans. Clinton won among the 60% of viewers who were white.

Race and gender are issues in South Carolina, but a strong get-out-the-vote program for blacks might make a significant difference for Obama. Could Obama actually win? I don't know, but Obama did better in the polls than I expected.

You are right that Obama will probably concentrate his efforts away from the South, but for now I would predict that Obama will have been encouraged by the polls and he will not simply write off the South.

On the other hand, we have not heard from the right-wing race-baiters yet. I cringe to think about what that will be like. I know that Obama will not put up with it, and I say good for him.

I really like Al Gore, but I didn't when I met him at a soccer game that both of our children were at (many years ago).  He and Tipper acted like snobs, and wouldn't talk to the rest of us.  I have gained a respect for him because of the work he does every day.

I disagree with you about him, but you certainly don't deserve a troll rating because you stated your opinion. 

Some people, like Lindane or whatever his name is, need to understand that good people can disagree.

Jan

The biggest thing I have against Gore is his choice of Lieberman as VP.  Bad choice, bad judgement, bad sign.  He seems to have "grown up" since then, though.

Jan

I get what  you're saying and I hope you're right, but look at how Rudy is polling!  He is the one who convinced Bush to appoint Kerrick for Homeland Security Chief, for one thing, and his other idiocies and criminal behavior is out there for all to see.

 He is still touted for being "tough on crime" and "tough on terror."  Based on what?  The noise machine that the great uneducated listen to and follow lock-step.  We have to forget about that bunch and focus on the many thoughtful conservatives who see their childrens' futures sold to the Chinese for the sake of ChenyBush cronies who desperately want to shake that nasty title of "millionaire" and replace it with "billionaire."

PS:  Do you really think I'm a radical?  I think I just have good sense!

Jan

Good 4,  I thought I was pretty clear that I understood that with this statement:

 We have to forget about that bunch [the uneducated who follow the noise machine]  and focus on the many thoughtful conservatives who see their childrens' futures sold to the Chinese...

I agree.  Those 30%'ers  will always be in the Republicans' pockets.  We can only win by appealing to people who think about the future.

Jan

Calm down.   Deep breaths.  In  ---   Out.

Actually there are conservatives who recognize that starting a war without paying for it;  braying about homeland security and farming it out to Dubai;  giving tax breaks to the 1% highest income recievers; might not be in the best interest of our country.

Many conservatives are fiscal conservatives and are not swayed by the wedge issues (abortion, the NRA,  the FAKE death tax  - which, if the Dems had any sense would be renamed the Paris Hilton inheritance tax) etc, that the Republicans have been touting (falsly) and REAL conservatives are starting to realize.

C'mon, Good 4. If I'm not right on this we may as well go home!

Jan