Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Will Gore Make Another Run?

Yesterday's debut of the Sunday Fix in The Washington Post looked at the slim (but hard to ignore) possibility that Al Gore will make the race for president in 2008.

former vice president Al Gore
Can Gore's campaign to raise awareness about the dangers of global climate change propel another national campaign? Above, Gore gestures to the audience before speaking last month at the American Geophysical Convention in San Francisco. (AP Photo)

There was plenty of reporting that didn't make it into the print story, so what better way to reward The Fix's loyal readers than give them some more details about one of the most talked about 2008 story lines?

What's immediately clear from talking to those close to Gore is that the former vice president is not currently plotting any sort of national bid -- either publicly or privately.

One former aide explained that the lack of clarity concerning Gore's intentions are because he is running a campaign of sorts -- to bring more attention to the issue of global warming. And that global warming campaign should not be read as a shadow candidacy for president, the aide cautioned.

In many ways, keeping his name in the mix for 2008 helps raise the profile of Gore's pet issue, said former spokesman Chris Lehane. "He is a smart enough person to recognize that people talking about [global warming] through the prism of a presidential run is a good way to highlight and focus interest on an issue he cares deeply about."

So is Gore's refusal to rule out the race simply a function of his desire to keep the limelight on global warming? Maybe.

But maybe not. Talk of a Gore bid remains rampant among liberal activists who revere Gore for his early opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as among many Democratic consultants who view Gore as the ultimate "anti-Hillary" candidate.

"Everything he said about George Bush in 2000 was true," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), a former Bill Clinton aide who would likely support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) should she run in 2008.

Not even Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) can match Gore in this. While Obama has risen to the top of the potential 2008 Democratic field thanks to his opposition to the war -- coupled with a unique charisma and a sense of destiny accompanying his candidacy -- he lacks the foreign policy chops of Gore. Obama can talk; Gore has done.

"In many ways he is our strongest candidate," said one senior Democratic strategist who was granted anonymity in order to speak frankly. "I never thought I would have said that a few years ago."

What appeals to Gore backers, however, is not simply the many issues he has focused on since leaving elected office in 2000. It is a sense that Gore has found himself -- an idea fueled by his widely acclaimed performance in "An Inconvenient Truth."

People have "a lot of respect for what he has done with the movie and the book," said Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network. "It reminded everybody what we all loved about Al Gore."

Carter Eskew, who has known Gore for three decades and served as one of his closest political advisers during the 2000 presidential campaign, said that his friend is displaying the personality showed during 17 years in the U.S. House and Senate. When Gore was picked to be Clinton's running mate, he was forced to sublimate his own personality and interests to that of the chief executive, according to Eskew.

"There is something uniquely infantilizing about being vice president," Eskew said. "When you are the number two you have to fit yourself into that box."

For now, the chatter about a reinvented and reinvigorated Al Gore is just that -- talk. It remains very unlikely that Gore will decide to re-enter the national political fray given the successes (financial and otherwise) he has found in private life.

But until Gore comes out and flatly rules out a 2008 run, it would be crazy to ignore the possibility that he will run again. If the energy currently crackling through the activist community for a Gore candidacy fails to abate with Obama's expected announcement, AND if Clinton looks to be a heavy favorite heading into the summer and fall, it may be impossible for Gore to turn down a race. Until then, we'll be watching closely.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 8, 2007; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: 2008 Begins Now
Next: Update: Romney Dials for 6.5 Million Dollars

Comments


Very good site blog.washingtonpost.com, and very the interesting for me, is a lot of helpful information here. I will be glad to see you on my site http://winter.puteshestviy.net With best wishes, Mikle

Posted by: MikleRosenson | January 21, 2007 9:26 PM | Report abuse


Very good site irregulartimes.com, and very the interesting, is a lot of helpful information for me. I will be glad to see you on my site http://putevok.com With best wishes, George

Posted by: GeorgeKozlovsky | January 15, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

There was be a website called the The International Society for the Promotion of Cruelty to Attorneys and I've noticed that it's GONE! Someone has got to take the flame from them. I've got a site with not much on it about [url=http://www. bankrupcy-lawyer.biz]
slip and fall law[/url] and am thinking about turning this into one which would resurrect the aforementioned society. Anyone know where the great folks that started the group can be found? What say you, is their enough flailing of attorneys already or could we use a bit more of that in the world as their numbers swell.

Posted by: Brentbuchingham | January 14, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Ultimate Myspace hacking / resource site

http://www.sjl.cc/

Posted by: myprojeff | January 14, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Gore would be a strong candidate.

But I still remember how he lost three debates against lightweight George W Bush, lost his home state of Tennessee, and cynically called for the recount of only heavily Democratic counties of Florida (instead of the whole state). I thought the point was to have every vote count, not just every Democratic vote.

What has Al Gore accomplished outside of speaking admirably about the environment? At least initially, he was a C student at Harvard. He dropped out of Vanderbilt Divinity School. He dropped out of Vanderbilt Law School. He wrote briefly for a Tennesse newspaper. Then, as an unemployed married person, he somehow had the money to buy a large estate outside Nashville. He then ran for congress on his father's famous name.

I'm suspicious of political nepotism. Gore's father was a U.S. Senator from Tennessee before Gore ever got involved in politics. I believe people should rise or fall on their own abilities.

We should not have political royalty based on nepotism.

Posted by: Robert* | January 11, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Earlier in this blog, a reader blames Obama for possibly running for pres after 2 years in the senate. That same reader says Edwards would be a great VP. HELLO?! Who do you think ran for president starting 2001, after just two years of elected experience in any office? None other than Edwards. No one remembers a single bill Edwards sponsored in the senate - except for his bill authorizing war in Iraq. Obama has as much experience as nearly any leading candidate in either party. And he had the political courage and good judgement to oppose the war at the height of Bush's popularity. Clinton has no charisma. Edwards is an intellectual light weight with no famous bills sponsored in the senate except for his infamous bill to authorize war in Iraq. Of the leading Dem candidates for president, only Obama has the combination of charisma, academic achievements, good judgement on Iraq, fundraising ability, ability to appeal to moderate voters, and draw record Black vote in key states.

Posted by: Robert* | January 11, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

If Mr. Gore has the Constitional right to run for Presdent he should run. I and the internation community including American Sciencists belive is horrible event that has already started. And if globle warming has not reached the point of no return it should be stopped immediately.

Posted by: Sara Martindale-Raptis | January 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

If Mr. Gore has the Constitional right to run for Presdent he should run. I and the internation community including American Sciencists belive is horrible event that has already started. And if globle warming has not reached the point of no return it should be stopped immediately.

Posted by: Sara Martindale-Raptis | January 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

If Mr. Gore has the Constitional right to run for Presdent he should run. I and the internation community including American Sciencists belive is horrible event that has already started. And if globle warming has not reached the point of no return it should be stopped immediately.

Posted by: Sara Martindale-Raptis | January 10, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore Tickets Sold Out


Idaho may be famous for being the reddest of the red states, but one of the top leaders of the blue party is the hot ticket.

Al Gore's lecture sold out once, and when BSU moved the event to Taco Bell Arena-- he sold out again.

Who'd have thought a PowerPoint lecture on global warming by a politician once chided for his lack of charisma would turn him into a movie star in the documentary feature 'An Inconvenient Truth'?

"My wife and I watched the film, and my wife is really impressed," said Vern Barnett.

Organizers say the original plan was to open up just a quarter of the Taco Bell Arena, but they got so many phone calls they decided they had to open up half the seats. Within 45 minutes after the ticket box opened Tuesday morning, demand was still high-- so the school decided to open up the entire venue.

People in line told CBS 2 News global warming isn't a red or blue issue.

"See, we gotta be more friendly to the environment," said C.D. Houston, who adds that applies even if you're not a fan of a big-time Democrat like Gore.

So who did Houston vote for in 2000?

"You putting me on the spot, okay!" Houston said. "I'm a military man. I voted for George W. Bush."

You might ask how could this happen in a state know for it's die-hard Republicans?

"You need people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. And then you need the guys on the left too so you can get this huge idea of what you feel is right," said Justin Vipperman, a Republican who is going to see Gore with his wife.

10,000 tickets are gone, but just ask around.

You might get lucky.

"We're looking for, you know, hot and smart dates to go to Al Gore," said BSU student Christine Core, who has extra tickets. "We think it'd be a good opportunity."

Al Gore is speaking in Boise for free as a favor to Bethine Church, the wife of the late Sen. Frank Church.

Bethine told CBS 2 News today she's known Al since he was a little boy.

BSU says they are charging $5 for the tickets to cover production and security fees. They say there's also a chance more seats will open up once they set up the stage.

http://www.kbcitv.com/news/5137736.html

To watch the Video

http://www.electgore2008.com

Posted by: ElectGore2008 | January 9, 2007 11:38 PM | Report abuse

ManBearPig Awareness Meeting tonight at 8pm sharp!!

Posted by: A.G. | January 9, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Quite agree.

Best experienced ticket is Gore/Richardson. Espeicially if McCain doesn't win having Richardson on there will be a big help with the mid west.

Gore probably wouldn't win Tenessee, but that may not be vital. Romney wouldn't win MA, and Guiliani wouldn't win NY.

Posted by: JayPe | January 9, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Many people would go good with Gore. Obama is not one, in my opinion. I like Warner from VA, Vilsak from IA, Bahy from IN and Richardson from NM. Even Edwards would be good for VP.
Two smart, experienced, good looking southern guys... look out. Bring it McCain and Rudy.

What's Obama going to say to IL voters. "Thanks for electing me to my 1st state-wide office, but after serving 2 of a 6 year commitment, I've decided on the White House. I don't need this legislation work anymore. I've made my mark in Congress." Get real. Obama is a hoax with a bad profile. He lost his one real House race to civil rights hero Bobbly Rush. I think he has a real ego problem. And it's showing again now that he's entertaining the Pres run, knowning he's unqualified, and sucking the air out of the room from real contenders. Not my kind of Democrat. I want someone who's been tested, and has major qualifacations.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

While I would love to see a woman President, Hillary isn't the right person. She has never said that she regrets voting for the Iraq war and that is a major sticking point with me.

There may be only one person in the Democratic Party that is both qualified to serve as President of the United States of American AND can stop Hillary from getting the Democratic nomination. That person is Al Gore.

I hope Gore runs and runs with Barack Obama. The hope and inspiration they bring back to this country after the long, dark days of the Bush II regime would be a ray of sunshine.

Gore/Obama 08!!!

Posted by: Dave Cutler | January 9, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Where was everyone? I made cookies and popcorn and had movies set up and I thought everyone knew the meeting was at 8 pm sharp. I don't understand...doesn't anyone care that ManBearPig is a threat to us all? That we must raise ManBearPig awareness if we're ever stand a chance. I know that each and every one of you has within you the power to come together and do something that will be an inspiration to generations to come....

Let's try again tonight, same time, 8pm sharp! I'll have more cookies and popcorn too! Hope to see everyone there!!

Posted by: A.G. | January 9, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Gore has my vote if he runs, but Hillary is going to be the candidate (and probably president) in 2008. If she loses in 2008, Gore and Obama will be the big names for 2012. Isn't Chelsea eligible to run then too?

Gore is the world's leading voice on environmental issues, and will have a strong voice in Hillary's White House.

Posted by: windserf | January 9, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Vice President Gore is the best choice for Democrats AND AMERICA. The only good thing about 8 years of Cheney/Bush is that NOW we can contrast 2 terms of Clinton/Gore with Bush/Cheney. As it turns out, the continued "peace and prosperity" of Clinton/Gore was a big lie. And Bush's promise to give money back to Americans with tax cuts has put America in record debt like some 3rd world country. If we want to get America back on track, we should go back to where it was stolen.

1. Gore WON once, he can do it again. Yes, facts now show that Florida was not lost, but stolen. Several different actions took place in the FL theft. Tens of thousands of votes were stolen. The hanging chads were but a footnote in the theft.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

2. He has been vetted once, and they can't bring out any dirt. You can't say that for any other candidate. Priceless.

3. He has EXECUTIVE experience, and he has vision for the crisis facing America's future and youth. The Senate is too easy to twist votes. Face it, Senators are not good at running for Executive office. He has all the right stuff.

4. Edwards crumbled when the vote was disenfranchised in OH. We had tons of proof of disenfranchisement AND vote fraud, and still Kerry and Edwards did nothing to protect the poorer voters. Even when Cliff Arnabeck, OH lead attorney, showed Kerry the proof, they did nothing. In fact, sadly it was the Green Party to question the vote. The recount was rigged. We took Kerry/Edwards to the big dance (I worked for them for a year), and they jilted us in Ohio. Sorry, Edwards does not deserve another chance at the big dance.

5. Gore worked to streamline government as VP, and he knows all the issues we must address. Gore is needed now more than ever. We need an experienced leader who will restore faith and trust in America and Government, at home and abroad.

In closing, it doesn't matter who we choose unless we get the rigged voting machines out of the process. No more out-sourcing the administration AND counting of public elections with PARTISAN companies. The vote should not be privatized. How else could a Guard dodger beat a decorated war hero? It's the machines, folks. Watch Lou Dobbs and thank him for being a strong and honest journalist.

Yes, the media had a hand in it. They are corporate owned and controlled, and labor issues and accountability are never the issues with corporate information outlets. Heck, they've sold America either Hillary OR Obama, and they are the only ones who CAN LOSE the election. Go figure...

It's time for the rightful President of the United States to enter the White House, and get America back on track. Gore understands how investing in the future with green technology will create industry we need now, and in the future. Gore knows how to make America stronger, and prepared for the future.

Posted by: Dan P. | January 9, 2007 5:00 AM | Report abuse

Some voice was in here whining about the security for VP Cheney and that DC is not Bagdad. Why not look at the murders of presidents in the past and then tell us that security is not an issue? Would anyone really complain about the rigid access to the President or his VP? Are those who complain so blind to history that they forget the murders of John F Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy? How about the attempted murder of President Ford who was shot at TWICE in September 1975 by 2 women?
Do we want our nation to witness another murder of any president, even President Bush? Yes, there was a recent movie about the murder of President Bush, but let us also remember, that is was soon after the 1962 movie MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, with Frank Sinatra, that JFK was killed in 1963. Can we blame the movie? Probably not. But it might have sent the TONE for thinking that murder is a way to settle the hatrd toward any elected offical.
Would the same people screaming for the head of Bush complain if Bill Clinton or Al Gore was murdered? If you really stand for our political system, then no one would ever believe it was ok to murder any president or VP. So please, stop complaining about the security which is protecting our leaders. When the Democrats come back into power in the White House, they will want to be protected as well.

Posted by: Joe | January 8, 2007 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Spare me the Gore hype. Anyone who would want long-time neo-con 'Nuke Iran' advocate, Sen. Joe Lieberman a 'heartbeat away from the presidency' is unfit to hold the office.

That disqualifies 2 snake oil salesmen:

His Ozone Holiness Al Gore & John 'Surge' McCain.

Posted by: bjerryberg | January 8, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary vs McCain would be a horrible choice. That would bring out another 3rd party/Ross Perot type candidacy. Which party would it favor this time? Bill Clinton only won because of Perot; I don't care what anyone says. Thats why he lost the House and Senate for the Democrats 2 years, later: people were angry that they threw their vote away and let Bill Clinton get in.

Regarding Gore, I don't think he'll run but I do remember that as a Senator, he was something of a neocon. (Hawkish, super pro Israel)

Posted by: Andra | January 8, 2007 9:45 PM | Report abuse

For those who say Gore "lost" in 2000 and therefore can't win in 2008, remember that had the Supreme Court not made the unprecedented move of stepping in at the last minute and ordering a State to stop recounting its own votes (I tought each State had the power to run its own elections. Where were all of the conservative "state's rights" supporters then?), the recount would've shown that Gore won Florida, and hence would've won the election (this has been proven by several independent agencies that did their own recount after the fact). So in fact, it could be said that Gore did win, even during a time when ol' Georgie boy was considered a "fresh" and "bipartisan" face in Washington and people were still angry about the Clinton/Lewinsky thing.

I believe the electoral system is outdated and seriously flawed. Why should it be that if a candidate loses California by 1 vote, that ALL of the electoral votes go to the other candidate? I prefer more of a proportional assignment of electoral votes. If a candidate gets 45% of the popular vote in a state, he/she should get 45% of the electoral votes. I would also favor just a straight popular vote where the winning candidate MUST get 50% + 1 of the popular vote. If no candidate gets that, then there is a run-off between the two highest vote getters. Why are people afriad of this? This is true Democracy. The way it stands now, a candidate can still win a relatively small number of heavily populated states and become President, so why is this better?

Its funny, (some) people hate the idea of affirmative action (which was designed to give people whom for generations had had less of an opportunity/voice to get ahead because of the color of their skin or God's desire to make them female) but they support giving people who live in rural areas an extra boost in the Presidential election to compensate for the fact that because the place where they live is more sparsely populated, their voice is not as well represented compared to people living in more densely populated cities. If affirmative action is no longer needed (something I disagree with), then on the same grounds, the electoral college is no longer needed.

In any event, I think a Gore/Obama ticket would be a great thing. Gore proved he could win even without Tennessee in 2000 and I think Obama would give the Democrats the fire and excitement that a winning ticket needs (yes, I admit, Gore is not that exciting to watch or listen to, lol). Look for Gore to announce his bid for the nomination in mid to late Spring, the buzz from the Obama and Clinton announcements has died down considerably.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | January 8, 2007 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Run, Gore.

Why?

I am for everyone substantive with a shadow of a shot getting into this race, from Giuliani to Barack to Mr. Gore.

Why?

On a political junky level, this could be the most exciting race this century.

But if it's coronate Hillary, then coronate McCain -- well, who cares?

Added to that, without these high-profile entries, entries representing distinct world views and legitimate chances, the voters lose. The voters never see the best debate the best.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - L A | January 8, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Run, Gore.

Why?

I am for everyone substantive with a shadow of a shot getting into this race, from Giuliani to Barack to Mr. Gore.

Why?

On a political junky level, this could be the most exciting race this century.

But if it's coronate Hillary, then coronate McCain -- well, who cares?

Added to that, without these high-profile entries, entries representing distinct world views and legitimate chances, the voters lose. The voters never see the best debate the best.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | January 8, 2007 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Run, Gore.

Why?

I am for everyone substantive with a shadow of a shot getting into this race, from Giuliani to Barack to Mr. Gore.

Why?

On a political junky level, this could be the most exciting race this century.

But if it's coronate Hillary, then coronate McCain -- well, who cares?

Added to that, without these high-profile entries, entries representing distinct world views and legitimate chances, the voters lose. The voters never see the best debate the best.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | January 8, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it sad that Gore is rejected because:
a) he lost a previous election - despite the fact thatit was very close, was controversial, and many voters will now be regretting their choice.
b) he's boring - despite the fact that Americe desparately needs a President who has substance more than style, having failed miserably with a style over substance President.
c) he lacks passion - despite the fact that Gore mk 2 clearly doesn't.
d) he's yesterdays news - despite the fact that America desparately needs someone with a track record. Why does the electorate insist on Hope over Experience. Has no one learnt from GWBush?

The guy has a track record others can only dream of. An experienced executive, someone with immense respect in the international community (that would be welcome right now!), and someone who has been more correct than Bush in the last 6 years.

If he runs, he should win. The fact that many write him off is a sad inditement on the political scene right now.

Posted by: JayPe | January 8, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

EdA

Your point underscores another fundamental misconception - Gore did not win a majority of the votes but a plurality.

Posted by: TG | January 8, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Is AG zouk?

Today I saw some cherry trees in full bloom. In Westchester County, in New York. In January. And down the street, some daffodils.

Run, Al, run.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Just a reminder to everyone to come to my ManBearPig Awareness meeting tonight at 8 sharp! I'll have fresh baked vegan cookies that I made in my solar oven, and of course my personal favorite - organic pop corn popped with a special magnifying glass. I really do hope all of you can make it. Afterwards we can all join hands and sing or we can just have a good ol' rap session about the issues that concern you as citizens. We could even play a few games like pin the tail on the ManBearPig or tell scary stories...

Posted by: A.G. | January 8, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it sad that Gore is rejected because:
a) he lost a previous election - despite the fact thatit was very close, was controversial, and many voters will now be regretting their choice.
b) he's boring - despite the fact that Americe desparately needs a President who has substance more than style, having failed miserably with a style over substance President.
c) he lacks passion - despite the fact that Gore mk 2 clearly doesn't.
d) he's yesterdays news - despite the fact that America desparately needs someone with a track record. Why does the electorate insist on Hope over Experience. Has no one learnt from GWBush?

The guy has a track record others can only dream of. An experienced executive, someone with immense respect in the international community (that would be welcome right now!), and someone who has been more correct than Bush in the last 6 years.

If he runs, he should win. The fact that many write him off is a sad inditement on the political scene right now.

Posted by: JayPe | January 8, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it sad that Gore is rejected because:
a) he lost a previous election - despite the fact thatit was very close, was controversial, and many voters will now be regretting their choice.
b) he's boring - despite the fact that Americe desparately needs a President who has substance more than style, having failed miserably with a style over substance President.
c) he lacks passion - despite the fact that Gore mk 2 clearly doesn't.
d) he's yesterdays news - despite the fact that America desparately needs someone with a track record. Why does the electorate insist on Hope over Experience. Has no one learnt from GWBush?

The guy has a track record others can only dream of. An experienced executive, someone with immense respect in the international community (that would be welcome right now!), and someone who has been more correct than Bush in the last 6 years.

If he runs, he should win. The fact that many write him off is a sad inditement on the political scene right now.

Posted by: JayPe | January 8, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it sad that Gore is rejected because:
a) he lost a previous election - despite the fact thatit was very close, was controversial, and many voters will now be regretting their choice.
b) he's boring - despite the fact that Americe desparately needs a President who has substance more than style, having failed miserably with a style over substance President.
c) he lacks passion - despite the fact that Gore mk 2 clearly doesn't.
d) he's yesterdays news - despite the fact that America desparately needs someone with a track record. Why does the electorate insist on Hope over Experience. Has no one learnt from GWBush?

The guy has a track record others can only dream of. An experienced executive, someone with immense respect in the international community (that would be welcome right now!), and someone who has been more correct than Bush in the last 6 years.

If he runs, he should win. The fact that many write him off is a sad inditement on the political scene right now.

Posted by: JayPe | January 8, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

In defense of Dave to Wright

In the 2000 election, Bush received 50,456,156 votes out of 105,396,641 total. The other three canidates who received votes got a total of 54,950,485 of which 50,991,335 were cast for Gore. Gore received 535,179 more votes than Bush. Nader and Minor received a total of 3,949,150.

In Florida, which was tainted by many problems of voter harassment, defective machines in heavy democratic districts, a ballot layout which caused many attempting to vote for Gore going to Buccanan, a US Surpreme Court overriding a FL State Surpreme court, Bush was declared victor by a few more electoral votes than Gore, "winning" the state by a few hundred votes. Just proves "home field advantage" is real, and works both ways.

Republicans applauded the consitutnal provision ( I agree with the rule )which gives the election to the one with the most electorial votes. Popular vote not the deciding factor designed by our founders to balance heavy populated states with those of low population.

Sone say this rule is outdated because "electors" from each state needed to travel a long distance by slow transport to cast their votes. No instance results as now. I say leave the consitution alone with rare exceptions.

The losers, Gore and those that supported him accepted the results, and the Surpreme court decision with grace.

I wonder if in 2004 where Bush got over 2,000,000 more votes than Kerry, what the republican reaction would have been if Kerry had won the electoral vote with a switch of about 50,000 votes in Ohio. ( another election ran with "home field advantage" )

Posted by: EdA | January 8, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

F&B: the clock is ticking on when KOZ will weigh in with the ridiculous notion that trickle down is unambiguously good for the country. And the equally ridiculous notion that only he/she/it understands economics issues well enough to blog about them.

Anything associated with Reagan is firmly enshrined in the GOP firmament of the gods.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 8, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore is a bore!

Posted by: Billy | January 8, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see you as well FH, and I hope you and yours have been well also. I have to admit, I had a pretty great new year anticipating the swearing in of the new Congress :)

As for the NYT article, don't take it from them, or from me, take it from the CBO, the study is from their numbers! In fairness tho, I looked for a link to the actual study and couldn't find one.

But, FH, if Democrats restore pay-go and roll-back Bush's tax cuts (just for the top 1%!) and they wind up balancing the budget, will you ever believe in the GOP trickle-down tax cuts for the rich again? Every time the R's try to pull that stuff on the American people we wind up with a mountain of debt and middle America suffers. Every time. We can't allow that fake "conservative" ideology to mess up our economy ever again imho. I like the real Republicans in Congress who caucus with the Blue Dog Dems on matters of fiscal solvency. That's the debate we need to have, imho, that's been completely missing the last 6+ yrs under GOP, uh, *ahem* under GOP "rule". Or is it "reign"?

But anyway, in all seriousness, can we finally put the Republican "trickle-down tax cuts" theory to bed? It can lie side-by-side with the old moniker, the "tax and spend liberal". Both proven totally obsolete in the 'modern' era.

Posted by: F&B | January 8, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

For MikeB and Steve: No matter what facts that are posted here, the crazies will attempt to change them, and they will stop at nothing in their efforts. This is not only my opinion, but fact. Any difference each of us may have with another should be based on the knowledge we have on any given matter. Not so here.

Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

All he needs to do to win, is act like himself and ditch the political advisers.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

If Gore runs, he has my vote.

Posted by: Zach | January 8, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, Gore is the right candidate for 2008. No matter what issue is raised, planetary warming trumps them all. He has the credentials and the ability to drive home the message about the ultimate price we will all pay unless the issue of 'greenhouse' gasses is brought under control.....
His opposition to the Iraq war when others supported it demonstrated foresight....much lacking in this "president". H.Clinton's position on the war will not be able to be swallowed by those of us who brought the recent change to the Congress.
Its not too late, Gore in 8!

Posted by: docama | January 8, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, Gore is the right candidate for 2008. No matter what issue is raised, planetary warming trumps them all. He has the credentials and the ability to drive home the message about the ultimate price we will all pay unless the issue of 'greenhouse' gasses is brought under control.....
His opposition to the Iraq war when others supported it demonstrated foresight....much lacking in this "president". H.Clinton's position on the war will not be able to be swallowed by those of us who brought the recent change to the Congress.
Its not too late, Gore in 8!

Posted by: docama | January 8, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, Gore is the right candidate for 2008. No matter what issue is raised, planetary warming trumps them all. He has the credentials and the ability to drive home the message about the ultimate price we will all pay unless the issue of 'greenhouse' gasses is brought under control.....
His opposition to the Iraq war when others supported it demonstrated foresight....much lacking in this "president". H.Clinton's position on the war will not be able to be swallowed by those of us who brought the recent change to the Congress.
Its not too late, Gore in 8!

Posted by: docama | January 8, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

'One thing we have discovered, "activist community" candidates tend to lose in a general election...see Ned Lamont.'

Not true. Actually Lamont was almost the only netroots candidate that lost. Jos Sestak and Jim Web are two good examples of candidates suported by the netroots who won.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Is Sean Hannity really Joe McCarthy? I mean is this just about the creepiest thing you've heard of on TV? How long before this hannity maroon gets some innocent person killed?

'Great Moments In Fox News Dept. Forget Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person In The World" contest -- it's now been completely upstaged by a new Sunday contest on Fox: Sean Hannity's "Enemy of the State" award. Last night, Hannity's new Sunday night program aired for the first time, and from here on he'll award his "Enemy of the State" prize -- a term originating with ancient Roman dictators placing bounties on rivals -- on whatever red-state abortionist, anti-war activist, or run-of-the-mill Democrat who has attracted Hannity's ire that week. Imagine Hannity in that famous Twilight Zone episode, as the ranting Chancellor putting to death the old librarian portrayed by Burgess Meredith, and you'll get the idea. So who won the first "Enemy of the State" prize last night?'

I haven't foundout yet but my guess would be nancy pelosi or obama or keith himself... anybody know?

Sean Hannity, with his burning hatred, divisiveness, lies, racism and generally scummy behavior, is the real enemy of the state, a traitor to everything this country stands for.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly puts it as bluntly as I've seen it in the traditional media:

With a new Congress that's run by Democrats, a restive public that's pining for change and a government in Iraq that's descending into chaos, the way forward in Washington might not include George W. Bush.

Despite the power he has to ramp up his use of the veto, and his tenacious hold on his powers as commander in chief, Bush faces a tough challenge to remain relevant in the waning 24 months of his presidency. Indeed, if not for his war-making clout, this president might be the lamest lame duck ever.

There was something almost sad about Bush putting his own name on an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal that laid out his legislative agenda on the eve of the formal Democratic takeover of Capitol Hill. Clearly gone are the days when Vice President Dick Cheney could use a private meeting with Republican lawmakers to set the congressional priorities list. Now, it seems, the president is positioning himself as just another spectator on the outskirts of power - firing off letters to the editor. Perhaps he should start his own blog.

Posted by: hahaha | January 8, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse


Even according to the war's remaining advocates -- particularly those who want to escalate in Iraq -- there is a serious and harmful shortage of willing volunteers to fight in Iraq and to enable a more aggressive application of U.S. military force generally. So we do now have a situation where those who are cheering on more war and escalation really are needed not at the computer screen but on the battlefield, in combat. And their refusal to fight is actually impeding the plans of those on whom the President is relying for "Victory."

As a result, it is now morally indefensible for those who are physically able to do so to advocate a "surge," or even ongoing war in Iraq, without either volunteering to fight or offering a good reason why they are not doing so. One of the war's key architects is sending out a desperate plea for volunteers in order to enable the U.S. to achieve "Victory" in Iraq. How can those who believe in the premise and cheer it on -- all the while depicting themselves as strong and resolute -- possibly justify not taking the necessary action to enable the U.S. to "win"?

Posted by: Got GOP volunteers? | January 8, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Terry - Thanks for the Nixon reminder. The R's had NOBODY else, and Nixon got the nomination out of pure desperation.

Dave - You've got your facts wrong, buddy. As it happens, the ONLY counting method by which Gore came up short was the one his campaign picked, i.e., recounting a few cherry-picked precincts. By EVERY OTHER counting method, verified repeatedly, Gore won by several dozen to several hundred votes in Florida. And that's not to mention the whole "What do you mean I voted for Buchanan?" issue.

Posted by: Wright | January 8, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

(1) Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute (and a Contributing Editor of National Review), on his Pajamas Media blog last Thursday: "BREAKING NEWS -Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, is dead."

(2) Pajamas Media, front page, last Thursday: "A source close to Pajamas Media has learned that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has apparently succumbed to the cancer that hospitalized him last month, as exclusively reported by Pajamas Media, at age 67." (The phrase "still unconfirmed" added at the top only once nobody else touched their "exclusive").

(3) Michelle Malkin's Hot Air, last Thursday: "This is either going to be a two-ton feather in Pajamas's cap or a major embarrassment. I have my fingers crossed for them."

(4) Associated Press, today -- Headline: Iran's Ayatollah Appears in Good Health -- "Tehran, Iran - Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, looked thinner than usual and sounded as if he had a cold, but seemed otherwise in good health when he appeared on television Monday. . . . On Monday, Khamenei addressed hundreds of citizens of Qom, a holy city 80 miles south of Tehran, who gathered outside his residence in the city center."

Pajamas Media is a $3.5 million embarrassment that was launched in 2005 by right-wing bloggers Roger Simon and Charles Johnson (of Little Green Footballs). It was supposed to be some sort of "credible" right-wing media outlet, an alternative to the dreaded "MSM." Yet they have done nothing of even minor note since their inception (until now). As a result, news accounts from real media outlets -- like the one today from Associated Press -- refer to reports from Pajamas Media as mere "Internet rumors."

In light of this latest humiliation, it's obviously necessary that they be downgraded still further in the credibility department. But what is lower than "Internet rumors" when it comes to the credibility of a report? It seems like it's necessary to create a whole new level of unreliability just for Pajamas Media. Anyone minimally familiar with the right-wing blogosphere would have predicted -- and did predict -- that a "news outlet" that grows out of that credibility-free swamp is destined for ignominious failure.

Posted by: truly pathetic individuals | January 8, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Below, a timeline of McCain's multiple positions on escalation:

October 27, 2006 -- McCain Calls For 20,000 More Troops in Iraq:

Reporters asked him to elaborate on his statement last week in Iowa that more combat troops are needed in Iraq to quell a "classic insurgency."

"Another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and the Marine Corps," he said. [Link]

December 6, 2006 -- McCain Calls For 100,000 More Troops In Iraq:

"We must have more troops over there," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said after meeting with the president. "Maybe 20,000 more Marines, and 80,000 Army. ... We have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control." [Link]

January 4, 2007 -- McCain Calls For 30,000 More Troops In Iraq:

MCCAIN: I would advocate two additional combat brigades in Anbar province, four in Baghdad, with one in reserve. That's around 30,000. [NBC, 1/4/07]

January 4, 2007 -- McCain Suggests 20,000 Troop Escalation Is Too 'Small':

LAUER: The president seems to be settling on the 20,000 number. Is this a numbers game? Will 20,000 do the job, in your opinion?

SEN. MCCAIN: I'm not sure. ... I have not seen the exact plan, so it's hard for me to know. But to make it of a short duration and a small size would be the worst of all options to exercise, in my view. [NBC, 1/4/07]

January 5, 2007 -- McCain Says He Is 'Not Specific on Numbers' About Troops in Iraq:

QUESTION: How many troops are you calling for in Iraq?

MCCAIN: We are not specific on numbers, we don't have -- we are talking about 3 or 4 combat brigades, in Baghdad, and one or two more in Anbar province. We are not that much detailed oriented. [AEI "Future of Iraq" Conference, 1/5/07]

Posted by: dancing as fast as he can | January 8, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

that BILLION DOLLARS...


as I understand it some oil contracts have been signed that will take effect for a 30 year period in March BP EXXON and some others for Iraqi OIL...


the interim government in Iraq put in place by the United States managing that task... John Negroponte, an appointee and head of the Central American terrorist obfuscation task force was in charge of that I believe...

anyway the US Appointed Iraqi Interim government looted the Iraqi treasury of 2.3 BILLION DOLLARS in the last 10 months and built homes in other countries...

so the BILLION DOLLARS IS BUSHES WAY OF SAYING

you need money now? give me what I want and I will give you this pay off...


he put them in the position of not having any money by putting people in power that took the countries money and spent it on themselves....the treasury is empty..on purpose...


believe it or not this was in Parade Magazine that weekend paper...in the Intelligence report with a list of sources for the info...


BS walks and talks and sits in the WhiteHouse spinning webs of deceit...


john negroponte honduras, do a search on that... he exempted Halliburton from financial or IRS review...he has signatory ability to do that...$9 Billion disappears? hey, they are with us ,dont search their bagssssss


MAFIA we are family...

Posted by: about | January 8, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

A majority of voters chose Al Gore in 2000. He has more knowledge of government and foreign affairs than any other potential candidate.
Barack Obama is an exiting new power in the Democratic Party, but he lacks the experience that Gore has.
I strongly feel that a Gore/Obama ticket would be the best we could put forward. Also, it would be best for the USA.

David Flocker

Posted by: Britt | January 8, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I would like to remind this anonymous writer that the USA consists of more than the Washington, D.C. area. Global warming is a fact, but you can't judge it by your local conditions: I write from the lower Rockies where we have just gone through a 50-year snowstorm.....

"It's tough to begrudge these weeks of spring-like weather during what should be the dead of winter -- unless you're part of the multibillion-dollar ski industry. With its record-high temperatures and shortage of snowflakes, this winter is shaping up to be the bleakest in 25 years for regional ski resorts.

Resorts typically collect nearly 30 percent of their revenue during the second half of December and first week of January, according to the National Ski Areas Association. This year, however, lodges within a few hours' drive of Washington are relying on small patches of rapidly melting man-made snow, and several resorts have been forced to close their ski operations altogether."

And whoever was touting Bill Richardson as an alternative to Gore should take a look at the rampant corruption, favoritism and incompetence of the New Mexico state government....

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | January 8, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Second coat of lipstick, meet pig. Haven't we been here before?

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 -- President Bush's new Iraq policy will establish a series of goals that the Iraqi government will be expected to meet to try to ease sectarian tensions and stabilize the country politically and economically, senior administration officials said Sunday.

Among these "benchmarks" are steps that would draw more Sunnis into the political process, finalize a long-delayed measure on the distribution of oil revenue and ease the government's policy toward former Baath Party members, the officials said.

As the policy is being debated in Washington, the new American operational commander in Iraq said Sunday that his plan was to send additional American troops, expected to be part of the policy change, into Baghdad's toughest neighborhoods, and that under the new strategy it may take another "two or three years" to gain the upper hand in the war. [Emphasis added]

Let's see, we've got benchmarks (nee "milestones"). We've got no discernible penalties in the [inevitable] event the Iraqis fail to meet said benchmarks, only the Administration's swearing on Saddam Hussein's noose that there will be penalties. Yup, we've got inclusion of the Sunnis in the political process, we've got an increase in troop presence in the most dangerous areas of the country. And most importantly, we've conveniently got another four to six "Friedman Units" in which even more U.S. troops are sacrificed on the altar to Bush's vanity and more U.S. taxpayer dollars poured into the money pit that is the Iraqi war. Where have I heard this all before?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

'I think it's swell that the President wants those militiamen in Iraq to swap their rifles for brooms and paintbrushes. (It'd be heartwarming if he's extend his newfound zeal for public sector jobs programs to American inner cities plagued by horrendous youth unemployment and gang violence, but set that aside for now.)

Bush's Iraqi jobs program is reportedly going to cost a billion dollars -- a billion American dollars. Where should that money come from?'

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we had A BILLION DOLLARS here in this country, for a job retraining program for people displaced by outsourcing and immigration?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I would like to invite you to lunch...

wanna dance?

Posted by: hi Dave! | January 8, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I would like to invite you to lunch...

wanna dance?

Posted by: hi Dave! | January 8, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

'To read "Al Gore" and "man of priciple" in the same paragraph almost made me loose my lunch. '

To read your comment made me lose my lunch. You are proof of what MikeB and a lot of other posters here have talked about. A totally braindead zombie who gets his 'facts' from fox and that fat lying dope addict ho, limbaugh.

Gore won the popular vote. HE GOT MORE VOTES, GET IT? If the supreme court hadn't decided to stop the recount, he'd would have won and several thousand of america's children would still be alive.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Come join the party. In 2008 there will be about 48 brain dead people running for President.

Posted by: sardony | January 8, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

F&B: Nice to see you again my friend. Hope you had a great new year! Good article...I need to look at the numbers a bit before I comment on its validity.

Posted by: FH | January 8, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

your lives depend upon it/will be affected?

November 06 was that reckoning...


remember that.

Posted by: you know like | January 8, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

those are metaphors for actions...

in case you are feeling threatened smallbeans..

Posted by: ps. | January 8, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

question was asked...

why is it right wing to say that the president should have a good personality?

listen closely: the political system will say whatever they need to to get you to falter....

who do you think all of those "democrats," that say they hate Hillary are...

republicans

why do you think PNAC was written?


Bill Clinton interrupte George H.W. Bushes second term, it never happened...


Iraq was in embargo just waiting to be picked and they could not get to it....


Clinton was not an insider ,but an astute individual that would not be easily led....


Bush represents a group of interests not just himself... he gets paid by who he lets through....

Another canny Clinton would make it so that they couldnt steal at will....

Carter was treated badly for the same reasons...interruption ,outsider ,needed proof...but he had no dirty fighting skills...to take on this bunch you have to be willing to ruin some careers quickly...


thats the point, wanna win a fight quickly?


step past them and sidekick their knees while looking at their faces...


break their weak areas that allow you to take them apart at leisure and _do_that_


take them apart in such a fashion they never get put back together again...

Posted by: a | January 8, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

FH is right. The natural state of the universe is disorder, and the sooner we are gone, the better for the planet. I think we can squeeze out a couple hundred thousand years more of society if we play our cards right (return to technology-enhanced sustainable agroeconomy and elimination of all nuclear weapons). We, of course, will have to use our intellect and technology to create and improve upon society (super-thin and inexpensive photovoltaic cells, or ending curable 3rd world disease being examples) instead of break down and destroy it (tax cuts for the rich, war in Iraq as examples).

On that note, I actually wanted to post this off-topic NYT article:

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 -- Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

...

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

BushCo is over. America is finally beginning to realize the damage he has done. Fact is, America is TOAST without a fiscally secure and vibrant (largely Democratic) middle class. Republican aristocracy has been an unmitigated disaster. Again.

Posted by: F&B | January 8, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

two things could get Gore elected and shore up his ship of state...


Bring back the MIDDLE CLASS to the focus of the country...immediately stop outsourcing...as a matter of National Security...


look at energy independence/infrastructure issues as National Security Issues... use bushes methods for good ends....


and arrest some treasonous traitors that have been willing to plunder the United States Treasuries and that of other countries to put the cherry on top of their lives while

our people are getting their legs blown off believing their fraud...

take them down to the river and cleanse them...

Posted by: I think that | January 8, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

why is it right wing to say that the president should have a good personality?

Posted by: coas | January 8, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

why is it right wing to say that the president should have a good personality?

Posted by: coas | January 8, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I F Gore cant play hardball ,he shouldnt run...


this is a real break their knees kinda ball game...


like the current dilemma of what to do with Iraq....


three things

1. John W. Dean makes the case that bush never met the markers for declaring war... that being the case, we are not at war

2. want to find out how it is really not about the oil ,National Security is an ISSUE that would make NATIONALIZING OIL a possibility and perhaps necessary to get corporations out of controlling the government...

3. conscript the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WORKERS....if this is all about National Security ,then they should be proud to give up their revenues in their countries best interests...

could it be done ,sure if we are at war or it is considered a matter of National Security....


GORE SHOULD HAVE DEMANDED A FULL RECOUNT...if he cant act like Jack Nicholson now....he shouldnt get in the game...and I would advise him to have Bill Clinton in his cabinet...that boy can kick some behind...

Posted by: actually ... | January 8, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Good post MikeB. I think Al Gore or someone like him might be the salvation of this country but the "liberal" media would be trumpeting the right's innuendos and half truths and of course that he just doesn't have a good enough personality to be President. Why would he put himself and his family through that? Just so he could preside over the sinking of the ship of state?

Posted by: Dona Dunsmore | January 8, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Good post MikeB. I think Al Gore or someone like him might be the salvation of this country but the "liberal" media would be trumpeting the right's innuendos and half truths and of course that he just doesn't have a good enough personality to be President. Why would he put himself and his family through that? Just so he could preside over the sinking of the ship of state?

Posted by: Dona Dunsmore | January 8, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"If the energy currently crackling through the activist community for a Gore candidacy fails to abate"

One thing we have discovered, "activist community" candidates tend to lose in a general election...see Ned Lamont.

Al says he will not run again, and I believe him.

As for global warming...how is it a bad thing for the environment if we all get wiped out by natural disasters. That would be the best thing that ever happened to the environment. It wouldn't be so great for us...but the environment would love it.

Posted by: FH | January 8, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments today are getting more interesting by those that support Gore, and that is the way it should be if you support someone you should do so in a way that will help them. The problem I have with them is that Gore has plainly stated he would not run in 08 and to change and enter the race the "flip-flop" would be the "big time" theme.

Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Don't Forget, I think you ARE forgetting how polarizing Clinton was in 2000 just two years after being impeached over the Monica Lewinsky tryst. Clinton's own juvenile sexploits saddle Gore with the dilemma about how close to link himself to Clinton. It was an impossible situation. The fact that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 may suggest that he made the correct choice.

As for Lieberman, you're also forgetting that it was on Sept. 11, 2001--more than a year after Gore chose him as a running mate--that Lieberman lost his mind and started rabidly foaming at the mouth. Before that, he had his occasional conservative position, but he wasn't the Zell Miller bastard he became after 9/11. In retrospect, many of us are doubtless as horrified by our having cast a vote for him to be a heartbeat from the presidency as Gore is at having chosen him.

A previous poster is correct about McCain not picking Lieberman. McCain will pick whichever ultra-right-wing bigot Jerry Falwell tells him to because the precious Christo-fascist "base" doesn't trust McCain. That makes defeating McCain all the more crucial. Given his age, the odds are high that he could die in office and leave us saddled with a president who makes Bush look like a secular liberal Democrat, a real right-wing-nut president, such as that utter freak Sam Brownback.

Posted by: Steve | January 8, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

On Gore as VP:

He would not necessarily need to run in 2016. In fact, he could even step down in 2012 and let someone else take his place as the VP for a second term. This all makes some sense if you assume he would already be content not to run for President in 2008.

Incidentally, this is not entirely unprecedented--two people (George Clinton and John C. Calhoun) served as VPs under two different Presidents and never served as President themselves.

Posted by: DTM | January 8, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

The suggestion of Gore running VP on an Obama/Gore ticket is interesting. Very strong ticket for the short term, a likely win. The only problem is that this will put Gore in 2016 in the same place as in 2000 - the de facto anointed candidate for president. The Democrats really do not need to deal with this specter yet again.

Posted by: Emctwo | January 8, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore is a decent man on an important environmental mission, but he has made very serious mistakes in the past as a candidate. His biggest mistake was to run away from Cinton and his record, instead of having Clinton campaign for him, and his second biggest (and related) mistake was to choose Holy Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman's current appaling behavior, in a position that allows him to hold de Democrats hostage in the Senate, for fear that he may switch to the Republicans, is a sufficient illustration of Al Gore's poor judgement. Gore should continue campaigning against global warming, and leave campaigns for the White House to others.

Posted by: Don't Forget | January 8, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Dave, January 8, 2007 12:45 PM - You are the poster child for vicious right wing lies and distortion. Al Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet. What he claimed was, and this is quite true, he was amounst those supported and planned ARPA which led to the modern internet. Right wing talk, being ignorant savages, picked up on this and made sound like a claim by Al Gore that he, personally, had invented the internet. Your contemptable repeating of this bald faced lie, is so loathsome, so vicious, so utterly shameful, that you ought apologize to everyone on this forum. That you and KOZ and the rest will not, is merely a sign of how far we have fallen as a nation. It makes you typical of Bush's supporters, typical of the Peabody Award Winning O'Reilly jerks, a liar, a cheat, a thug, nothing more than a wart of humanity's a*s.

Posted by: MikeB | January 8, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

*Joe Biden wound up the show by declaring his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president. Undoubtedly, this will mark the third unsuccessful run for president by the senator from the great state of Delaware.*
Another dem jumps into the fray..no discussion of this actual news Chris??
Dems would be smart to get behind Richardson or Biden, and forget about Al Gore running. He needs to stick to what he does well: making money with books and movies.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 8, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

afam212 wrote: I believe that Nixon still had that drive to make a run in 1968.

By "that drive," you mean "the pathological need for acceptance, approval, and power," right?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | January 8, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I misspoke at first in my last post. Humphrey did not enter any primaries in 76. After Church and Brown some late primaries, some pundits thought Carter was stoppable despite having won all but one of the earlier primaries. Humphrey signalled his willingness to be a compromise candidate if none of the contenders had enough delegates for the nomination. However, Carter did win a first ballot victory. I do not believe HHH actually announced his candidacy per se.

Posted by: JimD in FL | January 8, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

To read "Al Gore" and "man of priciple" in the same paragraph almost made me loose my lunch. So after he got done inventing the internet, he got to be vice president. For those eight years he towed the line - the NAFTA line, the sleaze line (like soliciting donations from White House telephones) and the study to study the entire federal government to pinpoint wasteful areas. He supported Clinton during his, um, girl troubles. Then, when he was running for pres, he suddenly decided that the administration he had been a part of was too scandle-ridden and would not allow Clinton to campaign for him and teamed up with Lieberman to boost his moral image. When he lost, he asked for a recount - not a total recount mind you, just from the areas he thought he would carry or be able to pick up votes from. And ultimately, though people seem to forget, after independent recounting by various new orgs, he still lost pretty much every way you could count votes (read the NORC study). But since the results of this study were buried in most newspapers (i guess it was old news by then, afterall, there is no media bias) people continue to actually believe that an election was "stolen".

Posted by: Dave! | January 8, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

A.G. - You're on. I'll drive my hybrid car there. Mmm, what's that delicious smell?

Posted by: Emctwo | January 8, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"He is now a three time loser"? Where does this math come from? Fox News?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Raise ManBearPig Awareness! We CAN stop him! Bring everyone you can to my ManBearPig meeting tomorrow at 8 a.m. sharp!

Posted by: A. G. | January 8, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Terry for the correction. Nixon said after the election of 1962 when he lost to Pat Brown, "Your not going to have Nixon to kick around anymore". However, I believe that Nixon still had that drive to make a run in 1968 that Gore does not for 2008.

Posted by: afam212 | January 8, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore is a very decent man and would a wonderful President...a lot better than most of the candidates running. For all that, Rove and the rabid dogs of right wing talk radio have smeared him so badly, and the inbred morons that compose the voting public have bought enough of it, that I do not belive he can win. That, is Amercia's loss. The Amercian sheep, the great voting public, voted for George Bush in sufficient numbers that he and his hencemen were able to steal or squeek through a victory. So great men like Gore and Kerry, men with actual ideas and ideals and morality, have been cast aside, while this country is led by an actual criminal who is murdering our children and the children of others, and will ultimately be responsible for the downfall of this once great nation. Suck it up, America, you got what you deserve.

Posted by: MikeB | January 8, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Terry for the correction. Nixon said after the election of 1962 when he lost to Pat Brown, "Your not going to have Nixon to kick around anymore". However, I believe that Nixon still had that drive to make a run in 1968 that Gore does not for 2008.

Posted by: afam212 | January 8, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Terry for the correction. Nixon said after the election of 1962 when he lost to Pat Brown, "Your not going to have Nixon to kick around anymore". However, I believe that Nixon still had that drive to make a run in 1968 that Gore does not for 2008.

Posted by: afam212 | January 8, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Terry,

Humphrey jumped into the 1976 presidential primaries in an effort to derail Jimmy Carter. Carter was viewed with extreme suspicion by liberals who were unable to really coalesce around another candidate. Idaho Senator Frank Church and California Governor Jerry Brown entered late and each did win several late primaries although Carter had won enough delegates by then to be unstoppable. Humphrey flirted with announcing himself available for a draft in case the convention deadlocked but did not actively campaign. He had already been diagnosed with terminal cancer by that time and passed away in January 1978.

Posted by: JimD in FL | January 8, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Why can't people simply accept the fact that Al Gore cannot be elected President. He is now a three time loser, and that's enough.

Posted by: Roger Murdock | January 8, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

A quagmire in Iraq like Vietnam
Who ends it?
Maybe he is the Democrats Nixon

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse


Andy Warthol was right when he said that everyone has 15minutes of glory and popularity on the world stage, and therefore I feel that the current crop of president wannabes are just that. Eventually they will go "POUF". The next president will be Gov.Wilsak.

Posted by: Gerry5 | January 8, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Um, afam212, the man who defeated Humphrey in 1968 was one of those "rare to none second acts." Remember, Nixon lost a close presidential race to Kennedey in 1960, and then even lost to Jerry Brown's father for governor of California in 1962. If anyone was ever politically dead, it was Nixon. If he was able to come back, anyone can. Don't count Gore out.

Posted by: Terry Mitchell | January 8, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Not that I am on the Richardson Bandwagon but he is in Sudan today trying to broker a cease-fire and agreement for UN peacekeepers to enter Darfur. If he pulls that off and it works then I will take another long look at him for 08. Darfur is the most blaring example of government sponsered genocide we have seen since Rwanda and it needs to be stopped yesterday.

Posted by: Andy R | January 8, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Al Gore reminds me of Hubert Humphrey. A man of prinicple who lost a close election to a President who led the country down the wrong path. Humphrey tried to capture the Democratic nomination in 1976 as Gore would be in 2008. It would be nice, as the Saturday Night Live skit of what the country would be like if President Gore was in charge. Unfortunatley Gore, like Humphrey, would have been a great president. There are usually few to none second acts in American Presidential politics.

Posted by: afam212 | January 8, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"Where in missouri are you from? My mom was from Reeds Springs."

Vandalia area. I'm actually in Ohio now, but my heart is Missourian.


Posted by: Farmboy from Missouri | January 8, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

inresponse, as I said I don't feel that way but alot of people do. And in all honesty it is not the presidents job to fix global warming by himself it is the Congress. Why can't the congress pass higher fuel effeciency standards? It is the NUMBER 1 best approach to stopping our greenhouse gas emissions.
And Chris if Al Gore and followed your advise 6 years ago he would have won that election. You all forget how in 2000 he pandered his way to an electoral college defeat.

Posted by: Andy R | January 8, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Not that I expect this to happen, but an interesting compromise that would allow Gore to focus his attention on issues like global warming would be to have him run again as the VP candidate. And in that role, I think he would do a lot to help alleviate concerns about the lack of executive experience by some of the other notable Democratic candidates for President (e.g., Obama and Edwards).

Posted by: DTM | January 8, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

'Not all republicans are driven by personal greed or moral superiority. '

Good to hear that, farmboy. It's nice to know that there are still some rational folk in this country who support science. I mean, thank god. What's truly scary is how medieval some here are. I could never have imagined that in this great country, in the 21st century, many would be as backward as they are.

Where in missouri are you from? My mom was from Reeds Springs.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

McCain would never pick up Lieberman as a running mate. McCain's already marginal with the hard right and knows it. He spent the run up to the midterms verbally bashing D's to help appease the GOP 'base.' Hooking up with a D (Fox News headline: "McCain Partners with Demoncrat!!!") would keep that base home in droves on voting day.

If it comes to it he'll find a hard-right R governor somewhere as a VP.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 8, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Amen to Inresponse. We need people who will take a stand for the right thing regardless whether their party is on board, or what sheep think. It is not supposed to be a popularity contest, or an office where you can suck up to companies or interest groups. The person should use their unique perspective for the good of the country and world without fear of elections or popularity- and without thought towards monetary gain. We need someone honest who can and will make the right and tough choices. If done right, things will be painful, but there will be hope. If the elected people keep sugar coating things and putting them off, there will not be anyone or a planet left in the long run.

Posted by: Chris | January 8, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Back in the 80s I was pretty seriously conservative and there was no possibility that I would ever vote for any Democrat for anything. Except Al Gore. I was familiar with his strong support of science generally, and the space program in particular, in Congress. I actually attended a Gore caucus when he ran for the nomination, and would have voted for him as President.

I believe Gore is one of a handful of Dems who might attract republican crossover voters in 2008. Not all republicans are driven by personal greed or moral superiority. And the Dems had better attract crossovers because you can rest assured that McCain will in the reverse direction.

Posted by: Farmboy from Missouri | January 8, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think realty TV IS reality. sad.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Hey Andy, you said: "Also expect to hear alot of "Would you have wanted Gore as president on September the 12th?". Now I would answer 'HEck Yeah" But alot of people in this country would say no. He just doesn't project the kick a$$ take no prisoners attitude alot of people look for in a president."

My question to you have you learned anything from the past 6 years? Look what we are into now thanks to the "kick a$$ take no prisoners attitude alot of people look for in a president"? We need a president who understands that this is the only planet we've got. If your going to kick ass, kick the right one and kick it hard. Secondly, understand that what you do today will effect millions for generations. I'd personally prefer a president who understands history and how not to repeat it. Running a country isn't like a t.v. show or a popularity contest. It's SUPPOSED to be choosing a person who will lead the country in a beneficial manner. The results speak for themselves. when people stop treating politics like reality tv, maybe we will take the blinders off and stop making stupid choices.

Posted by: InResponseto AndyR | January 8, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Yes, the lockbox. I guess you're bored with getting the Social Security checks you yourself have paid for. If we had the 'lockbox' nobody would be talking about privatizing social security, because there was a surplus in the social security fund. But George Bush deliberately spent that so he could hand your retirement to the tender mercies of the financial sharks.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

'When the President finally announces this week his predictable and repeatedly leaked plan to escalate the war in Iraq, it will mark the culmination of another massive fraud on the American people. It will signal yet another betrayal of the nation's armed services men and women and their families. Just as the President and his men lied us into the war, misled us about the conduct of the war, and misled us about the horrible conditions created by his failed policies, the Bush Administration concealed from the public before the 2006 elections their intentions to escalate the war after the elections.

To the current White House occupants, the mid-term elections were not a democratic means to validate or reject candidates and by implication, the policies they advocate or oppose. Instead, the elections were an obstacle in time, a temporary restraint on the President's ability to tell the truth and reveal what his intentions were all along.

The day after the election, the President himself explained, without the slightest embarrassment, that he deliberately lied about his pre-election plans to replace Defense Secretary Rumsfield to avoid making this an issue -- translation: further damage to Republicans on election day. And news reports/analysis since then reveal that the President's team secretly began as early as September, two months before the election, not mid November as they first claimed, the Iraq strategy review that would inevitably lead to escalation, but they deliberately withheld that information from the public. And we know any review by this crowd would lead to escalation because the only kinds of people this President listens to are those who tell him that he cannot conceive of losing but can still win by escalating the war. Given this President's lack of candor, we thus have every reason to believe that the same unapologetic lying was involved for at least the entire year before the elections.'

This deception was designed to minimize Republican losses in the upcoming midterms, and thereby to undermine the potential for investigations, oversight and possible impeachment. To do that, the White House needed to convince the American people that they had a plan to win the war, that the plan was working, and that within a reasonable time, possibly before the elections, we could begin to remove US troops from Iraq. Any message that might suggest an escalation was dismissed by the WH, because the President listened to his Generals and the Generals had not asked for more troops. "Stay the course," now appears to have been a cover for the real intent to expand the war once the elections were over. And even when realities forced the WH to declare that phrase inoperative, there was no suggestion before the elections that "escalation" would take it's place.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I'd love to see Al Bore run. I could use the nap. And perhaps we could talk about the lockbox once again. I know he has been "reborn" now that he is about to win an Academy Award, but let's face it, he is just too boring to be president.

Posted by: Dave! | January 8, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

'Idaho: Sold Out Gore Speech Moved To Taco Bell Arena
Saturday, 06 January 2007
KTVB -- The Frank Church Institute announced today that due to the high demand for tickets, that former Vice President Al Gore's keynote speech, "Global Warming: Beyond the Inconvenient Truth," has been moved from the Student Union Building to the Taco Bell Arena at Boise State University. Gore is scheduled to speak at 7 p.m. Jan. 22.

All 700 free tickets distributed on Jan. 3 will be honored, and those who purchased reserved tickets will be seated in a special section on the floor. Those tickets were given away in just 10 minutes.'

ugh. the taco bell arena. my poor country. but in any case, gore sells out in --idaho, of all places.

people are listening now.

Posted by: lark | January 8, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Zach wrote:

"However, people have long memories and no one liked the recount."

Most people do NOT have long memories. If they did, then explain how John Warner keeps getting elected in Virginia. Also, if no one liked the recount, they must also be against football coaches calling for instant replays, huh?

Posted by: Terry Mitchell | January 8, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Andy -- I have a feeling that Joe Loserman, who is now frequently spotted in bed with McCain, might well jump ship like the rat he is and run with McCain.

How about Gore/Obama vs. McCain/Lieberman?

Now that would be epic -- young and idealist vs. old and cynical, the possibility of peace vs. eternal war, optimistic and progressive vs. gloomy and egressive, good vs. evil.

'no one liked the recount. ' Really? I would have liked it just fine had not the supreme court stepped in it and stopped it. I wish he would have fought harder -- but I honestly beleive he was doing the right thing, after the immpeachment and all, to 'heal' the nation.

However, no one knew what a disaster the bush crew would be? How could you imagine incomptence on such a massive scale? I'm sure if Gore could have known, he would have done whatever was possible to stop it.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Am I the only one who finds this discussion completely moot at this point in the game? I get that this blog seems solely dedicated to the '08 race - and being many, many months away from there, we're going to have to bear with some recycled posts - but, Gore has said repeatedly he is not considering running. And I actually believe him. I like Gore, voted for him 2000. I'd jump on his bandwagon if he were interested, even though I'm not generally a fan of re-running prior candidates just on the principle that I think it sends a message that the party can't get anyone else, so let's drag out this guy (or gal) again. Even if they are the best candidate, it kind of gives the impression of old news to the thousands of people out there who don't pay attention as much as we loyal readers do. It just seems as though this entire blog and comment session are just idle chatter with no real resolution to be had, since CC himself said in the opening lines that Gore hasn't shown any indication of a run and has given zero indication that he is changing his mind in any way.

Posted by: Stephanie | January 8, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Gore had his shot in 2000. I think most people agree that election was stolen. However, people have long memories and no one liked the recount. The charges of 'sore loser' will come back to haunt him.
As for Obama, will you guys get off the VP bandwagon? He's said he doesn't want that job.

Posted by: Zach | January 8, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Gore had his shot in 2000. I think most people agree that election was stolen. However, people have long memories and no one liked the recount. The charges of 'sore loser' will come back to haunt him.
As for Obama, will you guys get off the VP bandwagon? He's said he doesn't want that job.

Posted by: Zach | January 8, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Gore had his shot in 2000. I think most people agree that election was stolen. However, people have long memories and no one liked the recount. The charges of 'sore loser' will come back to haunt him.
As for Obama, will you guys get off the VP bandwagon? He's said he doesn't want that job.

Posted by: Zach | January 8, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Lark,
That is true that the mainstream has just recently caught on to global warming, but there were other problems that needed addressing too. For example smog in the major cities, water pollution, deforestation, urban sprawl, etc etc etc. Gore was known as an environmentalist before he was VP. In the Eight years in office the Clinton Administration didn't do squat to fix these problems. How many hard core environmentalists voted for Nader in 2000? Alot and they did it because Gore didn't do enough as VP or as a candidate to address their concerns.

Also for Drindl how do you like this quote.
"We need an increase in troops there now," he asserted before an audience of military experts and academics. "It must be substantial, and it must be sustained."
Quess who said that. That's right Joe Liebermann. He also said he wouldn't rule out endorsing John McCain for president. How about a McCain/Liebermann in 08 ticket? Can you feel the Joementum?

Posted by: Andy R | January 8, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

'There is even a wonderful phrase for this, going back to those intense first years of the Clinton administration: "getting BTU'd". Back in the early stages of the Clinton 1993 budget reconciliation bill, there was a plan to impose a tax on all energy usage based on the actual energy used, as measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs). This is not a bad policy, and would be an even better idea right now when energy conservation is far more urgent. But it was never going to be an easy sell politically, especially given that members of Congress from oil- and gas-producing states tend to gravitate toward the tax-writing committees. And it was sure to be unpopular everywhere, in exactly the same way that a gasoline-tax increase is unpopular. The Clinton administration was able to push the BTU tax through the House, but then when the bill went over to the Senate, where they needed every single Democratic vote, it became apparent that with Senators like David Boren of Oklahoma and John Breaux of Louisiana in key positions, it was totally dead.'

It wasn't just the repugs who were owned by oil companies. There were a lot of sell-out Dems too. And I think that Gore did try. The big failure was Clinton who himself was too compromised by corporations. This is why the co-called 'centrist' agenda for Dems is no longer an option. We have to get away from being controlled by corporatists to get anything done in the public interest.

You have to remember too, Andy, how few people were even aware of climate change, then -- or didn't want to know. How hard it was just to get people to listen. And how much power does a VP have [I mean, when we actually have a president who's more than a sock puppet}?

In any case, it wasn't really until the icebergs and ice caps started melting that it was clear even to scientiets, how rapid the process was and how fast it was accelerating due to feedback loops -- and how little time we had to do something. And I think it's the only the last few years that Gore really caught fire on it.

Posted by: lark | January 8, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I think that Al Gore would hurt the chances of the DNC taking back the Whitehouse if he is elected by the democrats. His weak response to the republican attacks on his voting track record and personal integrity, plus the way he avoided certain hot button issues, might have possibly given a lot of voters the impression that he was not the person that could fill Clinton's shoes.

I think the republican leadership rather take the fight with Al Gore then with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her sharpness and her husband's campaign experience might give the DNC the edge the need in order to beat their opponents.

The enormous threats and challenges the nation faces right now, makes the next election crucial in regards to how the United States correlates with the rest of the world and its own citizens.

Will the gap in between the haves and the have-nots continue to grow? Will the US try to build higher walls around it-self in order to protect its strategic assets from the European and Asian economic and diplomatic advancements on its own territory? What actions will the next administration take now that North Korea has advanced its nuclear program? These are a few of the questions that the next administration will have to confront as best as they can.

The American population is facing a crossroad where they will have to choose in between America placing itself on a pedestal, ignoring, belittling and ridiculing its real or imaginary adversaries, or an America that collaborates, negotiates and listens to the rest of the world in order to create a safer world for all of the people that inhibit this planet.

Posted by: Za-10 | January 8, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

In Australia, which is struggling through its worst drought on record, the impact on farmers could be devastating. The country has already registered its smallest wheat harvest in a decade, food prices are rising, and severe water restrictions have put thousands of farmers at risk of bankruptcy.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse

'LONDON Jan 4, 2007 (AP)-- Deepening drought in Australia. Stronger typhoons in Asia. Floods in Latin America. British climate scientists predict that a resurgent El Nino climate trend combined with higher levels of greenhouse gases should touch off a fresh round of ecological disasters and make 2007 the world's hottest year on record.'

Posted by: gore looking goood to me now... | January 8, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Anonymous, Gore could have been saying the same things he is saying now when he was VP. He should have put pressure on President Clinton to fight for real higher fuel standards on cars and SUVs. He could have pushed for decreasing our dependence on foreign oil while our economy was humming. Its not like Global Warming snuck up on us. The Environmentalists have been screaming at the wind about Global warming for 15 years.

Posted by: Andy R | January 8, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

'What the Ford obsequies were most about was the Beltway establishment's grim verdict on George W. Bush and his war in Iraq. Every Ford attribute, big and small, was trotted out by Washington eulogists with a wink, as an implicit rebuke of the White House's current occupant. Mr. Ford was a healer, not a partisan divider. He was an all-American football star, not a cheerleader. He didn't fritter away time on pranks at his college fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon, because he had to work his way through school as a dishwasher. He was in the top third of his class at Yale Law. He fought his way into dangerous combat service during World War II rather than accept his cushy original posting. He was pals with reporters and Democrats. He encouraged dissent in his inner circle. He had no enemies, no ego, no agenda, no ideology, no concern for his image. He described himself as "a Ford, not a Lincoln," rather than likening himself to, say, Truman'.

This Frank Rich column was quoted approvingly in the largest Arkansas nnewspaper. Even in the heartland they now recognize what a boob and a phony bush is.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

People often deride Gore for not being able to win his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election. But I don't think he ever could have won Tennessee because America had been divided into Red and Blue long before that election.

If Guiliani or Romney wins the GOP nomination in 2000, do not be surprised if they do not win New York or Massachussetts for the same reason.

Basically, what I'm saying is that a person's politics are often more important than a person's hometown when determining which way a state is going to vote--including a politician's home state.

Gore can win, and he has the luxury of not having to enter the race early. Simply put, Gore is Edwards' worst nightmare. And Hillary's route to the nomination would become immensely more complicated with his entry into the race. Gore would singlehandedly eliminate Biden, Clark, Dodd, Kerry, Richardson, and even Obama. However, Obama would complement Gore quite nicely and would be an intelligent pick for a running mate.

Posted by: Zzonkmiles | January 8, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

'What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, as more troops appeared on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles.'

Posted by: Wesley Clark | January 8, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

God what a patrician twit sebastian mallaby is. He's rambling on today about what a horrible thing it would be to cut taxes on the middle class -- and how equally horrible it would be not to cut taxes MORE on the wealthy.

What a disgustingly transparent plutocrat. Why not just call his column Class Warfare?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I admire Al -- greatly -- but he should stay where he is. I have always been disappointed that great politicians who lose walk away and never seem to contribute to the work again. It is good for the world that Carter, Clinton, and now Gore have decided to stay and to work for the Common Good on a global level. Let's find our new leaders on the National Level and support our former leaders who are working on the global level so they might continue to do their work.

Posted by: Gail Mountain | January 8, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

How could Gore have done anything about global warming as VP when he faced a hostile republican congress whose only real constiuency is oil companies?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

blarg-- Gore could do more to help us if he was president. We face so many huge challenges now - financial and personal effects of climate change, an endless, escalating, endless war, a broken military, catastrophic deficits, colllapsing manufacturing sector, collapsing pensions funds, 45% uninsured, hemorhaging of middle class jobs due to globalization, illegal immigration, outsourcing.

We desperately need a strong, intelligent leader like Gore to replace the pathetic, weak, incompetent failures we have now. Who else can we really trust to do the job?

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Add me to the list of people who dream of a Gore/Obama ticket. Gore can be president for 8 years while Obama is getting the foreign policy/governing experience he'll need for the presidency in 2016.

As a woman, I'd love to see a female president. Unfortunately, Hillary is just too polarizing and can't win the general election.

Posted by: GibeHo | January 8, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Count me as one democrat who doesn't want Gore to run. The person who runs for president will need to grasp the populist torch that has been carried by the likes of Webb, Tester, and a slew of new democrats in the house. Gore can't do that. He will be linked to the Clinton free-trade policies such as NAFTA, which kills any chance that he has of picking up the populist mantra.
Also the Clinton administrations total lack of backbone when it came to environmental policy will stunt his global warming message. Imagine this question in a debate "Mr. Gore you have been talking alot about global warming but why didn't you do anything about this when you were VP?"

Also expect to hear alot of "Would you have wanted Gore as president on September the 12th?". Now I would answer 'HEck Yeah" But alot of people in this country would say no. He just doesn't project the kick a$$ take no prisoners attitude alot of people look for in a president.

Posted by: Andy R | January 8, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Like many others both here, Gore-Obama is my dream ticket. But, my vision is that of Gore and Obama being virtual co-presidents. The comment by Eskew: "There is something uniquely infantilizing about being vice president," "When you are the number two you have to fit yourself into that box." Should not apply in the case of a Gore-Obama ticket, although Gore has more policy chops to walk, behind Obama's ability to talk is a first class mind. Gore may have been the strongest vice-president up til Cheney, but he has learned important lessons about civility and hubris through the school of political hard knocks. I would expect he would recognize Obama's exceptional talents and would carve out areas of interest like poverty in the inner-city where Obama would take the lead, rather than fit into the infantilizing box of the vice presidency. While I agree with Daschle and Durbin that Obama's talents are vast and practically unlimited. These talents would only improve with exercise in the proper context. That's why I think Gore and Obama complement each other so well. Both perspective candidates are first class and like Astaire and Rogers or Hope and Crosby seem to me to be the perfect teaming.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | January 8, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

It's tough to begrudge these weeks of spring-like weather during what should be the dead of winter -- unless you're part of the multibillion-dollar ski industry. With its record-high temperatures and shortage of snowflakes, this winter is shaping up to be the bleakest in 25 years for regional ski resorts.

Resorts typically collect nearly 30 percent of their revenue during the second half of December and first week of January, according to the National Ski Areas Association. This year, however, lodges within a few hours' drive of Washington are relying on small patches of rapidly melting man-made snow, and several resorts have been forced to close their ski operations altogether.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

I think Gore would be a great candidate. He has a lot of advantages: He's very smart, he brings back memories of the more prosperous and happier 90s, he's concerned with environmental issues, he's a lot more personable than he was in 2000, and he gives voters who regret electing Bush a way to make up for it.

But I'm torn. I believe that global warming is a very important issue. And maybe Gore would be able to do more to fight global warming, and protect the environment in general, if he weren't president. As president he'd have to deal with all kinds of other issues. Maybe he'd be better off staying in the private sector, or being appointed to the Cabinet. Or maybe he should be the VP again!

Posted by: Blarg | January 8, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

'The democrats don't have anyone.'

-john mccain -- aging warhawk and pawn of fundamentalists

-romney -- flipflopping incompetent loser

-guiliani -- war profiteer, serial adulterer, drag queen

-newt -- serial adulterer, left his wife for another while she was in hospital dying of cancer

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"There is something uniquely infantilizing about being vice president,"

Unless you are Dick Cheney, and then the infantilizing action belongs to the President.

Posted by: Sheik Jabouti | January 8, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

'But Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kagan appealed to Mr. Bush's ego, suggesting that he might yet be able to rescue his signature war. And am I the only person to notice that after all the Oedipal innuendo surrounding the Iraq Study Group -- Daddy's men coming in to fix Junior's mess, etc. -- Mr. Bush turned for advice to two other sons of famous and more successful fathers?

Not that Mr. Bush rejects all advice from elder statesmen. We now know that he has been talking to Henry Kissinger. But Mr. Kissinger is a kindred spirit. In remarks published after his death, Gerald Ford said of his secretary of state, "Henry in his mind never made a mistake, so whatever policies there were that he implemented, in retrospect he would defend."

Oh, and Senator John McCain, the first major political figure to advocate a surge, is another man who can't admit mistakes. Mr. McCain now says that he always knew that the conflict was "probably going to be long and hard and tough" -- but back in 2002, before the Senate voted on the resolution authorizing the use of force, he declared that a war with Iraq would be "fairly easy."

Mr. Bush is expected to announce his plan for escalation in the next few days. According to the BBC, the theme of his speech will be "sacrifice." But sacrifice for what? Not for the national interest, which would be best served by withdrawing before the strain of the war breaks our ground forces. No, Iraq has become a quagmire of the vanities -- a place where America is spending blood and treasure to protect the egos of men who won't admit that they were wrong.'

Posted by: sacrificing your child for bush's ego? | January 8, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

There is a evil witch who hangs around here stole money from Katrina Victims and pretending to be an environmentalists and Gore supporter here is the Link for her web site .. now This evil witch is pretending to be common sense.

http://racistjanmoore.blogspot.com/

Posted by: JanMooreVampire | January 8, 2007 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Gore is yesterday's news. Doesn't anyone remember he could not even carry his own home state of Tennessee, something that would have made him president? Ditto for Edwards who 4 years later failed to carry his own home state of North Carolina. The democrats don't have anyone. Hillary is too polarizing and would lose in 2008. After the rhetoric and sound bites fade away, Obama is still a light weight.

Posted by: Steve | January 8, 2007 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Don't get me wrong, I like Al Gore a lot, but I think this article is an example of a bit of Washington hubris. In the general public, Gore tends to have high unfavorable ratings. The vast majority of the general public would remember his wooden 2000 performance as opposed to his Inconvenient Truth crusade.

The only shot of him getting in, I think, is if Sen. Clinton stumbles early and the Dems look for a new front-runner.

Posted by: Greg-G | January 8, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

I agree with an earlier comment, my dream ticket for the Democratic party for 2008 would be Gore/Obama. I do believe the Republicans will have a hard time beating such a ticket, as John McCain is going to get what he wishes with Bush's *surge* or, rather *ESCALATION* in Iraq. When that fails, McCain can kiss the presidency goodbye. Then who is truly left for the Republicans to run... Mitt Romney or someone even further to the right? Gore will be the happy medium because the righties might not like it, but most Americans DO believe in global warming and a womans right to choose, and Gore will best match where we need to be in 2008.

Posted by: corbett | January 8, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

After much debate, I saw the movie thinking it was just going to be all a bunch of politics. I am a middle of the road type and do not like either party for their corruption and self interest... however, Gore won my respect with that movie and I think as president he would have the power to make the changes necessary to preserve the environment while ensuring the safety of our country. I hope he runs so people have an intelligent alternative to Hillary or Obama. Based on that movie you can guarantee he will stick to his guns on the environment, which is more than I can say about any other politician- and that willingness to stick to his guns and not be swayed should get him elected. I say should, but seeing as us Americans seem to be willing to believe anybody who gives a syrupy sweet PC campaign, with him being so blunt he probably wouldn't make it- then again, it is time to wake up America.

Posted by: Chris | January 8, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

After much debate, I saw the movie thinking it was just going to be all a bunch of politics. I am a middle of the road type and do not like either party for their corruption and self interest... however, Gore won my respect with that movie and I think as president he would have the power to make the changes necessary to preserve the environment while ensuring the safety of our country. I hope he runs so people have an intelligent alternative to Hillary or Obama. Based on that movie you can guarantee he will stick to his guns on the environment, which is more than I can say about any other politician- and that willingness to stick to his guns and not be swayed should get him elected. I say should, but seeing as us Americans seem to be willing to believe anybody who gives a syrupy sweet PC campaign, with him being so blunt he probably wouldn't make it- then again, it is time to wake up America.

Posted by: Chris | January 8, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

'BRITAIN'S prime minister in waiting has vowed to take on President George Bush over foreign policy as he spells out plans to break from Tony Blair's approach to the war on terror.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, who is on course to succeed Mr Blair as prime minister this year, wants to put Britain's interest above the relationship with Washington.

In Sunday's interview, Mr Brown said Britain would continue its policy of retraining Iraqi troops and pursuing the reconstruction of Iraq, but that by the end of the year "there may be thousands less (British troops) in Iraq than there are now".

When asked whether as prime minister he would commission an inquiry into the post-war management of Iraq, he said: "There will always be reviews into what happened. The lessons we have got to learn are two-fold. One is that the passage of authority to the local population should have begun a lot earlier."

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Time may be on Gore's side. IF we have a scorcher of a summer broken up only by monster hurricanes and IF another American city suffers a direct hit like New Orleans, Gore may be drafted as the most viable candidate to address the problem. While America has lost the ability to be called to consciousness by a book (like Silent Spring) it would be hard to ignore a washed-away Miami.

Need a concrete example? If Katrina had hit in August of 2004 instead of 2005 we'd have a different President right now.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 8, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

'Last week, the president challenged Democrats to join him in balancing the budget within five years and urged them to cut thousands of pet projects from future spending bills.

"How can you ever expect to get to a balanced budget if you're spending $100 billion a year on Iraq, borrowing the money to do it, if you're giving $50 billion a year in tax cuts to people who make over a million bucks a year and paying for that with borrowed money?" Obey said.'

Why all bush's talk about a 'balanced budget' is just a dumb joke that only the pathetically simplest among us will fall for.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

common sense -- you don't seem to have much. Global warming is a fact that exists outside the person of Al Gore. Whether he runs or not has no effect on that. The effects are becoming increasingly pronounced and even bush of all people has admitted that many species are at risk because of it. He will still fight dinng anyhing about it of course, he's do much a patsy for the oil companies but as more and more of what Gore warns of becomes obvious, he will only look better for having warned us first.

The rabid right, of which jason appears to be a member, will never like him -- but they will never like anyne who isn't as crazy as they are. As far as being 'acidic' -- thank god there is still at least one man who speaks honestly and bluntly about the things we need to hear, instead of sugarcoating everything in children's fairy tales like your president.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

A Gore vs. Hillary nomination fight would be the ultimate in political theater. Unfortunately, the world of politics tends to favor the boring.

http://commenterry.blogs.com

Posted by: Terry Mitchell | January 8, 2007 8:37 AM | Report abuse

When it comes to Gore, it's all about whether America is ready for the Air America candidate, cuz that's what Gore would be. I have no doubt that Gore would tap into the energy of the rabid left. I also have no doubt that he would scare an awful lot of people he can't afford to scare because of the acidic turn his rhetoric has taken in recent years.

Posted by: jason | January 8, 2007 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Interesting point Common Sense that a lost presidential bid could give climate change, Gore's signature issue, the stench of failure - at least in politics. At this point, though, the issue is probably too potent to be derailed entirely - I would hope!

But I disagree classifying Gore as the "Loser" from 2000. A lot of Americans were hoodwinked in that election, taking the Clinton/Gore boom years for granted and instead opting for a "compassionate conservative", "bipartisanship", and a "reformer with results" (i distinctly remember a promise to avoid "nation-building" as well). Americans who regret voting for GWB in 2000 might relish an, admittedly hypothetical, chance to right their wrongs, or make right for the way they've been wronged.

Chris is right that Gore is basically "Old Steady" in the marquee Dem field, he's got experience over Obama and a calmness and not-Hillaryness over Hillary (and perhaps even a stronger grip on Pres. Bill Clinton's coat-tails). He's the unique counter-point to both his major primary challengers. Expect 8-12 podiums at the Democratic primary debates, and expect Gore to be at one of them.

Posted by: LCM | January 8, 2007 8:04 AM | Report abuse

The people in this country are too dumb to vote for Al Gore. That has already been shown once.

Posted by: Bill Monroe | January 8, 2007 7:55 AM | Report abuse

I would love Al Gore to run in 08. Gore/Obama is my absolute dream ticket. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, Gore would be a great choice. The environment, left so long to far left green parties, is becoming an important issue for everyone and who better to have in the white house for environmentalists (like me) than Gore? Of course there might be some truth in the belief that Gore and the environment is best off keeping on doing what he's doing now - promoting the issue rather than being distracted by everything else involved with being president.

No doubt he has the know-how and the foreign policy cred to be a great president. The question is, does he have the hunger? Campaigning is a tiring business and i think Al is pretty happy with his life as it is.

Posted by: Aussie view | January 8, 2007 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Let me just say that ElectGore2008 does not know what he is talking about. Not only do you not know how to speak English but come on...seriously? No matter what people say, he is not the best candidate for the Democrats. He is still thought of as the "Loser from 2008". As much as I don't think that is fair, and I believe he is changed and matured a lot, people in the US won't think so. He is very much like the Newt Gingrich of the Democrats. Just like Conservatives want Newt to run, the Liberals want Gore to run. But just like Newt, if he holds out long enough it won't be possible.

And a final thought...the other reason I don't think he will run is because if he does it will just open up the global warming debate for criticism. People will attack it and say it's false...if Gore then loses, he will also lose the Global Warming debate because people will associate global warming with the presidential loss.

Posted by: Common Sense | January 8, 2007 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Trust me I am the chairman of www.ElectGore2008.com Predicted in Jan 2004 even before the Primary for the Dems was over that Kerry would lose in 2004 election who would become the democratic candidate in 2004 and also I predicted that Al Gore would run in 2008 and will win the election in 2008 with a significant number of eletoral votes. So would ever fail the American people who believed me .. Nop I don't think so. He will run and win in 2008..'. He is meant to become the next President of this Nation, who will straighten up many things and put them in order and solve all the problems caused by others. In other words he is the chosen one.

http://www.electgore2008.com

here is the Link for the letter I sent to VP Al gore in nov 2004

http://goredem2.proboards24.com/index.cgi?board=Gore2008&action=display&thread=1100180148

It may sound little bit like giving an Order That wasn't my intention, however I was just stating the Fact, which was going to occur in the future.

I even met him personally in houston and dallas told him and Told Mrs.Tipper Gore also about this. I also hosted the House Party in decem 16, 2006

Posted by: ElectGore2008 | January 8, 2007 6:31 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Observations on the opening of the 110th US Congress

By Barry Grey in Washington DC
8 January 2007

In the citadel of privilege and power that is Washington, DC, the transfer of congressional control from the Republicans to the Democrats, notwithstanding the gaudy ceremonies and talk of "historic moments," changes nothing essential.

This particular turnover, even by the political standards of the American two-party system, will alter less than many previous transfers of power.

In some ways, the core reality of American political life was evoked in a description of last Thursday's swearing-in rites for the new Senate by journalist Geoff Elliott, writing in the January 5 edition of the Australian,

"At 11:45 am, Vice-President Dick Cheney's motorcade sweeps up Constitutional Avenue in Washington, DC from the White House to Capitol Hill. Cheney's armoured limousine is preceded by an escort of police motorbikes with sidecars and is nestled among black sports utility vehicles in which men in black menacingly poke their semi-automatic weapons out the windows. Cheney is heading to the Senate to preside over his ceremonial role in the chamber as president. At midday he is to start swearing in the new Democrat-controlled Senate."

The Capitol complex itself is ringed by police-military checkpoints, and police dressed in various uniforms, some wielding large automatic weapons, are everywhere. The domed structure is surrounded by what appear to be fortified barriers, on the other side of which one can see large cranes and tracts of dug-up earth. One can only imagine what type of fortifications are being built there.

It is not exactly Baghdad's Green Zone, but it is a far cry from a symbol of democracy and open government.

The physical barriers enhance the impression that in

For the rest of this article please go to

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/cong-j08.shtml

Posted by: che | January 8, 2007 6:25 AM | Report abuse


Please sign the petition.

It is very important for the future of our country.

http://pol.moveon.org/100hours/

Pass the 100 Hours Agenda

Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic leadership are launching a bold "100 Hours Agenda" that would take real steps towards kicking the oil addiction, fighting poverty, improving public health and cleaning up government. Click here for more details.

But big oil, drug companies, and other right wing special interests are spending millions of dollars to shoot it down. We must speak up now.

The total signature count and some of the comments from this petition will be read aloud on the floor of Congress-- the more signers, the bigger the impact. Please add your name to following statement:

http://pol.moveon.org/100hours/

Posted by: che | January 8, 2007 6:22 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company