Al Gore's name is in the air -- it's fate, destiny, kizmet, karma

[Turn CO Blue]

I really hadn't given much thought to 2008. I've casually read, but usually bypassed threads that talk about Clinton in 08 or Clark/Dean/Bayh/Bidens/Conyers/Boxer in 08 etc.

I'm usually more in the "let's at least take back one of the Houses in 2006, before we even think about the White House in 2008" crowd. Actually, to be more accurate, I'm in the "all politics is local -- let's all get on the local School Boards right now" crowd, because we don't want to raise a bunch of ignorant freepers to be the leaders of the next generation.

But then I read a thread the other day that talked about Gore's intelligence, passion and wit when he speaks onstage about global warming and the environment.

I read another thread the other day about how Gore has been through the fire and came out refined, "changed for the better" -- and I remember thinking "what does not kill us makes us stronger".

I read another thread this morning that Russert on Meet the Press says that Gore is considering another run in 2008.

Then I saw these MUST-SEE pictures (hubba hubba) of a young, handsome and sexy Al Gore this morning in this thread:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4870904&mesg_id=4870904>


So, all I can say is this:
Gore won the Presidency, but was cheated. We must right this wrong. I will do everything in my power to right this wrong. This morning I decided that Al Gore will get my vote in 2008.

As far as I'm concerned the other Dems (wonderful as they may be) should just have a gentleman's/gentlewoman's agreement with Al Gore to not run -- so that we can skip the whole horribly UGLY tearing-each-other-to-pieces Democratic primary process -- and go straight to bolstering Al's run.

That's all.
tcb

[LiberalEsto]

1. I completely agree with you. Gore deserves it.

Now, how about vice-president? My choices would be Clark or Kucinich.

[KittyWampus]

84. "deserves" it? The Presidency Isn't A Merit Award

[LiberalEsto]

150. He is the rightful president. He WON in 2000.

My only complaint about Gore was that he didn't fight back against the forces who hijacked the Florida recount.

However from what I've seen him say and do in the past 5 years, it is clear that he's grown and changed and become very much aware that he should have fought back tooth and nail in 2000. He has also found his voice and become a passionate, forceful speaker on many issues but particularly global warming, which impacts us all.

I have no doubt that if Gore faced a situation such as the 2000 recount disaster today, he would take no prisoners.

He is the real president of the United States.

[AtomicKitten]

93. Yes, indeed, he DESERVES the nomination.

Why? Because he was righteously screwed in 2000.

He is the most progressive Democrat out there.

VP? Dean, Clark, Obama.

[Moderate Dem]

2. Uh, yeah...

Let's run a guy who took a slam dunk and turned it into an incomprehensible mess of a campaign.

Maybe a new "image" consultant. "Let's lose the 'manly' thing this time Al, try going with the sparkly jumpsuit"...

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. We'll win without you...

...so don't worry too much.

;-)

[Moderate Dem]

5. You don't answer my point

Gore came off as a wishy-washy, stiff, confused candidate, and he blew a slam dunk.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Gore until his reliance on bad media "advice" made him look like a clown. I have no idea how the whole thing happened, he should have won by 15 points.

I guarantee to you that Al Gore will NOT be the President in 2008.

[IndyOp]

17. Gore Blew Slam Dunk - Wrong. Gore won even after a

of antagonistic media outlets did their best to destroy his credibility. The only reason anyone believes Gore is a loser is if they believe the LIE that Gore lost. If you aren't sure whether Carter - quoted below means that Gore won the popular vote or the electoral college then click the link below and listen to the audio - he says that Gore won Florida. Further - if anyone is about the play the 'he should have won it bigger' card - forget it - it is just as easy to move 100,000 votes from the Gore to the * column as it is to move 1,000.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html">Carter says Gore won 2000 election

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter delivered a shocker at an American University panel in Washington Monday: RAW STORY has learned he told the crowd he was certain Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."

He also snubbed the Supreme Court for getting involved, saying it was "highly partisan."

RAW STORY reviewed a video clip of the event late Wednesday. The comment came in response to a question from a student who asked Carter how he felt the last two elections were handled.

You can listen here.

[indie_voter]

26. Gore did mess up BUT

I think he would be the first to admit his mistakes.

Among many things, he was trying to distance himself from Clinton because of the Monica idiocy.

I've watched him in these past few years, he is a changed man.

The 2000 experience made a mark on him (how could it not?).

If he ran, I think he would be a very different candidate than he was in 2000 (which he WON!!)

The media helped Bush, this time around the playing field won't be so uneven.

Almost everything Gore predicted has come to pass.

The world is a very different place now.

I think Gore would be a great candidate.

My dream ticket would be Gore/Clark.


edited to add: sorry this post is in simple sentences, I was typing in thoughts as I was helping the kids and my husband get it together to go out to the playground. LOL!

[krkaufman]

154. Gore/Clark... would love to see that, too.

Among several others.

[Samantha]

167. I don't think he "messed up"

in distancing himself from Clinton. Gore had a private pollster who told him exactly where allowing Clinton to campaign would hurt Gore and where it would help. Gore is no one's fool. He played this by the book. Turned out he was exactly right.

Gore started out about 15 - 20 points below Bush* and ended up taking it. He served under a man who had gone through an impeachment, and Dems were leaving the party in droves. I think in light of all the circumstances, he did a phenomenal job.

[Totally Committed]

32. First of all, Al Gore is not my Candidate...

Up front, for those who don't already know, I support Wes Clark.

That having been said, I'd like to address these two statements:

(a) Gore came off as a wishy-washy, stiff, confused candidate, and he blew a slam dunk.

This also happened to Kerry. John Kerry is a lot of things, and I am no longer a fan, but those of us who have known him as a Senator will tell you, a "stiff, confused candidate" he is not. In person, he is a very genial man, who is sharp as a tack. (But, since he doesn't know which way the political wind is blowing yet, so he's just going wherever it takes him to stay "viable". Makes him appear wishy-washy, but that's for another thread...) Kerry took too much horrible advice, and didn't follow his own gut instincts. Gore did this, too, I believe. Neither of these men's true personalities showed in their campaigns.

(b) Don't get me wrong, I loved Gore until his reliance on bad media "advice" made him look like a clown. I have no idea how the whole thing happened, he should have won by 15 points.

This, again, applies to Kerry and the campaign he just ran. I think we can agree on that.

What is boils down to is this: They both got -- and took -- bad advice. I don't know what it says about their political judgement, but I do know what it says about the "advisors" in the Democratic Party. Every goddam stinking one of them needs to be given the boot! They have advised our candidates so badly that they were turned into pretzels trying to be everything to everybody -- which not only made them look ridiculous, but also watered down or scrambled their messages so badly, the voters couldn't comprehend WTF they stood for.

I also believe the DLC's "go-along-to-get-along", "don't-rock-the-boat" modus operndi is completely F*CKED UP. All candidates need to steer clear of the advice and the guideance they are given through this entity. BAD BULLSHIT! I know Kerry is DLC, but I don't recall if Gore was when he ran... bad, bad, bad advice.

So, would Al be a different candidate today? He could be! He came through the fire of the humiliation of that election cycle, and it does seem to have strengthened him. If he runs, he needs to stay away from the incestuous nest of K-Street pit vipers who call themselves "political advisors", and run on his own gut instincts. He needs to listen to what's in his heart, and so NO when what he's being told doesn't jive with that.

TC

[sendero]

102. I totally agree..

... I'm all but certain that Gore's ill-fated tough-guy stance was the result of bad advice coming from his campaign managers. Advice that I agree, seems to echo the bad advice Kerry got.

Whoever these dumbasses are, and I'm sure one of them is DB, they need to be excised. Their point of view are so lame I sometimes wonder who's side they are on, seriously.

If there is any man who DESERVES the presidency, and YES, it SHOULD BE a merit award instead of a popularity contest, it is Al Gore.

He'll certainly get my time and money if he decides to chance it.

[Olney Blue]

108. Dear Totally,

I love Wes Clark too, but he ran and didn't get the
Democratic nomination last time. Doesn't that worry you?

[krkaufman]

156. That particular fact doesn't worry me.

Clark's not winning the Dem nomination in 2004 says nothing of his chances of winning the Presidency, either in 2004 *or* in 2008. It *does* relate to his ability to win the Dem 2008 nomination, though.

Obviously, victory in one's own primary season doesn't translate to victory in the Presidential campaign; nor does losing the primary imply one's possible performance in the Presidential election *had* the candidate been the nominee. In fact, many postulated during the 2004 Dem primaries that a key Republican strategy was to take Clark down in the primaries, so that they wouldn't have to face him in the Presidential election -- a wise strategy to eliminate the more competitive opponents through intra-party cannibalism. (see also "Dean")

[Admiral Loinpresser]

70. Surely you are kidding...

when you say he should have won by 15 points.

First, being a two-term VP is an historical disadvantage. After eight years of Pepsi, people want Coke, it's a political reality. The last time a 2-term VP was elected was 1836, prior to Bush 41 winning in '88 and that was an historical anomaly because of the truly bad campaign of Dukakis, who squandered a big lead, something he freely admits today.

So while the roaring economy would have significantly benefitted an incumbent prez, it did little for Gore. That is presidential politics 101.

So why else would it be a slam dunk? Because of Monica? Because the MSM hated Gore (especially as Clinton's surrogate) and conducted a relentless propaganda campaign against him? Because he (as is traditionally the case) was at a vast disadvantage in campaign funding? Because he started about 20 points back when his campaign began in March 99?

Here is where your argument breaks down empirically. He started way behind in March 99, probably for many of the reasons I've mentioned, esp. being a 2-term VP. If it was a slam dunk, why would he start so far behind, before he had done any campaigning? Why wouldn't he start out with a big lead, like Dukakis got?

That doesn't make any sense. Either it was a "slam dunk" milieu, or it wasn't. (Hint: It wasn't.)

[Mabus]

7. How was it a "slam dunk"?

Please explain that to me? If you look at the polls Gore closed the gap as the race progressed. If it was a slam dunk then Bush's number would have increased.

It sounds like you've bought the MSM's representation of Gore because you're repeating their talking points.

[Moderate Dem]

14. I didn't

I watched Al Gore look totally out of character in debates that he should have dominated. He was by far the better candidate, and he looked like he was waiting for someone to tell him who to pretend to be.

Just my opinion, I am not trying to fight with you.

I just thought that Gore blew it, big time. Many, if not most Democrats that I know would cringe at a Gore candidacy in 2008. He had his chance.

We need someone that can take back 4% of the middle. That will win the Presidency in 2008. IMHO, Gore would not win that group.

[Mabus]

18. Well your opinion isn't based in fact

and is a repetition of lies that have been proven false.

[Moderate Dem]

27. Uh, yeah, right...

So you can "prove" didn't actually look lost in the debates? You can "prove" that Gore didn't try to change his image, and looked silly with his costume changes? You can "prove" that his attempt to stand in Bush's face didn't make him look... well, I don't even have words to describe how he looked to me.

Hillary could win.

Mark Warner could win.

Even Bayh could win.

Gore could not win, IMO.

[Mabus]

36. Please stick to the topic

You brought up that Gore blew a slam dunk, that is the part that I questioned you about, now you're going off onto tangents because you can't back up just one of the "points" you made. The one I asked you about.

As Barbara Bush told Franken: "I'm done with you".
That is unless you want to explain how your point that Gore blew a slam dunk was correct.

[AlGore-08.com]

53. There were polls taken after all 3 President al debates

And in all of those polls, the majority thought Gore won the debates. That is proof, not opinion.

And as someone alluded to earlier, Gore began his campaign 20 points behind. Gore was outspent 2 to 1, had almost no support from the party and the most hostile media coverage of any modern Presidential campaign - - possibly of all time. If Gore had truly run a lousy campaign, he would have ended it by at least 20 points behind Smirk.

Instead, Gore ended up winning the popular vote by over 1/2 million votes (and winning electoral college as well, as we all know). Gore's margin of victory in 2000 was larger than Kennedy's in 1960 and Nixon's in 1968. Gore got more votes than any Democrat before him, including Clinton. (Gore also got a higher percentage of the Dem base vote than Clinton.)

There were many, many reasons that 2000 was the worst possible time that Gore - - or any Democrat - - could have run for President. It's only in hindsight that the Clinton/Gore admin's record looks so wonderful to the left. By 1998, the MSM had spent six years drumming up bogus Clinton-gate scandals until Clinton was a national joke and a symbol of corrupt government. Clinton used to challenge the Press during press conferences to report on the various independent commissions who cleared him of various bogus scandals. The press never did. For example, there were 3 different investigations that proved Clinton was innocent of any wrong doings in Whitewater. To this day, the MSM treats Whitewater as the major Clinton scandal. Clinton's affair, and his lying under oath about it were deeply offensive to the majority of Americans. And the Dem party turned its back on him - - almost every Democrat in office called for either Clinton's censure, impeachment or resignation. Gore was one of the very few who did not and who stood by Clinton.

And the various "Clinton-gates" and the impeachment attempt gave the Smirk the ability to run a "character" rather than "issues" campaign. Smirk's campaign was about "restoring honor and dignity to the White House". Rove's publicly stated goal in 2000 was to make Americans see 'Clinton' when they heard the name 'Gore'. And it was effective. Every time Clinton spoke publicly about Gore or his campaign, Gore's poll numbers dropped.

Anybody who really, honestly thinks that the best way to ensure a landslide victory is to run for President immediately after your party's President has been impeached needs to explain why then impeachment is so rare in American history. Why don't we see an impeachment every time a President is term limited out of office - - or every time an incumbent looks like they might not win re-election? Why did Nixon resign rather than stay and face impeachment? Why did Ford lose to Carter? It's one of the worst possible things that can happen to your party.

And another thing that seems to have fallen down the memory hole these past five years - - it's only in retrospect that the Clinton/Gore admin's economic record has been championed by the left. During the 1990s, the left routinely attacked Clinton for poor economic stewardship, blaming him for the increased gap between the poorest and richest Americans. During the 2000 campaign, the conventional wisdom, promoted endlessly by the MSM, was that the President's effect on the economy was minimal. The left, who had been bashing Clinton for eight years for screwing up the economy happily took up the cry, and used it to bolster their "Not a dime's worth of difference" argument.

There are just times in our history when it doesn't matter if you're born on Krypton, you won't get elected if you're a member of a specific party. 2000 was one of those elections. It took five years of Bush running America into the ground for America to become disenchanted with him. It took the biggest natural disaster in US history for the media to abandon trivia and gossip in favor of news reporting - - and the jury's still out on whether that change is temporary or permanent.

[TreasonousBastard]

123. Interesting that you bring up the imnpeachment...

because, you remember, Carter whupped Ford's ass largely because the country felt it needed a new broom to sweep clean after the bad taste Nixon left in our mouths. Economic conditions were pretty bad then, and Ford wasn't very effective, but the real problem was the Nixon baggage he was forced to carry.

Yeah, Shrub came in packaged as the force for decency, apple pie and all that after the general nastiness over Clinton. Just like Carter after Nixon. The difference between Shrub and Carter is that with Shrub it's all a pack of lies, and they managed to keep up the lies to get him back in office.

Another interesting parallel with those times is the Republican party falling apart after it was forced to turn on Nixon. It may yet be forced to turn on Shrub, but so far its us Democrats still suffering from the divisiveness over Clinton.

But the Republicans solved their problems in record time with Reagan. Too bad we don't have a Reagan of our own now-- someone "above" politics we can rally around.

Sure, a bunch of possibilities have been mentioned, but it's probably got to be someone out there who hasn't been in the fray or tarnished yet.

[krkaufman]

158. excellent post. thanks. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

96. I think Gore would have the BIGGEST WIN of all other dems

I really do. He is in the brilliant position of not having voted for the Iraq Resolution which is pretty unforgivable IMO. He has given resounding, fiery speeches that are progressive. I really think people WANT him to run and win, a sort of karmic reckoning to make right what went wrong in Florida in 2000.

Sorry, mod dem, I think you are wrong about this. But that's OK. We are used to loud naysayers. It won't impede destiny.

[Usrename]

107. Gore would be a better President than any of the people you mention.

I guess if you believe all that made up crap about Gore, you MUST believe that the Dixie Chicks are un-American traitors that should be tarred and feathered for saying "I'm embarassed that the President is from Texas".


Geez, I see things so differently than you do. I don't believe ANYTHING the media tells me I am supposed to think about a candidate.

[kentuck]

23. Slam dunk?

Gore was about 15 points behind and went "populist" on them and ended up "winning" the election. Remember? Florida? The Supreme Court? Who do you think would be a better candidate, considering all the Democrats that you know?

[Larkspur]

33. Post debate Polls proved that Al Gore won ALL the 2000 debates

It was the Rightwing Media pundits who spun the aftermath of those debates to favor Bush by picking on Gore's minor habits and flaws.

[drummo]

120. You don't know what your are talking about

or you lie just like Bush.

According to every instant poll Gore won each debate. Get it? How can then you say that he blew it?

He lost the post-debate spin. But that was the job of the media which hated Gore from the beginning because they didn't want a former journalist to become president.

It was a slam dunk? Are you crazy? Gore started the campaign with 20-points behind Bush. He was outspent by 2-1. He had a horrible press coverage with full of lies and spin while Bush got a free ride.
He was the veep of an impeached, morally challenged president running after 8 years of Dem rule in the White House. He made the impossible with his campaign and erased Bush's advantage. All of it. But yeah it was a mess up.

Now go back to school.

[krkaufman]

157. "take back 4% of the middle"

While criticizing Gore, we get to hear a cheer for the primary cause of Democratic impotence in recent years, the fight for the wishy-washy middle.

It should be evident by now, that distancing oneself from the core beliefs of what was once the left-of-center Democratic Party, is what has brought about the decline of the Party -- from Dukakis' running away from "liberal", to Clinton's signing welfare reform and NAFTA.

The center is for compromise. We can visit there *after* we've won the elections.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. WHO turned it into an incomprehensible mess of a campaign?

I believe it was the "moderate" DLC, most especially Donna "I love George Bush" Brazille.

Gore knows better than to involve those idiots again.

That said, I'm really starting to question the purpose of these threads, based on what I wrote in the last one on the subject.

Gore needs to take a long look at his options in private, and make his plan - also in private - if he decides to run. Let the DLC puppet candidates over expose themselves and let the public get sick of them (some of us are sick of them already). And then let Gore emerge as the "defending champion" - if that's what he chooses to do - some time around late summer/early fall of 2007.

[peace frog]

54. Hear hear!

What you said, AntiC.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Gore won in 2000. Why not go with a winner?

And he won with a challenge from the left, in the form of Nadar.

When Bill Clinton beat bush 1 in 92, he did so with the help of Ross Perot, who sucked a lot of votes away from bush. In fact without Perot in that race, Clinton may have very well lost in 92.

Besides, all our other interested candidates (with the exception of Clark) are Senators, and the last Senator to win from either party was, who?

[Turn CO Blue]

20. "Good campaign" is relative

I'm interested in gaining the 1000 highly qualified people that Gore would appoint to correct the issues in the government, especially in his Cabinet.

I'd also counter that just because some other Dem would run a "better campaign" doesn't mean he/she would make a good President or even a mediocre President.

Likewise, it's a rightwing talking point that the ability to run a campaign has something to do with abilities in public office. Totally not comparable. It's like saying a brain surgeon must be a balls-to-the-wall negotiator in his real estate deals. Not related at all.

What makes a good campaign? I say this time we can win on issues - not just personality. The American people fell for the cult-of-personality crap before. The guy they said they'd rather a have a beer with isn't qualified to be President or to run a laundromat.

Also, was there a "manly" thing about Gore last time? Not following you... IIRC, it was a "robot" thing.

[Mabus]

46. A "good campaign" is easy to run

if you have the press on your side. It's harder to run a "good campaign" when the press blows things out of proportion. The MSM did a much better job of mentioning when BushCo wasn't exactly telling the whole truth last year during the waning days of the election but it wasn't covered enough. Hell, the MSM still wasn't talking about the lies that got us into Iraq, they were still in their "post 9/11 love fest" period. There was more truth on the internet but definitely did not filter through the MSM enough.

[Turn CO Blue]

68. Yep. We need a real press and real journalists. I'm sick to

death of info-tainment.

[drummo]

121. You put it well. Absolutely agree.

Moderate Dem is one of those stupid voters who think the prez campaign is some kind of theater where you have to perform well and that's it.
The prez campaign is about the presidency and whether someone is qualified or not. And you bet Gore was and is qualified. If you couldn't see that in 2000 you are blind.

[krkaufman]

159. Yes, I'd *love* Gore to be back in the White House...

... to continue his work in making government effective. (What the heck was the name of that initiative? We really need to emphasize that program and Gore's successes, if only to demonstrate how government run by *competent* leaders can be truly effective.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turn CO Blue]

52. I'm all for making waves!

I think Gore has actually changed into someone who would make waves too.

[Pepperbelly]

77. That is mere repetition of a crappy media script from ...

00 that was odious from them and even more odious on this board.

[krkaufman]

153. Bereft of reality... Gore was up against the slime-master...

... and the news media.

Yes, Gore could have run a better campaign, but even with the news media clearly giving his opponent a pass while they propagated nonsensical smears against him, Gore managed to eek out what should have been a victory (sans SC coup & Florida vote fraud).

[Wordie]

3. It's too soon to be thinking about 2008: so much can change before then.nt

[Turn CO Blue]

40. It's kind of my point. I'm usually the one saying that it's too soon

to talk about 2008 -- but then I started thinking about how the netroots got behind Dean early on for DNC chair - and it made the whole "running for chair" kind of unnecessary. Dean got the chairmanship without a fight, because was the clear mandate from the base.

I'd like to skip the whole primaries, because so much money goes into that process, that would be better spent fight the GOP machine.

[Wordie]

69. Any energy now, used to debate '08 runners, distracts from current issues.

It would be wonderful if there were a future candidate who had a clear mandate, so that we didn't have to go through that process, but at this point, that surely is not the case.

[GetTheRightVote]

6. After his assisting the Katrina victims, I am with you CO, I vote for Gore

:kick:

[Liberaler]

8. Wanna lose in 2008?

Pick Gore.

The man is not a winner. Stop harping on the worst candidate to come from the party since Carter. Find someone who can take this country out of it's quagmire, Gore don't have what it takes. He is a dork.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about

Dean as DNC Chairman?

Was he the best choice for the democrats?

[TankLV]

39. Sure, you mean just like Nixon in '60? That loser?

Yeah, might as well give up now!

[O.M.B.inOhio]

43. Worst since Carter? Carter won. (no Dukakis?) Gole only...

Streamlined the Fed gov't. (e.g. I remember the 40 minute Post Office waits turning to 5 min.)
Was in office during the greatest economic turnaround ever, before the GWB reversal.
Has vision... which includes, yes, funding what would become the Internet.
And he won 2000, despite the hostility of the press.

Is he a dork? You need a politician who has the brains and experience to manage many many tasks. Not somebody some idiot in Kansas would like to have a beer with. You need someone who would dedicate himself fully to the office of the presidency, perhaps not living "a balanced life" of golf and month-long vacations. You need someone who would read his PDBs and take them seriously. Not some sneering fake cowboy. I'll take a dork over that, and one who has already won the office of the presidency is a fair candidate to me.

[Olney Blue]

109. I'll take Dork over Dick any day.

:)

[dalaigh lllama]

117. My sentiments, exactly!

The repugs have a penchant for choosing candidates for their "American Idol" qualities rather than any actual ability. Whoever runs in '08 (and I hope it's Gore) cannot start too soon trying to counteract the "wow, I wanna have a beer with the prez" meme. I'd rather drink a beer with my friends to the health of an able leader who can get us out of this quagmire.
Gore's my choice!
...upon further reflection, if Gore wanted to have a beer with me, that would be o.k., too. :toast:

[drummo]

122. Great. I love dorks!!!

This country needs a dork. A competent one. And Gore is one.

[tinrobot]

86. Right...

Seems like almost all the othe candidates helped get us into this quagmire by not standing up to Bush.

Gore is a different man than he was 5 years ago.

[adarling]

9. Get rid of Donna Brazile

She was a huge F*ck up and i don't think she really cared either way. Beware wolves in sheep's clothing, wouldn't it suck if there were a number or republican operatives in the democratic party, pretending to go along with it, all the way to the top and then screw it up. That is my crazy thought for the day, so oh well. I love Gore, always have always will, and if he starts to really go for it, i will support him, or Kerry. Both of them are great men that just did not have the support behind them from their constituents that they needed i think. Mary Beth Cahill and Brazile are guilty of mismanaging their campaigns and just not doing a great job counteracting everything, like the lock box and the swift boat guys:eyes:

[Turn CO Blue]

35. I will agree that Brazille with Gore, and Cahill with Kerry

just didn't help define the issues clearly enough, and that that was the problem both times. I'm sure that lesson is learned.

Myself, if running for office, I'd hire a publicist, a New York marketing/advertising firm and an image consultant before I hire anyone who'd ever had the title "Democratic campaign manager" in their resume. (tee hee)

I'd also hire someone to scour the internet. The netroots define the issues in this day and age. Any campaign manager who doesn't read the liberal forums and blogs isn't paying attention to the netroots-issued talking points.

They also need to learn to throw some read meat to the base occasionally.

[Totally Committed]

45. Yes, Cahill sucked, but Shrum sucked out loud, too...

Kerry should never have had either of them near his campaign.

And after the sucking up to the Republcians I've seen from Ms. Brazile lately, she shouldn't be anywhere near a Democratic campaign again, either. Just my opinion. I have become very uncomfortable with her affilliations and loyalty.

TC

[adarling]

55. damn right!

[Turn CO Blue]

66. I'm definitely going to research that about Brazille...

but doesn't she report to Howard Dean now? He probably just ignores her or keeps her very busy.

[Totally Committed]

75. Start here, then just let Google do the rest of the work:

White House's Roving Eye for Politics...
President's Most Powerful Adviser May Also Be the Most Connected

Excerpt:

Few would suspect that Rove regularly trades tips with Donna Brazile, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager; she tells Rove how Bush's proposals are faring among Democrats, while Rove makes sure her clients are included in White House events.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2674-2003Mar9¬Found=true


Donna Brazile - American First, Democrat Second

Donna Brazile has severely jeopardized her relationship with the Democratic elite. She has committed an unpardonable sin in their eyes and will never be forgiven. Brazile is not a naive newcomer to the political world. I suspect that she is intellectually moving away from the Democrats. What will she say next?

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/09/donna_brazile_a.php


Washington Post article - Rove's relations w/Donna Brazile ... "People think I'm crazy talking to Karl Rove," Brazile said, but "there's something about ...

www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID61/17685.html


"She's (Brazile) also one of the few Democrats who chats periodically with Karl Rove. Here's an familiar aphorism for you, Donna: That dog won't hunt."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/1/181931/4477


Prima Donna

Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000 was Donna Brazile, a feisty Louisianian with a passion for creole food. In her new political memoir, she shares some tips for the kitchen and explains her surprising friendship with Bush advisor Karl Rove.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/06022004


I am sick and tired of being sold out by those in our own Party!

TC

[Turn CO Blue]

143. Ugh. I feel a pit in my stomach after that.

As for myself I'm not sure I could be restrained from foaming at the mouth while hurling profane invectives at Karl Rove, much less develop a "surprising friendship" with that slug.

And I totally agree -- if these people aren't progressives or liberals, then quit trying to "represent" me, and go over to the dark side with your corporate-pwned friends.

[windbreeze]

165. I vote we THROW that BABY OUT

with the bathwater....I didn't like some of the crap she pulled in the last election cycle..and now I like her even less, if that's possible...
windbreeze

[adarling]

56. that would be a smart idea

except none of the buttheads that work for them would ever allow that, that would just be the right thing to do and of course that would be wrong in everyone's mind in Washington, maybe they are all a bunch or really dumb people in the right place at the right time, wish i was one of them...:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mabus]

24. Not at all,

it's just when you launch into personal attacks "Gore is a dork" it is hard to believe that you have done a lot of thinking about what the original poster said. Attacks on someone's personality are freeper like especially when it is merely a repetition of the RW talking points.

[Liberaler]

37. Personal attack?

IMNSHO Gore is a dork. How that is a personal attack is beyond me.
If attack is a freeper thing is worshipping a democrat thingy? Because every post I read about Gore seems to put the man in a class above everyone esle. Have you read some of the posts about Gore? It's so flowery that I have never seen anything similar.

Name one significant thing that Gore has done and that other Democrats would not have been able to do.

I personally would like to see Obama or Hillary. I just don't want to see Gore, he is a sure loser and will ensure another 4 years at least of a neo-con neo-facists, "born again" repuke moron in the White House. If that happens, there is nobody but the party to blame.

[Mabus]

50. Negotiated the Kyoto Accord

saved it at the last minute.

[AlGore-08.com]

67. Yup, and then the Senate voted unanimously against Kyoto

Let's not forget that Gore was the one who, when he discovered that the military had forty years of classified data on the thickness of the polar ice cap (collected by nuclear subs which can only surface through a certain amount of ice), Gore got the government to declassify that data, which has been used to prove global warming is real.

Let's see, Gore was also instrumental in creating the national organ donor network... the Gore Commission on airline safety lead to baggage xray machines at airports... Gore got Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to get rid of all their nuclear weapons... somebody already mentioned the streamlining of the government (which included getting government services online for the first time)... he held the first Congressional congressional oversight hearing on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) dealing with toxic waste clean up, which found 2,000 toxic waste sites the government didn't know about... and there's a host of "smaller" things way too numerous to mention, like the fact that Gore's streamlining government lead to the savings that got us a balanced federal budget and the most prosperous economy in history...

But the point is not that "any Democrat" could have done the things that Gore did. The point is that almost all the Democrats did something different than Gore at the time Gore did them, and only later did the other Democrats come around to Gore's point of view. "Any Democrat" could have opposed the invasion of Iraq in September 2002, but Gore was one of the very few who did so - - and when he did it, he was the front runner for the 2004 nomination and the proposed invasion was extremely popular. It was a huge political risk to take that position, but he took it because he thought it was right.

The reason that there are all these "flowery" posts about Gore is that he is an exceptional leader. If you study his accomplishments in and out of office, especially if you study them in context - - see which ones where new ideas, and which ones were politically risky - - you will see why he generates so many "flowery" posts.

[AlGore-08.com]

60. "Name 1 significant thing that Gore has done and that other Democrats...

Honey, you're typing on it. It's called the Internet.

Robert Kahn & Vince Cerf (10/02/00): "Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively 'invented' the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world."

Newt Gingrich (9/1/00): "Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet." (Gingrich was widely recognized as the top science geek on the GOP side of the aisle during his tenure.)

From the DailyHower (6/18/04): Biographer David Maraniss had already said something similar. “Gore really was instrumental in developing the Internet,” he told Howard Kurtz in August 2000. “He was the one congressman who understood the whole thing in the ’70s.” What did Gore do to develop the Net? Back in March 1999, James Brosnan of the Memphis Commercial-Appeal summarized some of Gore’s work in the area. He began by quoting various Internet honchos describing Gore’s leadership role. (Mike Roberts of ICANN: “ had the major inside-the-Beltway role in turning the Internet from a research tool into something pointed squarely to education and the economy at large.”) Go ahead, read that again, Dear Readers; Gore had “the major inside-the Beltway role.” Then Brosnan listed some of Gore’s work in the Congress:
BROSNAN: In 1973, Kahn and Vinton Cerf, a Stanford researcher, sketched out a design for the Internet. Cerf would later design the Internet protocol TCP (Transmission Control Program).

Gore, who chaired the Senate Commerce science subcommittee, passed the legislation that created five super-computer centers in 1986. That in turn led to National Science Foundation grant money to link the centers to other universities through NSFNET.

Doug Van Howeling, who ran NSFNET and who now heads the University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development, said Gore tracked the advances.“He would invite a leading scientist and just spend a good part of the day talking to him,” said Van Howeling.

In 1990, Gore made speeches about taking the Internet beyond scientific research .

“If we had the information superhighways we need, a schoolchild could plug into the Library of Congress every afternoon and explore a universe of knowledge jumping from one subject to another, according to the curiosity of the moment," said Gore.

In 1991, Gore helped pass legislation to create a high-speed National Research and Education Network, but it took two other developments to make the Internet what it is today...

[Liberaler]

114. Funny that you picked the Internet

I've been in the computer busniess since 1983 and are still employed by one of the largest software companies. My first contact with Internet was in 1985 over a 300 baud modem from my office. Already back in those days, internet was a thriving network with hundreds of thousands of users. Originally started as ARPANET back in the 60's as a communication between universities and later government agencies, it quckly devloped in academic circles. At that time I was living in Europe and got access to the net through EUNET, part of UUNET, a group of UNIX users.
Over the next 2-3 years, an enormous amount of both schools and businesses began to get connected. Gore held his speech in 1990 about Internet. You may call him an instrument in the 90's spread of the Internet, but that is all and not particluarly significant in the history of Internet, quite the opposite in fact. In most Internet circles, his statement in 90 was taken with a head shaking and laughter.

And in the 80's there were not many independent networks as you claim. This comment is probably a result of his lack of knowledge. In the 80's you had one large additinal bulletin board in addition to a lot of dial-up BBS (Bulletin Board Systems). Those were not networks per se, but simgle, stand alone computers that accepted calls and had many functions found on the net today. But they were not connected and was never ment to be.

Good try, but if that is the best you can come up with, it further proves my point.

[AlGore-08.com]

116. Are you saying Vint Cerf doesn't know nothin' 'bout them Internets?

And how they got there?

Maybe Gore got that Lifetime Acheivement Webby last May by mistake?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7746308/

Gore to receive Internet lifetime achievement award

Vint Cerf to present ‘Webby’ for three decades of contributions

May 5, 2005

NEW YORK - Al Gore may have been lampooned for taking credit in the Internet's development, but organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements don't find it funny at all.

In part to "set the record straight," they will give Gore a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet, said Tiffany Shlain, the awards' founder and chairwoman.

"It's just one of those instances someone did amazing work for three decades as congressman, senator and vice president and it got spun around into this political mess," Shlain said.

(more... )

[drummo]

124. Re:"Funny that you picked the Internet"

And you think just because you used the Net in the 80s you are qualified to explain the Internet's history? You are a joke.

I will not take the time to refute your sloppy soundbites like "originally started as ARPANET back in the 60's" (yeah and the automobil originally started as the horsecart) instead I will quote two other "users" who know better than you. Apparently they were not members of your "Internet circles" but then again who were the members of your "Internet circles"?


"Al Gore has been one of my heroes for the last decade. I became aware of him around 1990 when he started being quoted a lot by the engineering types working on internetworking issues: He was the first legislator who actually appreciated what the Internet was all about, and he helped guide the 'net through a very tricky transition. When the 'net got started in the 1970's, every computer scientist who heard about it was jazzed, but only a very select clique could get to touch it: The hardware for the internet was these special computers called IMPs (I think that was short for Intelligent Message Processors) built by Honeywell, and outfitted with software and some minor hardware modifications by Bolt Beranek and Newman,and engineering company in Cambridge, Massachussetts. In order to get one of those, you had to be a research institution with contract funded research for the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the US Department of Defense. I think the rental for an IMP was something like $100,000 per year, which had to be paid out of the overhead on the research contracts, so small colleges need not apply!
Around 1980-82, the ARPAnet had grown to include major military posts, defense contracting companies and most universities that had any defense research contracts at all. It was now carrying several different classes of traffic:
- administrative traffic for the military
- administrative traffic between the military and its contractors
- and acting as a testbed for research experiments in protocol development.
During this period, TCP was developed, and the network switched from the original NCP protocol to TCP/IP. Shortly after that, the network had grown so large that it had run out of numbers for the IMPs (the hardware allowed 8 bits for the IMP number) and it was split into two separate networks connected by some routers called "mail bridges":
- network number 10 - ARPAnet
- network number 26 - MILnet
This split also helped calm the fears of some military people who were worried about sharing a network with potentially subversive students. This fear is why the connection between the networks was called "mail bridges" implying that only the relatively safe e-mail could get across. Despite the name, however, those were really full-fledged routers, providing a completely seamless
connection.
With IP installed, and the newly invented ethernet allowing for affordable campus networks, the major universities started attaching campus networks to the ARPAnet backbone, using VAX-11/780 mini-computers with the network-aware version of UNIX that ARPA had paid University of California at Berkeley to develop.
Many of the smaller universities wanted to participate, but did not have any military reaserch contracts to qualify them, so they banded together to build a compatible network running TCP/IP over X.25 (Telenet, Tymnet). This was known as CS-NET (for Computer Science network).
By 1989, the university-to-university traffic had dwarfed the military traffic, and the DoD wanted to divest itself of the overheads of running the network, so they asked the National Science Foundation to take over. Around this time, the NSF had started a program to build - I think it was 9 - national supercomputer centers, and needed to link them with the potential users at universities. They rented a bunch of 56 kbps lines - of the same kind that ARPAnet ran on - and installed a bunch of routers built out of inexpensive PDP-11/23 minicomputers, using a software package called FUZZBALL, developed by professor Dave Mills of University of Delaware. This created a second backbone, parallel to the DoD-sponsored ARPA backbone. Since NSFnet had no military funding, there was no longer a requirement for military contracts to be connected, but since it was paid for by tax dolllars earmarked for reasearch in the national interest, it was not available to businesses, except in support of government paid research.
It was at this point that Senator Gore stepped in, and basically brokered a deal where NSF stopped paying for the network, and instead gave the universities money to buy network services.
This made it possible to start network companies to compete with NSFnet and its regional affiliates. Several of the NSF-funded affiliates re-invented tehmselves overnight into for-profit ventures. NYSERnet became PSI, for example.
Without this visionary plan, there would not have been a commercial Internet. Because I had seen how elegantly Senator Gore pulled off this very good thing, I was happy to see him run for president,and even happier to see him join forces with Bill Clinton. I still think Al Gore is the better man."
Lars Poulsen
http://www.beagle-ears.com/lars/

And another "user" who was "laughing".

"It is the case that Al Gore was perhaps the the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country (and later the world). In 1986 I chaired the Computer science and Telecommunications Board and Gore was our dinner speaker at the National Academy of Sciences. He spoke about the importance of a National Information Infrastructure. At the time he was a senator from a fairly small Southeastern state and I was amazed at his national vision. He has continued to be a national leader in promoting the importance of the internet for commerce and education."
Joseph Traub
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~traub/

That was 1986. Not 1990. So may I laugh at you now?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

61. Many, many more...

Gore has done so many significant things that no Dem has ever done that it is impossible to list in one sitting but I will take a shot at that below. But first I would like to address your "dork" comment.

I don't know what your definition of a dork is, but when I was in school the term was applied to kids who were nerdy or didn't fit in. Maybe you mean something else, but I just don't think it applies to him. He was an athlete in school, socially successful, extremely bright and yet he also was hip in the sixties: he smoked dope, rode a motorcycle, protested the war and hung out with cool people such as Tommy Lee Jones.

But my more general response to "dork" is to ask you to admit that negative feelings about Gore in 2000 were largely due to the unprecedented War on Gore conducted by the MSM beginning in March 1999, as multitudinously documented by Somerby at dailyhowler.com and others. Surely you agree that is was vast, unprecedented and played a major role in how millions felt about Gore at the time?

Now to what Gore has done of significance, as mentioned already, there is Kyoto, the single most important thing anyone has done about global warming in history, I think it's fair to say. Then there's REGO which made government smaller than it had been in decades, yet also made it more efficient. When Bush and other idiots say that government is inefficient and incapable of addressing problems, it is easily refuted by the historical success of REGO. There was a damn good EPA (especially in view of the Gingrich revolution in Congress) under Gore's influence. Carol Browner was a Gore staffer prior to heading the EPA for eight years.

His role was key in ameliorating the genocidal activities of Milosevic and others in the Balkans. Gore is a hawk when it makes sense and a dove when it makes sense. His reputation as an internationalist is unparallelled in the Democratic Party. He agreed with the world community on Viet Nam (against), the Balkans (for), Gulf War I (for) and Gulf War II (against from the start). Right down the line he has been in the mainstream of world opinion and thus not only sheds the Viet Nam syndrome of Dems like HRC and Kerry who supported a really stupid war in order to be macho, but also by his re-election would assure the world that the USA desires to rejoin the community of nations.

He actually knows how to fight terrorism. He had a commission in the 90s which had recommendations which would have prevented 9/11 (e.g. secure doors for cockpits).

His efforts to develop the Internet, through appropriate funding and regulation of DarpaNet enabled Democratic Underground to exist. That's why he got a "Webby" earlier this year, because the tekkies know he is the central political figure in the Internet revolution. How long would it have taken for things like these websites to exist in a societally significant way without Gore? Probably impossible to say, but the case that he sped up the process significantly is strong.

He is a leader who can talk to moderates and is above reproach in his personal life. He did better with moderates than Kerry. He understands what is actually happening in the world, which I can't say for any other Democratic presidential hopeful, with the exception of Kucinich and Dean (of course, Dean is off the table for 2008). He has incredibly strong support with minorities (best % of black voters ever in 2000). He has the best resume of any Democratic candidate in probably a century.

He is a visionary who concentrates on the big issues: the environment, nuclear disarmament, etc.

When the going gets tough, he makes good decisions, not evident among the other potential candidates today.

He's undefeated. Every time his name has appeared on a ballot in a general election, he has won.

He's brilliant and has wonkish knowledge at least as good as Bill Clinton's another master.

He has more charisma than any other figure in the party right now. An overflow crowd in Portland at a recent speech literally demanded that he give the speech a second time and he acquiesed and repeated it a couple of hours later.

He's not a weather vane, like Kerry, HRC and Edwards, He came out againt the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the rich and Bush's war when it was common wisdom to vote the other way if you wanted to run in 04.

This is off the top of my head. I'm sure there's much more, but you said just to name one thing. ;)

But seriously, I am interested in your reaction to my question about the MSM above.

[drummo]

126. Re:"Personal attack?"

First you state the criteria that Gore should have done something that other Dems wouldn't have done then you say the nominee should be Obama or Hillary.
Name one significant thing that Obama and Hillary have done and that other Democrats would not have been able to do?

[Raksha]

133. No, but using "democrat" as an adjective...

...is definitely a freeper thingy. More often than not it's a dead giveaway.

Re >>If attack is a freeper thing is worshipping a democrat thingy?<<

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turn CO Blue]

48. I don't "worship" anybody.

What makes a great campaign? Money, sponsors, TV spots, imagery, the cult-of-personality? I say bullshit to all of that. That's superficial cotten candy for the sheeple.

My point is that the "best campaigner" doesn't necessarily (and probably won't) make the best public servant.

We've got to educate people to see through the marketing machine and branding of the RNC.

[Moderate Dem]

16. So post counts equal intelligence?

I don't post here that much because there's not a whole lot of actual debate here.

Calling me a "freeper" is both wildly inaccurate and funny.

I'm a centrist Virginia Democrat. Don't like it? I'll somehow find a way to carry on...

[Mabus]

31. LOL

if only that were true. We'd all be getting smarter.

I mentioned freeper because personal attacks on other leading Democratic leaders should be discouraged unless there is a legitimate reason for them. Merely repeating the stereotypes of the RW, the same ones were used on Kerry (He's boring, he doesn't inspire, etc.) are such cop-outs. If you want an actual debate then bring something substantive to the table. Otherwise you're part of the problem of stifling debate on issues that others want to discuss seriously.

I'm not sure what your state or your views have to do with repeating crap you heard elsewhere.

[TankLV]

42. "centrist Virginia Democrat". Yeah. Riiiiight. Just because YOU say so!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[drummo]

128. Re:"So post counts equal intelligence?"

You are actually less centrist than Gore.

Centrism is about making judgments based on facts not ideology, left or right. Which is true to Gore but hardly true to you since you base your opinion on MSM spins and lies about Gore.

[Liberaler]

41. Do you want me to post

several hundred meaningless posts to satisfy your post count addiction?

I can easily start to spam the forum with messages about nothing just to increase my post count, but that is way below my class.

Some of us take a long time to get a big post count. Do you know why? We have lives outside this forum and mostly read and comment on some issues that are interesting.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yellowdogintexas]

11. honey, I would work my tail off for Al

He was my senator for a while.

There is so much fire and life in this man; he needs to just get out there and keep on letting it rip.

I have thought a lot recently that it would be really cool if somehow the right candidate could get enough groundswell support for all the other wannabees to just shake hands and say " Go for it, we've got your back"...then this person shows up unopposed for the primaries and gets to sit back and watch the R's destroy themselves.


Sweet.

[sweetladybug]

22. I will also bust my butt in 2008 for Al Gore to take his proper place in

History. We need him to get this country back together after the mess that Bush and members of his crime family has got it into.
Oh by the way Freepers, don't try playing mind games with us here at the DU (IT JUST WON'T WORK!)

[Turn CO Blue]

30. Me too. I would go door to door.

[AtomicKitten]

98. YES

I have pledged here at DU before that I will work full time for Al Gore gratis if he runs. I would consider it a privilege, an honor.

[crispini]

19. He didn't come off very well in the debates, that's true.

Stiff. Wooden.

But from what I hear he's changed a LOT. And I am really impressed with this thread about the plane rescue:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4880327

I'd definitly be willing to see more of him.

[Davis_X_Machina]

25. He won all three.

By the unanimous consent of the pundits.

The walkback didn't start until three days later, when the orders came down.

Go check Bob Somersby's series.

[kentuck]

28. Yeah, Bush was definitely magnificent and clearly won the debates

NOT!

[Turn CO Blue]

29. Thanks for the chuckle. n/t

[TankLV]

47. OUCH!

[tatertop]

58. Gore spanked Bush, spanked him hard!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

63. The difference between the 00 debates and the 04 debates was

the bloggers. In 2000, the bloggers had little power. By 2004, CNN was reporting on the blogisphere on a daily segment. So Gore and Kerry both won each debate (although I agree that Gore definitely was hurt by following handler advice, as he himself has noted).

The difference is that in 00 when the GOP and MSM started attacking Gore the post-debate spin cycle, there was no media counterweight, so they were able to engage in revisionism. In 2004, when the GOP (and to some extent amplified by MSM) tried to attack Kerry, they were bitch-slapped by liberal bloggers who stubbornly cited polling data and the consistently pathetic performances of Dubya. Perception is everything in prez debates.

[Turn CO Blue]

73. You're absolutely correct about the power of the blogosphere

We put Dean in the DNC chair, just using our keyboards.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

92. Not to mention Franken, Maher, Stewart. n/t

[drummo]

129. And what's your problem with stiff and wooden people?

You are shallow. I like stiff people and don't like hot-dogs like Clinton or Bush.

[crispini]

145. yes, you know so much about me from one post

on an internet message board. :eyes:

[drummo]

152. That one post made it clear

that for some odd reason you think being stiff and wooden is a negative quality.
Now, that's shallow. And everytime someone says it, whereever it is even on the message board, this stupid notion that being loose is somehow superior than being stiff is reinforced.

[kentuck]

49. Freepers hate Al Gore also...

'Cause they know he beat Bush in 2000. There are some other folks here that don't like Gore but they have that right. I think Al Gore is the best spokesman that we have in the Party right now, along with Howard Dean.

[Turn CO Blue]

51. I'm thinking that Freepers will SwiftBoat any Dem we put up.

So let's run who we want, not who the media says we should run or whoever the Freepers hate the least.

Gore has really heated up speaking truth to power, just like Dean.

[dogman]

71. Of course.

Has everybody forgotten the term for "swiftboating" before Kerry? I remember it was called "being Gored". Let's hope he has the ability to stand up to it now.

[AtomicKitten]

100. Swiftboating the opposition is standard GOP Wrecking Machine M.O.

We have to expect it. But they really annihilated Kerry. Gore is relatively pristine, plus they've done their worst with Gore, there ain't nothing left and nothing new. Let 'em pillory him for his fiery speeches. It'll be free advertisement. Shows he's got balls.

[tatertop]

57. I could get behind Al Gore 10000%

[David Dunham]

59. Clinton's Monica Episode Really Hurt Gore in 2000

Plus no Democratic VP has won election to succeed a Democratic president since 1836 (Martin Van Buren). In short, Gore had a very hard race in 2000 and did well under the circumstances. I will support Gore in 2008.

[Turn CO Blue]

64. Absolutely it hurt him...it gave the "morality" people a toehold

The Christofascists were out in full force spinning the web of deceit that Dems are immoral and cheat on their wives, blah blah blah. Like Gore would cheat on Tipper! puhleeze.

Let's also recall how the comedians and the media went on with their "wooden" or "robot" Gore theme over and over which was not only completely misrepresentative of Gore's personality but killed a lot of the passion voters would have had. It's amazing to see video of how Gore speaks now in front of an audience.

It's also too bad that SNL got ahold of the phrase "lockbox".

[Olney Blue]

112. Ahh, but "lockbox" will now be a GOOD thing....

now that the GOP has attacked SS.....

[drummo]

130. What I never understood

is that what the fu*k problem those people had with robots?
I would vote for a robot anytime over a human if it is superior.

:headbang:

[Turn CO Blue]

164. Laughing outloud.

Definitely a robot could do a better job to the tenth power, than *. Of course, my 15-year old daughter could do a better job. I read someone write on DU that he'd vote for a blind, mangey, three-legged yellow dog over a Repuke.

[Hubert Flottz]

62. Al has my vote too.

I think he would have kicked Bush's sorry butt in 2004, had the votes been recorded and tabulated without Diebold and Blackwell's help.

[Turn CO Blue]

65. Even Diebold couldn't cover a 4-5 million vote spread...

Let's hope it's a 20 million vote spead in 2008, then we can hold public Diebold machine smashing events!

[jab105]

72. I would work my butt off for Al Gore!!

I admire so much what he has become since 2000...though it is beyond depressing seeing what we have as predident during that time...

[omega minimo]

74. "....it's fate, destiny, kizmet, karma" ---- DEJA VU?

1. No Black Box voting: paper trail, verifiable results, paper trail, paper trail, etc.

2. Get rid of handlers, consultants, handlers, "framing" and handlers-- LET THE CANDIDATE BE REAL

3. Speak clearly (see #2) to the American people, ALL of whom (except the most addicted ditto-heads) are disgusted with the doublethink and the lying and are WILL FOLLOW a REAL leader (operative word being REAL)

Really.

:bounce:

In Gore's case, we need to hear the story of why he was unable to claim his rightful Presidency when he had the opportunity during the voting in the Senate.

[AlGore-08.com]

79. Except Gore didn't have any legal opportunity during voting in the Senate

During the early days of the recount, Gore got the FBI to start investigating the vote suppression in Florida (the investigation was not finished at the time the electors were certified, there was no legal proof that anything illegal had occurred). Gore spent over a month in the courts, fighting to have all the votes counted. And he was successful in that fight until the SCOTUS ruled to install Smirk.

When Gore gave his concession speech, he stated for the record that he strongly disagreed with their ruling, but had to submit to it. He had to. Gore had no other legal options available. The only other things that might have been done were in the hands of people besides Gore.

The only folks who can legally challenge electors are Congressional Reps and Senators, and there had to be one of each in order to do so. There were 14 Representatives who wanted to challenge the electors, but no Senators who would do so. As I said earlier, they may have decided not to challenge them because challenging them would not change the fact that Smirk was going to be serving in office that term.

But still, it was the personal decision of the folks serving in the Senate at that time not to join the challenge. Gore had no Constitutional authority to do anything except enforce the rules that the challenge was not legal. And as I said before, he had already gone on the record complaining that all this was wrong. What good would it have done Gore to repeat it that day? None. What good would it have done the country? None.

Gore has never, ever said that he lost the 2000 election or that he lost Florida. He has said a number of times, on the record, that he thinks he won Florida.

If you want to blame somebody for not challenging the Florida electors, blame each and every person serving at that time in the Senate and everybody serving in the House except the Florida Fourteen. It was their job to challenge the Florida electors and they did not.

[omega minimo]

106. If I suggest that story needs to be told to Americans

please don't lump me with the "blamers"

"If you want to blame somebody for not challenging the Florida electors, blame each and every person serving at that time in the Senate"

I'm frankly sick of the acrimony on DU this weekend (This Weekend!).

If Al Gore is serious about running for President, that question will come up. Some education about the process and what happened in 2000 will be needed to address the (mis?)perception that Gore COULD HAVE BEEN THAT SENATOR, speaking on his own behalf. The reasons he did not are beyond pride or embarrassment.

Suggesting that the story will come up and be on American's minds is good strategery, not "blame."

B-)

[Adelante]

113. Agree 100%

I want that explanation, too.

[omega minimo]

115. Indubitably

and unavoidably

:hi:

[AlGore-08.com]

118. I'm sorry, I don't understand what the confusion is

It is the the responsibility of the members of Congress to accept or challenge Presidential electors.

The Vice President is a member of the Executive Branch, not the Congress. The VP does not have the power to vote in Congress, except if there's a tie vote in the Senate. In order for the VP to even have the opportunity to vote on Presidential electors, the electors have to be successfully challenged by other people first. This did not happen in 2000.

Challenges to Presidential electors follow this procedure:

1.) Challenges must be made by at least one Congressional Representative and one Senator. The Vice President is neither a Representative nor a Senator. Therefore, the Vice President cannot challenge electors.

2.) If the electors are challenged, it does not mean they are rejected. Each House then separately votes on whether to accept or reject the electors.

2a.) If both houses of Congress vote to accept the electors, the challenge fails and the electoral votes count. (The Vice President might get to vote here, but ONLY if the Senate vote is tied.)

2b.) If one House votes to accept the electors and the other House votes to reject the electors, the challenge fails and the electoral votes count. (The Vice President might get to vote here, but ONLY if the Senate vote is tied.)

2c.) Only if both houses to reject the electors are the electoral votes rejected. (The Vice President might get to vote here, but ONLY if the Senate vote is tied.)

[rfkrfk]

135. has Gore ever discussed, what he thought what was wrong ,,,

with the USSC {second} ruling?

I'd really like to here his side of it.
Everyone seems to talk about the effect of the ruling...
preventing the third or fourth count {depends on which county}
from occuring,
rather than the ruling itself.

[drummo]

136. Calling them third or fourth count is misleading

The fact is that all votes in Florida were NEVER counted. Never. Not once. And only that matters -- at least in real democracies like Canada, for example.

The reason why you saw it as third or four counts was because
idiotic election officals -- sometimes pressured by Rep operatives from K. Harris office -- could not figure out what to count and how to count. So they counted 1% then 10% then they counted the "uncounted" then all ballots. Or they started the count then they stopped it then it was restarted by the FSC but they didn't start it all over again -- meaning a third count -- but continued from the point they stopped.

The impression from all these was that the same ballots were recounted three or fourth times. In reality it didn't happen.

[rfkrfk]

140. there were two machine tallies, plus,

in four counties, some/all of the ballots
... that the machine's indication was -->
no clear voter preference for 'president',
were looked at by hand.

Some of the things you attribute to Harris,
should really be blamed on individual-county
election commisions.

with that said,
I know everyone thinks the effect was unfair,
but Gore-etc never {to my knowledge} has told
the public what they thought was wrong with the USSC ruling.

[Senator]

160. No, there were not

The alleged mandatory machine recount simply did not occur. Nearly one third of ballots were never re-run through the machines. Those counties simply resubmitted their original numbers.

[rfkrfk]

166. do you have a link for that?

this is from Wikipedia

>The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of victory for Bush—on November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.<2><

bottom of the first paragraph under 'background'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

[Senator]

168. Here's one mention

From David Corn in The Nation

And during the initial mandatory recount, many counties did not run the ballots through the machines. Instead, they merely checked the arithmetic of their original count.

Democrats.com says 20 counties failed to do what the law required.

But the bottom line is that the Miami Herald extrapolated the "uncounted" ballots, by precinct, shortly after the election and demonstrated beyond (non-self-delusional) doubt that the people of Florida (and thus the nation) chose Gore by tens of thousands.

But instead of reporting and acting on that simple reality, the bush regime and their Euphemedia lapdogs imposed Stalinist dogma on this once-great nation.

Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. -- Josef Stalin

--

[Pepperbelly]

76. it would've been an almost perfect historical metaphor had ...

he come back in 04 to re-defeat Bush as Andrew Jackson, also from Tennessee did to John Q. Adams after winning the election but losing in the elctoral college.

[Clarkie1]

78. That is the most undemocratic/stupid idea I have ever seen posted on DU.

"As far as I'm concerned the other Dems (wonderful as they may be) should just have a gentleman's/gentlewoman's agreement with Al Gore to not run -- so that we can skip the whole horribly UGLY tearing-each-other-to-pieces Democratic primary process -- and go straight to bolstering Al's run."

Well, I agree we should defend other Democrats, but that doesn't mean we can't have civilized discussion and debate within our party without "tearing each other to pieces."

I supported Al Gore when he ran in his first Democratic Primary but did not receive the nominnation, and attended my first rally for a primary candiate. He inspired me, and I even bought his excellent book.

However, I am certain he will not receive my vote in the Democratic Primary. There are several other choices (besides Clark) that would bring a new face that the Democratic Party needs to win the general election in 08' DECISIVELY and end the bitterness of the past 2 election cycles.

America needs healing and movement to the future, not a retro-candidate to open up old wounds.

There are better choices than Gore (if nothing else from a stategic/political perspective), and not just Clark.

That said, I want to see Gore and ALL Democrats continue to speak out with passion on the issues that matter to us. Regarding global warming, Clark just put out a statement linking it to national security, and that is just the kind of reframing and linkage we need to move the other side over to embracing our ideas for change.

Reframing, however, involves more than words and policy, however important. It also means a new face in the frame.

Gore is far from our best choice for 08', however much righteous anger many understandably feel. We need to look forward, not back.

[clarknyc]

80. As far as I'm concerned

Gore IS looking forward.

[Clarkie1]

104. Definitely, Gore is looking forward.

But nominating him would make the Democratic Party appear to be looking back, opening up old wounds...stuck with no new ideas or candidate.

That's the political reality as I see it.

It's nothing personal against Gore, I think he's great.

[Turn CO Blue]

162. I think I was misunderstood

edit follows: I don't want to start any flamewar at all, I think we are progressive, passionate people, and sometime writing can be misunderstood.)

I had previously written this as my response:
I think that writing an absolutist statement that my post is the most stupid post you've ever seen on DU is unwarranted and is really crossing the line. I feel that you owe me an apology.

(edit: I don't feel that strongly about the apology... either way. I do want to state that I definitely am a fair-minded person, in fact, I am known at work for being extremely fair-minded and democratic in my mgt style, which is likely why I took exception to your post. So far as the thread, I was just "writing outloud", and how this silly post made the greatest, who knows? Must be a lot of support for Gore out there.)

I am not saying we should skip an undemocratic process -- but my suggestion (such a netroots groundswell of support for a candidate, that would behoove the others to drop the idea of spending a gazillion dollars) would certainly be as democratic if not more so than the current caucus process. There are people who've put their hat in who likely don't have a chance (Biden for one). It's certainly his right to run, however.

What I AM saying that I WISH we could WORK TOGETHER and save all that MONEY so that we could spend it properly fighting the GOP marketing and smear machine -- there were plenty of states where we ran no ads, and did little campaigning. If the millions of bucks from initial runs were all combined against the RNC instead of being split out for 400 different Dem Presidential bids, then we would be a more powerful force for change, indeed. I am saying that the Party (big P) should work as a team, instead of a bunch of individual competitors.

OTOH -- as someone in a late-caucus state, there is nothing that seems very democratic (small d) to me about letting the NH and Iowa caucuses (and therefore only the voters in those states) get to determine who our candidate will be. By late in the day, none of the other states even matter, so none of the rest of us really get a shot at voicing our choice.

I'm at work and out of time to address the rest.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

81. karma indeed

It would be like a romantic midevil legend. The true prince is bested initally by the evil imposter supported by the machinations of the wizard Diebold. The evil imposter's clothes are blown away in the whirlwind called Katrina and the true prince returns to claim his rightful throne, a better and wiser ruler than he would have been initially. The evil imposter and his minion dwarfs and trolls are exiled into a barren wilderness where they are forced to construct windmills to provide energy for the newly fertile green fields they had previously scorched and burned.

[Usrename]

110. Bookmarked your post.

Love it!!! ;-)

[kid a]

82. Gladly give this the "fifth" push to greatest! GO GORE!

[Rosco T.]

83. Gore's campaign should be "Four MORE Years, Four REAL Years"

[tinrobot]

85. Agree 100%

If he does run, he will be the best president we've had since FDR, maybe even better.

[sellitman]

87. I want a fair election

Without it you can vote for whoever you want and he/she will lose again. No one who posts these candidate questions seems to get it?






*spelling

[gulfcoastliberal]

88. Agree 100%

Put the real president back in the white house. The only one possibly capable of cleaning up the mess the GOP created.

Al Gore in '08!

[DemExpat]

89. It would be like waking from a long, horrible 8 year nightmare......

Fair election process is the big key IMO.


DemEx

[Joe Chi Minh]

90. What is it you people have got against a New Deal?

Or will you be content, just so long as the middle classes are cared for?

Kerry is the only one who promises that - none of the others; and has told us (since it will have positive repercussions on the UK, too) how he would set about it.

He was also far-sighted enough to pledge that he would begin investigations into alternative energy sources to oil. A "New Deal" is a big deal, but many of you seem to think it's of trifling significance.

[Guava Jelly]

91. I cried when al gore conceded

and i think he won..
but
he had his chance and so did Kerry.
thats all you get in presidential politics.
people will vote against kerry or gore just because they did last time...

Sorry but i dont want to go through another lame campaign.
flame away

[drummo]

131. It's not the campaign. It's the presidency.

After 5 years of nightmare you still don't get it?
Bush was all about campaigning but nothing about the job he was running for.
Gore is completely the opposite.

The prez campaigns are not for your entertainment.

And you are wrong. Presidential history involves people who ran more races before they ended up in the white house.

[Guava Jelly]

138. i would agree if it wasnt for the news whores and our stupid

american society.
if you want 4 more republican years put up another lightwieght.
these guys were well almost defeated by dubya....
just think if the repukes ran someone smart

[drummo]

151. Reps will never run someone smart

Anti-intellectualism is one of their weapons against Democrats.
And Americans do not like smart guys as president.

No, Clinton was no elected because of his IQ. Most voters didn't even understand his economic agenda as they proved that when they quickly turned away from him in 1993 and 1994 once he started to implement his proposals. His approval rating went below 50% pretty quickly which paved the way for the Rep revolution in the Congress.

They didn't get it because they were stupid and they are stupid today
who like stupid people running for president.

Moreover, how many times did you hear the Reps and the media say Al Gore is an attack dog? He was everything but a lightweight. He was attacked whenever he attacked Bush because Bush the little cute cowboy
was so damn innocent that bulldoozer Al Gore should not hurt him, ya know?

In fact if Al runs again be prepared for the right-wing propaganda
repeating every bad things Gore said about Bush. They like to portray him as an attack dog.

[BrklynLiberal]

94. Re-elect President Gore in '08!!!!

Gore/Clark can't lose!!

[Gregorian]

97. Gore/Clark would be a dream. Gore must play hardball, though.

I feel like saying that Gore would have to have learned how to play hardball. That is, in my opinion, what kept him from "destroying" the 2000 election. I was always squirming in my seat, watching him be the gentleman.

[drummo]

132. Yeah he was the gentleman

and still, the Reps and the media called him an attack dog.

Now which one was true?

[KnowerOfLogic]

95. Just wait until the 'sensible' democrats start throwing their money around

The nominee will be somebody like Hillary or Biden or some other DLC type. We all know it. And they would lose for sure if it wasn't for the absolute, unmitigated disaster that bush has wreaked on this country; even with that, they still stand a good chance of losing.

[SeaNap05]

99. He may want payback

Gore has the feeling of being cheated and if it doesn't look like their are better candidates he will and should run.

[ourbluenation]

101. Hell yes - Gore/Clark ticket!!!!!!

are the powers that be listening????

[ourbluenation]

103. changed avatar to reflect where I'm at w this..come on Al - RUN!

time for your re-election.

Al-gore08...how can I help you with this?

[AlGore-08.com]

119. Sign up to volunteer with us... we're going to be moving and shaking

Big time after November...

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_facileforms&Itemid=159

[NMDemDist2]

105. if Nixon could do it, so can Gore. I'd support him wholeheartedly n/t

[Guaranteed]

111. You've always had outstanding political instinct.

You've stood out.

You're right, here- my opinion, of course. :)

[ladylibertee]

125. As much as I would like to see Gore avenged of the injustice that

befell him,I still want to see an EDWARDS/CLINTON or CLINTON/EDWARDS

[wakemewhenitsover]

127. RE-ELECT PRESIDENT GORE!!

[Dover]

134. In light of this buzz, and the story about Gore's efforts during Katrina,

I thought this was insightful. If you are not 'into' astrology, please just skip this post and spare us your sniping.

This is an analysis of Gore's career potentials based on his birth chart, done by one of the most highly regarded astrologers working today, Liz Greene:

http://www.astro.com/samples/sp_gore_e.htm

I like a Gore/Boxer ticket or Gore/Conyers.

[drummo]

137. I'm not 'into' astrology but...

I think it is indeed insightful. The question is, did this woman
form her opinion by learning about Gore in the "traditional way" or is it indeed the result of some tricky astrology?

[Dover]

139. As I said.....

I don't want to start a discussion about astrology or its merits here. This is just a little more info from a different source...take it or leave it.
But just to clarify this source;

Anyone familiar with Liz Greene knows the answer to your question. And this 'career report' is generated by a remarkably intuitive software program created by Liz Greene and a brilliant programmer named Alois Treindl (who has extensive experience in artificial intelligence).

So, if YOU just happened to have the same birth date/time and place as Al Gore, then you would have gotten this same report. There is no need to know the person whose chart is done.

These 'reports' are done of familiar/famous people and made available simply to provide examples of their software generated astro-reports.

http://www.astro.com/prod/pr_reports_e.htm

[Q]

141. Those who think Gore ran a poor campaign...

...need to be reminded that he was never comfortable with the DLC advisors and 'campaign strategists' that Clinton and other party bigwigs shoved on him.

It wasn't until the last half of the campaign that he told them to go to hell and ran it his own way. His poll numbers began to improve dramatically when he threw off their advice to run as a 'new democrat' and ran as a populist touting corporate responsibility and environmental reforms.

And we should never forget that...despite the media's and the Bush smear campaign...he was still able to pull off a win of both the popular vote and the election itself.

Gore is exactly what this country needs right now.

[Turn CO Blue]

142. Jeepers! I login in this morning and I'm on the Greatest!

Thanks to all, but my heart was full, and I was just thinking "outloud" (so to speak).

[realFedUp]

144. It would be the start of justice....

Putting him in the place he actually won.
Maybe if he ran as a third party candidate too...hmmmm.

[zann725]

146. Why wait 'til '08? Carter admitted at American U last week that Gore won

in 2000. THERE! Someone credible, high-up confirmed the "F" word about the Shrub election(s). And I believe Jimmy's final words were: "...NO doubt about it."

Gore's certainly ready, and qualified. Time for a recall, I'd say.

[kma3346]

147. If only this could be done!

Hey, they did it in California (note that I said "they" not "we"!) Why can't we do it on a national scale? Or should we just wait until the impeachment?

[kma3346]

148. And nominated!

Great post!

:bounce:

[Kazak]

149. NBG!!!

:thumbsup:

[Uncle Joe]

155. Al Gore in 08!

If you are serious about putting the best President in the oval office, Al Gore is the one.

[ronnykmarshall]

161. Wouldn't that be ironic?

That on the day he should have been ending his second term as President, he would be taking the oath of office for the first time?

[LittleClarkie]

163. U- rah -rah

Bleck.

Too early for the cheering section. Way too early.

[drummo]

169. Right. Gore may be dead by 2008.