Want Al Gore as President? Become an UNCOMMITED DELEGATE!

[helderheid]

Why Are Uncommitted Delegates Important?

Without Al Gore as a Presidential candidate, we believe that the dynamic amongst the current field of Democratic Presidential candidates has created the possibility that no single candidate will arrive at the Democratic National Convention with enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. If that were to happen, a brokered convention would ensue with delegates freed from their original commitments and able to vote for any candidate who presents herself/himself and candidates and their surrogates working the convention floor to win the vote on subsequent ballots.

We believe that if the Draft Gore movement is able to elect a small number (50-100 out of over 4,000 - 1-2 delegates per state) of uncommitted delegates, who are committed to voting for Al Gore at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and the first ballot fails to produce a nominee, the Draft Gore delegation will be substantial enough to lead a Draft Gore effort from the floor of the convention and convert enough of the rest of the delegates to join us that Al Gore will emerge from this process as a consensus candidate.

We also believe that if the Draft Gore movement is able to elect a small number (50-100 out of over 4,000 - 1-2 delegates per state) of uncommitted delegates, who are committed to voting for Al Gore at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and the Draft Gore delegation is substantial enough to give one candidate enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, the Draft Gore delegation would put Al Gore in a position to negotiate the terms by which it would help that candidate win the nomination.

For more information, here's a http://www.draftgorenj.com/file_download/1/2008DSP.pdf">PDF detailing the delegate selection plan: 2008 New Jersey Delegate Selection Plan

From:
http://www.draftgorenj.com/

[helderheid]

1. Looks like many are thinking this way

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=draft+gore+brokered++convention&btnG=Search

[Bobbieo]

2. And why would Al Gore want to be president??? He has it made

right now. Happy as a clam doing just what he wants to do- basking in fame and fortune.He certainly has earned the right!!!

How long would it be before Democrats would turn on him just like they are doing, now, to the Democratic Congress and all of our candidates.

[helderheid]

3. I'm not contemplating whether he wants it or not.

;)

[RestoreGore]

7. yes, "contemplation" doesn't seem to be a strong suit of yours

And same shit different year. The same people brought out the same BS in 2004 and nothing. As Al Gore stated himself on Larry King because he lives in reality and has been there, drafts do not happen anymore. The military industrial complex makes sure of that, but then you probably can't contemplate that reality either. And whether he wants it or not is certainly something to be contemplated if you really support him more than you hate the other candidates.

[ourbluenation]

15. WTF is your glitch?

jeesus h christ on a cracker, could you be anymore predictable?

[RestoreGore]

44. Could you?

With your stupid "Jesus H Christ on a cracker" remarks? Al Gore stated drafts no longer happen. Do you agree with him or not? If you can't respond to the context of the post that isn't my problem. And this "brokered convention" rhetoric WAS spouted as well in 2004. It doesn't happen.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[RestoreGore]

64. Al Gore stated drafts no longer happen. Do you agree with him or not? If you can't respond to that..

like an adult then leave me alone already. Your predictable response only signifies you as part of that group that ALWAYS "pisses" on me in these threads rather than address the comments because you don't give a damn about Mr. Gore or what he is doing or wants. You don't like that I post his words and you can't respond to them? Too bad.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uncle Joe]

12. According to this thread, he's not happy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1905116&mesg_id=1905116

While he may be satisfied with the way his personal life is proceeding, and I agree, he has earned it. There is no way in hell, he can be happy with the state of the nation or the planet.

No doubt, some Democrats will turn on him, when he can't please everybody and the corporate media will give him a hard time because he did in fact empower us when he championed the Internet and this is the source of their disdain for him.

Having said that, if he doesn't run, we should draft him anyway, not to make Al Gore happy, but for our own self preservation.

[Kurovski]

17. He speaks of being outraged beyond an ability to contain it.

That's pretty strong.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Yes

and I can only think of one cure for that outrage, an Oval Office.

[SlowDownFast]

63. You said it. n/t

[Samantha]

62. You know, Uncle Joe, several years ago

when Barbara Walters was interviewing Al Gore and Tipper, during a break when he thought the mike was off he made a remark I will never forget. "I would do ANYTHING to get rid of this cabal." At that time, I was thinking "cabal" but had never heard anyone else say it until Al did. I was shocked but relieved to know he had the same opinion about the Bush* regime as did I. That remark was never reported by the MSM, but I have never forgotten it. When I read at this site people speculating what Al Gore will do, and what Al Gore will never do, I always think of that remark.

I just wanted to share this with you in case you missed it. Those words carry me though the tough times. I really think he meant that ....

[Uncle Joe]

70. Thank you for that tidbit, Samantha,

I wasn't aware of that remark.

[Kurovski]

4. K&R. (nt)

[helderheid]

5. why thank you. :)

[Kurovski]

40. I've forgotten my manners...

you're most welcome!

[helderheid]

6. How to become a delegate:

http://www.demconvention.com/a/2007/03/how_to_become_a.html

How do you become a delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention? Well, the answer depends upon where you live. Each state determines the process by which its delegates are selected. That process is described in the state party’s delegate selection plan. These plans must comply with national Democratic Party rules that provide guidelines to ensure a fair, open and inclusive process. In the summer of 2007, each state party will publish its delegate selection rules and clearly explain how to participate in the process.

If you want to be a delegate, your first step should be to call or write to your state party. The state party will provide you with the information and materials you’ll need to begin the process of running for a delegate position. These will include a copy of the state party’s delegate selection plan (or summary) and delegate candidate filing forms. All states require delegate candidates to file a “declaration of candidacy" in order to run. The deadline for this declaration varies from state to state but is specified in each state's plan. In some cases, the declaration must be accompanied by signatures of registered Democratic voters from that area. All filing requirements must be precisely followed.

Finally, whether or not you are successful in becoming a delegate to the 2008 National Convention -- stay informed and involved. Be sure to: (1) stay informed about the presidential campaign; (2) follow the 2008 Convention; (3) support the Party's presidential and vice presidential nominees; and (4) most importantly, Vote on Election Day!

For more detailed information

* Delegate Selection Rules
* Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
* Regulations Of The Rules And Bylaws Committee

Also, for information on how delegates translate into votes for presidential candidates, CNN has an article on the 2004 presidential primary process.
Basic Delegate FAQ

Who can be a delegate?

It is open to all voters who wish to participate as Democrats, including new voters and non-affiliated voters who wish to register or enroll. The times, dates, places and rules for the conduct of delegate selection meetings will be publicized, bilingually where necessary.

How much does it cost?

There is no mandatory cost or fee required to become a delegate.

What are the types of delegates? How are they selected?

Pledged delegates differ from unpledged delegates in that they must openly commit to a candidate before the vote and are subject to review by that candidate. Unpledged delegates are sometimes referred to as "superdelegates."

District-level delegates - These make up roughly half of delegates, and must file a statement of candidacy designating the presidential or uncommitted preference and a signed pledge of support for the presidential candidate the person favors, if any, with the state party by a date the state party specifies. They must run for election in the district they are registered to vote, and are subject to review by the candidate they support.

At-large delegates - Must also file a statement of candidacy designating the presidential or uncommitted preference and a signed pledge of support for the presidential candidate the person favors, if any, with the state party by a date the state party specifies. The state party determines how these delegates are selected, but they are often selected by the district-level delegates.

Party Leaders and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates - DNC Members, Democratic House and Senate members, Democratic governors, and former Democratic Party leaders are automatically confirmed to the state parties. In addition, these positions are considered according to the following priority: big city mayors and state-wide elected officials, state legislative leaders, state legislators, and other state, county and local elected officials and party leaders. These delegates can be chosen by a state convention, the State Party Committee, or by a committee consisting of a quorum of district-level delegates. There are both pledged and unpledged PLEO delegates.

Add-on delegates - May be selected by either the same selecting body that selects the state's PLEO delegates or by the same selecting body which will select the state's "at-large" delegates. They can be selected whether or not they previously filed a statement of candidacy for a delegate position or submitted a pledge of support for a presidential candidate. There are both pledged and unpledged add-on delegates.

What about alternate delegates?

Alternate delegates are selected by primary, convention, or committee processes. State parties provide for the conditions under which alternates may "replace" a delegate.

How many delegates does my state get?

The number of delegates varies by state, and the divison by types changes reguarly as the strucutre of the Democratic Party in your state changes (people move, retire, leave jobs, become elected, etc.). Below is an intereactive map that has an updated count of delegates for each state, broken down by type.

[KoKo]

10. As of now the "Interactive Map" for States showing how many delegates your state has is Down...

Wonder if it got so many hits or that it's "under desconstruction." Whatever....I'm sure each state Party Website has more info on how many Delegates are alloted and how to go about it.

[Kurovski]

9. Kick.

:kick:

[ChenZhen]

11. Well, He was right on NAFTA....

:puke:


There has got to be someone else out there we can fawn over and rally behind, who hasn't been Wellstoned. Right?

[Uncle Joe]

14. He was right on NAFTA

as a concept and Perot was never the same after the mauling Al Gore gave him on Larry King. Perot had his own private NAFTA monopoly and thought it was good enough for him, just not the rest of the nation. One should also keep in mind, that Al Gore didn't come to power in 2000 to modify or address any NAFTA shortcomings.

Also, who else can we fawn over that empowered you to share your wisdom with the rest of us by championing the Internet, only to be trashed and slandered by the corporate media for the better part of two years prior to the selection of 2000 for giving you and the rest of us this gift?

[ChenZhen]

16. He gave us what gift?

[Uncle Joe]

21. I believe empowering the American People

to voice their opinions and seek their information over the heads of the corporate media to be a historical gift, of sorts anyway. He could just as easily, never have taken up that cause, and the only people with access to the Internet, (if you want to call it that) and virtually unlimited information would be some people at the Defense Dept. and some universities.

I'm not trying to imply we don't have an unalienable right to free speech but of what practical use is that if no one hears you? Or put another way, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

The corporate media heads grew to hate him as the Internet grew in power and influence thus threatening their monopoly on information, information = power, money and influence. One major reason as to why it's so expensive to run for President, are television ads. I believe this largely motivated the corporate media to give him the Prometheus treatment only instead of eating his liver, they took bites from his integrity and credibility by slandering and trashing him for the better part of two years prior to the selection of 2000.

If you think I'm making up the corporate media's astonishing one sided treatment of him while they enabled Bush to power, check out this excellent piece in Vanity Fair. I have yet to hear any major corporate news media reply to this column.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710

Going After Gore

Al Gore couldn't believe his eyes: as the 2000 election heated up, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other top news outlets kept going after him, with misquotes ("I invented the Internet"), distortions (that he lied about being the inspiration for Love Story), and strangely off-the-mark needling, while pundits such as Maureen Dowd appeared to be charmed by his rival, George W. Bush. For the first time, Gore and his family talk about the effect of the press attacks on his campaign—and about his future plans—to the author, who finds that many in the media are re-assessing their 2000 coverage.

by Evgenia Peretz October 2007

[ChenZhen]

22. I was not aware he gave us this historic gift

There are probably a lot more substantial and positive things Gore is responsible for than this "empowerment" you speak fondly of. Focus on those...

With or without Gore, the internet and our interaction with such would probably not be too much different today.

[Kurovski]

24. Where's that...where's that...um, oh here it is...

:puke: Hey, that IS fun!

[ChenZhen]

25. Believe what you want...

The groundwork was laid for the web, as we know it today, long before Gore's support. Any government granted development he was behind would have been replaced in no time by others, working via university grant or for free (open source). The zeal and drive of computer scientists, programmers and developers would have determined that the individuals of the time would have continued developing the web, with or without intervention and support.

Before pretty graphics, browsers, and a multitude of access points, I remember interacting with networks via ASCII terminals, with horrible blocky graphics, menus, and colors. There was clear direction and development towards a common goal pre-90's. The existance of public grants, although helpful, didn't exactly determine this end product we are in, and Gore alone wasn't the sole, and only, possible determinant of using the web today.

This historical gift is quite wonderful, no?

[Kurovski]

26. It was your command to focus on something else that inspired me.

Go Gore! :D

[Uncle Joe]

28. If he hadn't empowered the people by championing the Internet,

while he was in Congress. I would never have the opportunity to know you and that's an immeasurable treasure in it self.

Re: "There are probably a lot more substantial and positive things Gore is responsible for than this "empowerment" you speak fondly of. Focus on those..."

While it's true Al Gore has made many positive and substantial contributions other than the Internet, toward such issues as global warming, the clean up of toxic waste dumps and his legislation regarding organ donor networks to name just a few, the Internet is the multiplier and should humanity avoid or at the very least diminish the effects from the looming catastrophe of global warming climate change, I believe the Internet will be a large part of the solution. Actually it already is as more people can work from their homes and not drive, but furthermore I believe it creates synergy from this vast combination of minds and solutions are likely to come from that.

Re: "With or without Gore, the internet and our interaction with such would probably not be too much different today."

I view this in the same context as to what happened to the mythical town of Bedford Falls with out George Bailey in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life".

Simply put, with out Al Gore's determination, vision and persistence, It's possible we might not have an Internet today, at least not for the people. I also believe this is why, in large part he was denied his rightful place as President.

[ChenZhen]

29. Seriously..."championing the internet".

Without "googling", can you name 5 or more computer scientists and/or intellectuals who were instrumental in the construction of the internet, spanning over the last 50 years?

If not, are you therefore qualified to know Al Gore's importance and role in the developement of the internet?



I only ask because it is like trusting an opinion of someone who is talking about FDRs importance in ending World War II, who may not know anything about the fundementals of WWII. Sometimes its nice to know how we got from point A to point B to point C, before we can say what brought us from point Y to point Z (and how important and critical each step was).

[Uncle Joe]

30. Why are you comparing apples to oranges?

Whoever said Al Gore was a computer scientist, I'm talking about Congress. They didn't give Al Gore a Webbie because he was a duck.

Actually I do have a quote from at least one computer scientist, I was on another site and was about to P.S. it on my last post, so here it is.

<snip>

Why did Gore’s comment provoke no reaction? Perhaps because Blitzer and others knew that Gore had taken the leadership, within the Congress, in developing what we now call the Internet. Gore was explicitly discussing his achievements in Congress, and if “I took the initiative” meant “I took the leadership,” his statement was perfectly accurate. (Extemporaneous speech doesn’t always parse perfectly. Everyone in Washington knows this.) Indeed, as Gore’s remark began attracting wide scrutiny, some journalists reviewed his congressional record—and a wide array of Internet pioneers described his key role, within the Congress, in creating what we now call the Net. In the March 21 Washington Post, for example, Jason Schwartz quoted several Internet pioneers, including Vinton Cerf, the man often called “the father of the Internet.” Cerf praised Gore’s role in the Net’s development. “I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president,” he said. Meanwhile, Katie Hafner, author of a book on the Internet’s origins, penned a short piece in the New York Times, quoting experts who said that Gore “helped lift the Internet from relative obscurity and turn it into a widely accessible, commercial network.”

On March 18, Gore tried to clarify his remark in an interview with USA Today. “I did take the lead in the Congress,” he told Chuck Raasch; he described his Internet work in detail. Raasch quoted Gore’s explanation—but it was mentioned in no other paper.

<snip>

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml

[ChenZhen]

32. Vinton Cerf deserves far more recognition that Gore for actually developing the protocol

As well as Tim Berners-Lee, who developed browsers before the grants which aided the Mosaic developer.

BTW, do you know when Cerf said that? Something that may of seemed true in the mid-90s when the web was finally emerging, may seem drastically different today, as we develop technology as such an exponential rate, piling layers of new development upon the foundations laid before. We are so much further from that point than even Cerf probably imagined we would of been, that in retrospect, such initervention may now seem so mind boggling inconsequential.

Cerf laid the groundwork 20 years before the web came to life, and probably 15 or so before Gore turned his attention remotely to the idea of this type of information system. There were masses of great minds involved in this who were moving forward (some with government support, some with private support, some on their own accord) on this, and who would not be deterred regardless.

Look, I can give you a list of people you should be giving credit to for this empowerment. Gore has done other things, such as his work for the environment. Give credit where credit is due.

[Uncle Joe]

35. Again, your comparing apples to oranges,

this being a political site, I'm talking about political contributions toward the creation of the Internet, not technical ones such as the many contributions from Vincent Cerf, Tim Berners Lee and I'm sure others as well, of course the computer scientists deserve credit. Having said that praising Al Gore's leadership on the subject doesn't take anything away from them, you can champion an issue or technology while in Congress and not be the actual inventor or scientist.

Under your logic, Al Gore shouldn't be given credit for the environment either, after all he's not a climate scientist and it was his professor at Harvard, who was the first person to measure CO2 in the atmosphere.

If you go back to my post 34 and actually read the Vanity Fair column, you will see that while Cerf may have made his remarks regarding Al Gore's contributions to the Internet in the nineties, Al Gore championed this legislation in the 80s. Here is a little snippet for your convenience.

<snip>

"It was true. In the 1970s, the Internet was a limited tool used by the Pentagon and universities for research. As a senator in the 80s, Gore sponsored two bills that turned this government program into an "information superhighway," a term Gore popularized, and made it accessible to all. Vinton Cerf, often called the father of the Internet, has claimed that the Internet would not be where it was without Gore's leadership on the issue. Even former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich has said that "Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."

<snip>

[ChenZhen]

38. Look, Im well aware of the history and his contribution...

But when you say words like "championing" and "giving us the gift" you are overstating his political role and vastly understating the far more important contributions of the people who did the thinking, development and work for decades before any such bills, and those who continued to work without any intervention sponsored by Gore. The NSF had allready been working on supercomputer research projects and interlinking all the universities well before Gore's first act, and his second was entirely superceeded by action in the private sector, the educational sector and the open source sector (in otherwords, aside from the grant money, his proposals were tackled via means that were not dependent upon his intervention).

To say Gore gave us this wonderful gift and empowered our country is realy erroneous.

[Uncle Joe]

41. In the world of politics he was in fact the primary champion

of what we know today as the Internet, this can't be denied. No other political leader that I'm aware of has been awarded a Webbie, Al Gore was the first one and I can't imagine they gave it to him for kicks.

My definition of the word championing or champion used in a political context only means that as an elected official, he or she was the primary driving force or advocate on behalf of a given issue or technology. It has no bearing on the actual inventors of said technology or private advocates of a given policy.

My definition of the Internet is an information web available to all the people, not just the Defense Dept. or a few universities. I suppose one could even argue that with out Alexander Graham Bell or Thomas Edison, or people like them, we wouldn't have an Internet. We all stand on the shoulders of our predecessors, just as Charles Lindberg couldn't have done a solo flight across the Atlantic with out the contributions from previous pioneers of aviation such as the Wright Brothers. I imagine the Internet will continue to evolve as well, but this doesn't change Al Gore's political contributions or his vision to this ongoing endeavor.

Your approach reminds me of the Republican inspired talking points the corporate media used after the Blitzer interview, of course as most Junior High students would know, Al was speaking of his political accomplishments, this was after all a job interview for the Presidency. I was astounded at how many supposedly well educated journalists couldn't tell the difference between political actions and technological ones.

That was a case of systemic slander by our fourth estate guardian watch dogs for democracy against Al Gore and by extension against the American People, and the only motivation I can think of for such an act of national betrayal, was in fact their growing fear of the Internet and the loss of power, money and influence to their own personal fortunes. After decades of reading news papers, listening to radio or watching television as the sole sources of information all of which are controlled by a just a few people, with minimal feedback or input from the American People as a whole, I view the Internet as a true gift. I also believe we've only scratched the surface of the Internet's capabilities and contributions.

[TheDoorbellRang]

43. Maybe these folks' opinion on Al Gore's contribution may convince you

The Webby Lifetime Achievement Award: Former Vice President Al Gore

Setting the record straight on one of recent history's most persistent political myths, The Webby Awards will present Former Vice President Al Gore with The Webby Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of the pivotal role he has played in the development of the internet over the past three decades. Vint Cerf, widely credited as one of the "fathers of the internet," will present Vice President Gore with the award.

http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/specialwin.php

[ChenZhen]

19. BTW, as a concept NAFTA was still a bad idea (as is CAFTA)

And its worse in practice. Who couldn't see the disaster a mile away? Under no circumstances would the devestation to the Mexican and US economy have been drastically minimized under NAFTA.

[KharmaTrain]

13. First Ballot Failure?

I've followed primaries for nearly 40 years and I have yet to see a deadlocked convention...especially now in the electronic age where millions are involved in the process. Gone are the days of the smoked-filled room where party power brokers decided who would run.

You also forget the hundreds of appointed delegates...elected representatives and party "regulars" who also will be voting during the convention. By next August almost all will either have endorsed a candidate or be working for one. These people are techically "uncommitted" but they are more a hedge by the party to avoid a deadlocked convention.

[helderheid]

20. I was thinking about that. Doesn't hurt to become a committed delegate then too - that way you could

plan ahead to support Gore if it's brokered.

[NoPasaran]

23. I think the last Democratic Convention that went more than one ballot was 1932

In 1936 the rules were changed so a simple majority, not 2/3, was enough to win the nomination.

[MrCoffee]

33. THANK YOU!!! I searched everywhere and came up with nothing on that

much obliged for the research, NoPasaran.

[ISUGRADIA]

42. 1952 DNC had 3 ballots, the 1936 had 4...they were the last 2

[NoPasaran]

52. Thanks for the info about 1952

I just did a brief perusal of Wikipedia, so my research was a bit spotty.

Of course, nothing compares with the 108 ballots of the 1924 convention. My father remembers listening to some of it on a crystal radio that belonged to a boarder in their tenement... countless rollcalls beginning "Mister Chairman, the Great State of Alabama casts its votes for Oscar W. Underwood..."

[Subdivisions]

18. KICK!!! OHHHH! Now I'm getting excited! Come quietly, Al! n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

27. I'm still thinking that Al might jump in!

The repub's(GOP-o-terra-ist's)worst nightmare!

[AZBlue]

34. Oh stop. You can't draft or nominate someone who doesn't want to be drafted or nominated.

What's the point in that??

[Blue Belle]

36. How do you know? Are you Al Gore?

If you are Al... please run.

[Kurovski]

37. Lol!

:D

[RestoreGore]

47. Stroking egos

That's all I see.

[JTFrog]

66. 1952. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Might wanna look it up.

[DesertRat]

39. Great post

:kick:

[Kurovski]

45. Kick. (nt)

[undeterred]

46. I don't think Gore would say no to being drafted.

That's my gut talking.

[renie408]

50. I think Al is smart enough to figure out that people want him to run without exotic drafting efforts

[DemoTex]

53. At this point I think it is morally imperative that Gore run.

I think Gore knows this too. In fact, I think he is holding back until after the Nobel Peace Prize (NPP) announcements. It would be harder for the committee to award the NPP to an active political candidate than a non-candidate, which Gore is now. I've got a bit of a problem with that line of thinking, if indeed that is what Gore is thinking, but not enough of a problem to criticize him on it. Leave that to the right-wing noise machine. Especially if he wins the NPP and enters the race for 2008. Ru$h will blow his anal sphincter.

[renie408]

48. I think we should break into his house, kidnap him at gunpoint and force him to run. Who cares

what he wants??

[RestoreGore]

49. Don't give them any ideas.

[renie408]

51. LOL...n/t

[Kurovski]

54. That is truly funny.

Good one, and I mean that.

Hmmm...let's see now...:evilgrin:

[Uncle Joe]

55. In the words of a wise and logical Vulcan, named Spock

"Sometimes the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few" from Star Trek "The Wrath of Kahn".

Even though I care about Al Gore's wants regarding running for President, I care more about the United States and Earth, this is why I will continue to encourage him to run until he absolutely does rule it out.

But who knows if we tied him up and forced him to watch Bush speeches and Cheney hunting safety videos, maybe he would relent and run?:shrug:

[Pachamama]

56. Anyone know how I can find out about CA's state delegate selection process??

:shrug:

[helderheid]

57. yep

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/03/the_democratic.html :)

[helderheid]

58. if this is important to you, reommend while you can.

[AZ Criminal JD]

60. I would like Gore as President

But this is going nowhere if he doesn't actively run.

[Swamp Rat]

61. Al Gore/Anybody Else 2008

:kick:

[deacon]

65. This is sounding REALLY good. n/t

[JTFrog]

67. If ever there was a time for history to repeat itself.

On March 11, 1952, the results of the New Hampshire primary came in. Eisenhower had won the contest against Sen. Taft by 50% to 38% and had captured all of the Republican delegates. Eisenhower announced that he was "astounded" and "moved" by the results and told a reporter, "Any American who would have that many other Americans pay him that compliment would be proud or he would not be an American"<1>. After being convinced by this evidence, he announced his candidacy the next day.

*edit - obviously replace Ike w/Gore and Thugs w/Democrats. Adding this because I don't need any misinterpretations that I want a thug in office as the repeat. I'm merely talking about an historical draft movement.

[helderheid]

68. excellent!

[SlowDownFast]

69. Kicking for Gore! n/t

[Kurovski]

71. Kick. (nt)