Another Gore boomlet?

As part of my ongoing fascinating with Al Gore’s prospects in 2008, I find it interesting that every few weeks, a handful of new items pop up that add a little more fuel to the still largely non-existent fire. Just yesterday, two fairly high-profile Republicans said the former Vice President could be a major player.

Roger J. Stone Jr., a veteran of eight Republican presidential campaigns, for example, noted some similarities between Gore and the last VP to make a comeback eight years after losing a close presidential race.

Several weeks ago, former Vice President Al Gore told the Associated Press that he “had no plans to seek the Presidency in 2008.” His words were eerily reminiscent of a quote from another former Vice President, Richard Nixon, who told the same Associated Press in November of 1965 that he “had no plans to seek the Presidency in 1968.”

Many years later, in 1992, I chatted with Nixon in his Saddle River, N.J., home. He told me that “no man who narrowly misses the brass ring ever stops dreaming of another shot at it.” If Nixon was right, Mr. Gore may be positioning himself to be the one Democrat who can defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 Presidential primaries.

Stone is hardly a Gore fan, but he nevertheless notes Gore “could end up in the White House.” In fact, taking the Nixon parallels pretty far, Stone makes a good case that Nixon did it, so Gore could do it.

Both took on key public projects that put them in the public eye (Nixon wrote “Six Crises;” Gore has Current TV and “An Inconvenient Truth”). Both skipped the race after they lost, but made key inroads with the base at the time (Nixon made 141 campaign appearances for Goldwater; Gore endorsed Dean and teamed up with MoveOn). Both showed a softer, easier-to-like side after their respective losses (Nixon loosened up on the Jack Paar show; Gore did Saturday Night Live and joked with the late-night comedians).

Of course, historical parallels are interesting, but none other than Dick Morris says Gore looks like a “completely refurbished pre-owned vehicle,” who could win the Dem nomination. As Morris put it, “His slogan might well read ‘reelect Al Gore.'”

The former vice president’s slashing attacks on the administration and his stalwart, if misguided, opposition to the Iraq war leave him without the complications and complexes that will devil Clinton as she seeks to appeal to the unforgiving left of the Democratic Party.

And Gore may be a man whose time has come in his party. It was he who warned of climate change and predicted its consequences. Hurricane Katrina was just a fulfillment of the prophesies Gore wrote about in his late-1980s book Earth in the Balance. He has been an energy-conservation nut for years, and his obsessions with alternatives to oil will play better and better as we come to realize how our addiction to oil has led us to dependency on the dealers of this particular drug — Iran, the Saudi royal family and Hugo Chavez.

Morris’ subtle derision of Gore notwithstanding, the point of his column was to say that conditions have lined up nicely for Gore, who is well-positioned on everything from the war in Iraq to the environment. Gore, Morris said, “looks more and more like a man whose time may have come.”

For that matter, a new WNBC/Marist poll suggests there’s still a base of support for Gore. Asking Dems nationally who they’d like to see as the Dem nominee in 2008, Hillary Clinton still leads the field, but not with as much support as she used to. Clinton garnered 33%, with Gore second at 17%, and Edwards third with 16%.

Stay tuned.

How about a Gore run in ’08 with Hillary as his running mate?

That would be, as we political science people say in the parlance, “the illest.”

  • Bring it on. In 2000 I was convinced Al Gore was the most qualified man ever to run for the office. Nothing has changed since then, and everybody has gotten a good look at the least qualified President ever.

    His time may indeed have come.

  • How about a Gore run in ’08 with BILL as his running mate?

    If the Thugs get their 22nd-Amendment-repeal legislation through, anything goes…

  • Assuming the war in Iraq shows no substantial improvment we can expect three things in, 2008. The war will be the number one issue and it will be an albatross. “Stay the course” will be a statement of political suicide. With that in mind it makes sense that the republicans are due for a licking like none since the great depression. Add those two up and we get to who the voters are likely to believe are best suited to straighten the mess out one way or the other. By process of elimination those who supported going to war in the beginning will look like republicans even though they are registered democrats. Now take Hilary Clinton for example.

    The Nixon “brass ring” statement is a perfect assessment of Al Gore’s thinking no doubt. I saw the “you won’t have me to kick around any more” from a clearly hung over Nixon to reporters at the Biltmore, after his loss to Pat Brown, November, !962. That was followed by Howard K Smith’s “Obituary of a Politician” which said that Nixon’s political career was over. Al Gore has neither one of those black eyes to overcome.

    Things that have sold well for the republicans in the past are just that, in the past. None the least of these is their reliance on the evangelicals who are due to take a big hit themselves with the discovery the Bible is a hoax. If you want to see that click on http://www.hoax-buster.org Blessed are those who never committed to either the war or the evangelical, born again maddness.

  • “His slogan might well read ‘reelect Al Gore.'”

    By most counts, we did elect him in 2000, so if he won in 2008 we would be reelecting him.

    Does that mean he couldn’t run again in 2012, under the 22nd amendment?

  • I suspect, when you get right down to it, that Gore does not have the huge negatives that Rodham-Clinton does, at least right now.

    Hopefully Gore will have the good sense not to mention any medals from his service in Vietnam.

  • Oh, another thing that should be said. 1) I can completely understand why Gore wouldn’t want to run again. I wouldn’t want to put myself in the middle of the auto-mated, 24/7 smearing shitstorm the GOP has concocted. They’d Swiftboat me in a second, and somehow it wouldn’t matter to them that I wasn’t even alive during Vietnam.

    That said, I think we need to do something to recruit him because we can’t be having this GOP smear machine discouraging our best and most qualified candidates from running. And Gore is definitely one of the best potential candidates we have, if not THE best.

    Also, historical comparisons mean squat. If the past few years of reading this blog has taught me anything, it’s that it doesn’t matter if you don’t win any televised debates, have lower poll numbers 37.3895062 days before the election in BFE, Iowa, etc. There is absolutely no reason to rely on Nixon to expect Gore to change his mind in the next two years. WE MUST CONVINCE HIM TO RUN. The country needs him.

  • Rian – WE elected him, but SCOTUS, and the repub thugs stole the election.
    In my opinion, Gore did the right thing in not forcing a Constitutional crisis.
    He would be able to run again, but Bill can’t as his VP. I saw Bill explain the policy on a talk show, after this suggestion came up.
    But can we actually elect anyone besides a Republican, with the MSM as it is now? The yahoos out there still believe that Gore is a big liar, and Sadaam had something to do with 9-11. I blame the MSM, and the right-wing media for this.
    Oh, yeah, there is still Diebold out there, too.
    Lots of obstacles out there to us recliaming our country.

  • Is former Vice President Gore presently raising campaign funds among the organized acolytes of venerable Eastern Religions? Has he adopted the Earth-Toned Attire than proclaims his devotion to his Holy Mother Planet? Has Mr. Gore agreed to accept an Honorary Degree in Cosmic Divinity Science from Vanderbilt University? When these politically prophetic events are mentioned, above the fold, by THE NEW YORK TIMES we may be sure that Mr. Gore will answer the call of the enchanted Democrat Mob, and we will hear once more his ponderous declamations asserting his right to preside in the Oval Office, just as Armand Hammer promised him. It’s been too long!

  • Gore looks great, especially when compared to Kerry, who is a good man, and a terrible campaigner. As long as he stays out of it, Im happy, because if we need to put someone who can lose to whoever the next idiot Republican is, I cant think of anyone who could manage it better. Hillary makes a decent vp and will give her a better shot at the presidency next time around, when more people are ready for her. Im worried that she would be a liability in a contest played under the current sleazeball political rules. At least with Gore you can never take away the fact that he got more votes in 2000, and if he HAD made it to be our president, we wouldnt be in the disastrous mess we are in on so many fronts. Who else of any stature is there on the democratic front? Is there anyone who can speak with any authority on moral issues? We really need someone who can stand up to the lies, and make it clear that the last 8 years (at election time) have been a catastrophe for our constitution, our values and our country in general.

  • Nixon wrote “Six Crises” AFTER being kicked out of the White House – it was how he rehabilitated himself then.

    As someone who was actually around and old enough to remember him losing to JFK and Pat Brown, he started with the 1964 elections, speaking for some Republicans during the campaign and achieving an in-party reputation for having kept the LBJ blowout from being worse. Then in 1966 he did it again, all the while speaking in 1965 on to Republican conferences. By 1967, he had many well-placed members of the party looking at him as someone who was a loyal Republican, who had helped the party, and had good ideas. You might want to read “The Selling of the President” to find out a bit more of this, even though the author was mostly trying to trash Nixon when he wrote it.

    Unfortunately, Gore has done none of the “party building” Nixon did, so all the “boomlets” for him (and I wish he would run, personally) don’t matter to much, because they are not accompanied by giving party leaders around the country reason to see him as someone serious. He’s great in the blogosphere, but that doesn’t translate to troops on the ground. Unfortunatley.

  • Gore describes himself as a “recovering politician”. While I liked Gore and voted for him in 2000, I always thought of him as very much a politician.

    Now that he is recovering, he seems completely transformed. He brought tears to my eyes with his speech at the constitution center. He seems more natural, relaxed, and in control of himself and the situation than I ever remember him being in the old days.

    Can he re-enter politics without becoming a politician? If he can, he could be a giant. Would he re-enter politics after what happened in 2000?

    I hope he does. He was good in 2000. He will be better in 2008. “Re-elect Al Gore” is a great slogan on several different levels. If he runs, it will surely go on my bumpers.

    Here’s hoping….

  • “Morris’ subtle derision of Gore notwithstanding …

    When Dick Morris trashes Democrats, I think “Well, at least they didn’t get caught sucking a prostitute’s toes.”

    Republicans will smear the Democratic candidate no matter what. What the party needs is a candidate that will forcefully and consistently spell out the differences between Democrats and Republicans. And I think 2008 is going to be a referendum on the Bush legacy. The Democratic names being bandied about — Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards — can’t or won’t do that. Gore has at least been consistently critical of the Bush administration and the Republicans. If Gore won’t run, and I think he should, Democrats must find someone who’s going to effectively demonstrate what the party stands for.

  • Just my humble opinion, but I believe Gore is the
    only chance the Dems have in ’08, and possibly
    this country. I don’t know if we can survive the
    damage from another 3 + 8 years of the radical right.
    And don’t forget the Supreme Court, either.
    At least two more vacancies in that time. Good
    by America if we don’t stop this runaway train.

    So it’s time for bloggers to get serious, and
    to start a grass roots campaign to draft Al
    Gore. He’ll run, if we get behind it. Starting
    now. He is the only one who truly represents
    an alternative to the Republicans on the major
    issues.

    I think “Reelect Al Gore” is a terrific slogan.

    Something has to happen though. We have to
    make it happen. Or it’s Hillary in 2008, and she’s
    not going to win. She’s the anti Christ in the eyes
    of the 40% Republican/American core of ignorance and
    bigotry, and she’ll bring every one of them out to
    the polls to bring her down. And down she’ll go, and
    down we go.

  • “and his stalwart, if misguided, opposition to the Iraq war…”

    No one should forget that there was one lone Senator in the mid 1980s who was warning against Saddam Hussein and who protested Saddam’s use of chemical weaponry (with the obvious approval of the US Government). That was Senator Gore. Had folks bothered to listen to him back then we might not have been in the position of having to fight the 91 gulf war or enter the current disaster.

    Oh, and with all hell breaking loose in Iraq right now, opposition to the war doesn’t look so misguided–heck even Rat number 10, Bill O’Reilly is publicly supporting a cut and run strategy.

  • Im with ya hark. Hillary is the kiss of death, and if somehow people dont see it, they dont know how rough the game of politics has gotten. I find it hard to believe that people can still think she is the best candidate, since it seems there is a mountain of evidence since 2000 which points to a very sleazy political contest ahead, but unfortunately people will pin misguided hopes on all sorts of things when the situation looks desperate. She’s a tough woman, and certainly qualified, but that is besides the point. You have to be electable, and given the repulsive nature of a large slice of the voting public, she is doomed. She will turn out a massive bunch of the worst people who tear her to bits. I hope I dont have to witness it.

  • I must say, I agree with Lelande. Just what IS Hillary qualified for? Yes she is one tough woman, and she is bright. But she is also deceptive and conniving and always puts Clinton first. Yes, some deceptiveness is necessary, but it would have been nice to see her put party before herself just once on a major issue. I see her as a bit of the same “cult of personality” that does not relly help one govern. I really think this country needs someone who depends less on personality and more on overall skills. Maybe that won’t fly in today’s American society, but we really could use that.

  • Gotcha? Lelande, have you been hanging out with wampauscat? Your brain seems similarly infected. If you cant see what Hillary is qualified for, you arent qualified for giving any opinions about anything.

  • Hillary is really strong though, and those poll numbers don’t lie.

    The fact that Republicans hate her does not matter at all. You do not fight by accomodating your opponent. And you don’t fight by just doing what your already doing and hoping that somehow it will incidentally undermine your opponent’s efforts. Instead, you recoginze that you’re in a fight and that your opponent is trying to defeat you, and will keep trying, and you take whatever actions make sense in that kind of a situation. Hillary treats it like it’s a fight, and that’s why she’s as successful as she is. You don’t win by sitting on your ass next to a window and wishing on a star. Gore may be good, but Hillary is good too.

    Lots and lots of Democrats hate Bush, and Bush still gets lots of people to vote for him.

  • Bubba, she is qualified to serve, that does not mean she would do a good job, or that we should even push her toward a nomination. She was a qualified and competent lawyer, she is a qualified and competent lawmaker now. She’s probably smarter than 99% of the people posting here. None of this would necessarily make her a good president however. Maybe if you all could be clear as to what you are talking about, we wouldnt have to have these discussions. Maybe get a dictionary out and look up some words occassionally. The two main entries for “qualified” are 1) competent and 2) eligible, and she fits both. How can we even be having a discussion about this when we as a country have already proven that we will elect a president who is almost completely incompetent. We cant do much worse than that. The question about Hillary is what does she really stand for, and can she govern. If she can get elected, she can probably govern. Problem is, with this electorate, she wont get a chance.

  • “Six Crises” was published in 1962. At the time, Nixon hadn’t been in the WH except as a guest of the President.

    But as for Gore, the thing that makes me think he may indeed be a formidable candidate is the way the GOP screams so loudly that he is crazy (their favorite response to any strong criticism). That shrill, desperate edge in the collective right-wing voice when they talk about Gore is the capper.

  • It’s not going to be enough to win by three electoral votes in 2008. For Hillary Clinton, that’s the upside.

    The next president will face issues that are going to make what Bush has failed to deal with look like child’s play. Whoever has the job will need imagination, political courage, and reserves of goodwill, or at least acceptance, from a much broader swath of the electorate than 50.1 percent. Hillary Clinton can never be that person. The right-wingers loathe her, but a lot of otherwise-reachable moderate Republicans and independents hate her too.

    I didn’t vote for Gore in 2000 (as a New Yorker, it didn’t matter), but I would now, and with enthusiasm. He’s shown a political courage and a style of leadership that we badly need. And psychologically, he’s a good surrogate for a whole nation that has been so ill-served by the Bush Reign of Error.

  • Ever since the 2000 election I have felt this sick feeling in my stomach that history was somehow altered and that the true outcome of that election was thwarted. I know that I am not alone. Even if a person supported Bush, there is no way you could convince yourself that if the intent of every vote were recorded that he would have won. Gore only needed 1 electoral vote.

    Republicans hate Al Gore because he personifies the illegitamacy of Bush and his policies.

    I know that this seems hoakie and new age like but I really think that some kind of circle needs to be completed with election of Al Gore for this country and for history to be corrected.

    I understand some people’s desire for a fresh face or new voice for the Democrats but I don’t see how any of the names being thrown around right now would avoid the same result as 2000 and 2004 — I think it would just be a replay. On the other hand I believe that Gore is battle tested and learned from 2000 and could really be a great statesman and president.

    If you compare any of the current potential nominees to Gore (Warner, Clinton, Edwards) none of them come close to the experience, vision, knowledge, creativity and credentials of Gore. And can anyone say that these other candidates have spoken more eloquently than Gore or been right about so many of the issues we face — the guy has been down right prescient.

    I would love to see Bush (a man so shallow and dissinterested with everything except golf and baseball) succeeded by a man who is knowledgable and curious about just about everything — science, art, literature, history…) Can anyone imagine Bush writing or even thinking any of any of the speeches Gore has written over the past several years?

    History needs Al Gore.

  • G2000, you can limit your description of “competent” and “qualified” and whatever else you wish to list to dictionary terms if you wish, but please do not limit the rest of us to such simplistic and black and white terms. You sound like George Bush with such simplistic nonsense. And I know from your other posts on this site that you are much better than that. Have you practiced law with Hillary? Opposed her on any cases? Worked with attorneys who have worked with her? My guess is you haven’t, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you have. But if you haven’t you have absolutely no clue as to how competent a lawyer she is. And by your definition of qualified, using further definitions of competent and eligible, there are a whole host of people in this country over age 35, who have not been properly deemed “incompetent” who are “qualified” to run, but who really are not qualified to run. You like Hillary, that is fine. I have nothing against her. But my sence of “qualification” goes well beyond what you cite in your post above and takes into account other factors that are relevant to being able to govern, and include but are not limited to some humility, selflessness, putting the nations interests first and not one’s own interests, being able to actually work with others even when they do not agree with you or are total jackasses, things like that. You have no clue as to whether she can govern or not. Yes, she might be able to, but you simply do not know that. She also might be worthless in that role–but we don’t know that either. If she is nominated, I will grudgingly vote for her. But the party appears to have others who possess qualities which I think are better suited to governing and which are better suited to being a better human being than Hillary, and I hope that the party sees this as well. Hillary will ahve her chance to shine, and maybe her supporters are correct. Personally, I think it would be a disappointment, but I know I could be wrong.

  • I limited it to the dictionary term because if you use the word qualified you should mean what you say. You were all apparently groping for another word. It’s not simplistic, and please, dont compare me to the chimp. Im forcing people here to be more specific. I agree with your assessment of some of the problems of Hillary as a candidate, but those do not disqualify her, they only make her a poor candidate. My email was essentially addressed at Lelande’s nonsense reply.

  • and btw, Bubba, you should not have inferred that I like Hillary. I dont really, but I also dont belittle her accomplishments.

  • bubba makes an awfully good point. The dictionary is a poor place to get the definition of one who can lead the nation out of the mess it’s in not just in Iraq, national security, the obvious but all the demons on the horizon like energy that are orphans in the political debate. When the tank is empty and the gas station’s tank is the same it’s more than a little late to do something about it. The survival of the economy and in turn the country is at stake yet all we seem to hear is, “a woman’s right to choose” and “stay the course.”

    All issues are ecconomic. Harry Truman said, “vote your pocketbook.” I have nothing personally at stake in a “woman’s right to choose” while I have everything I presently have at stake in the available fuel for my auto that is absolutely necessary for me to keep my job and make the payments so I can keep on having all I have.

  • G2000, by your terms and your reasoning in your post I should be able to assume you supported Judge Alito for the Supreme Court as your Webster’s driven definition of qualified would make him more than suitably qualified and capable of that position, no? Or did you have “other factors” to consider?

  • Bubba, you write : ” Have you practiced law with Hillary? Opposed her on any cases? Worked with attorneys who have worked with her? My guess is you haven’t, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you have. But if you haven’t you have absolutely no clue as to how competent a lawyer she is.” This is silly. Do you really think the only people who have any clue about her competency are the people who have worked with her? You really must be kidding. Look at her accomplishments : Yale Law degree (and not a GWB legacy type Harvard MBA admission ), served on the Board of editors at Yale Law review, staffer on the presidential impeachment committe which got rid of GWBs doppleganger, one of two women faculty at the Univ of Arkansas law school, first woman partner at Rose Law firm. Do you think these things happen to someone who is not competent in the law? I seriously doubt it. This isnt Harriet Miers we are talking about.

  • For all the reasons mentioned, I support re-election of Al Gore.

    I do have some concerns, a few already expressed above. Gore hasn’t been doing much “party building” (as did Nixon before his re-emergence). Unlike Nixon, he also hasn’t been knocking off (indirectly) potential rivals, the way Nixon did Earl Warren, Tom Kuchel, Goodwin Knight, Bill Knowland, George Christopher, etc. He has NOT been making the rounds of all that many TV shows, or even friendly Air America shows. I trust he’s outgrown considerations about clothing, beard, etc. He does fit my personal (based on history) preference of NOT being a sitting US Senator.

    I personally favor a Gore-Edwards ticket. That would suit me just fine. I think it would re-take the White House (provided there are severe reality checks at the polls), and it would “lift all Democratic boats” as well. There would also be no intra-party division (I assume Nader’s too old and/or wised up to crawl out from under his rock again).

  • Look, you guys/girls/aliens are completely missing my point. We arent discussing qualifications. My definition is used to get the topic off of qualifications and on to qualities. Yes, Alito is qualified, but no, he isnt the type of person that I think should be defining the type of country we live in. There are other factors, but these people arent crazy, they are just way off center. What we need to discuss about Hillary is where she is really grounded, because from her political maneuverings, it is very hard to tell.

  • Bill, thanks. But I do wish to say that, although I am one to think, like you, that [things like] “a woman’s right to choose” has become too overridding an issue in politics today (especially with some of the other issues many people face each and every day of their lives), each and every one of us does have some personal stake in that issue. It goes to our rights of privacy, our rights to live our lives as we decide and not as the government decides, our rights to listen to our own doctors and medical privacy, to name a couple. These are very important rights and issues.

  • Well G2000, then maybe you need to be a bit more specific or clearer, and maybe your smartass comments about dictionaries and things should be kept to yourself?

    And if you think that list of “accomplishments” means anything, they might. But they might not. I know plenty of lawyers who have done similar things who are a total loss in the courtroom. I know plenty of lawyers and other professionals who have similarly lengthy “accomplishments” who never really earned them but got them because of connections. You should know better.

  • Oh, and I am, right now, with Ed–Re-elect Al Gore.

    But I am willing to give others, particularly but not limited to Feingold, Warner, Clark a chance.

  • Yes! What GL said, exactly!

    Regarding Hillary, I didn’t realise this would be today’s Hillary thread, so I’ll repost what I said in another comments section:

    But, Shargash, why is she so reviled by the right? I’ve tried asking one or two righties and they can’t give an honest answer based on anything she’s actually done. Amongst all the blubbering all I’ve gotten was that she didn’t live in New York before running for Senator. As if she’s the first person to do that, and as if New Yorkers didn’t know that themselves when they decided to elect her to represent them in the US Senate, and as if their favorite son is actually a native Texan as he pretends to be.

    Yet when one polls senators on both sides of the aisle that she’s worked with for 5 years, they absolutely love her. Both Republicans and Democrats. It seems to be a very strong but only a very visceral reaction. I think that that has to do with her being a woman.

    (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6692.html#comment-25057)

  • Bubba, sorry if Im being too smartass with the dictionary thing, but it has a legitimate point. I agree, Bill, that the dictionary isnt where you find the definition of who can lead us out of the mess we ar ein. But it does help clarify what we are talking about here. I think we need to jettison the “is Hillary qualified” discussion, and get to the “what does she stand for” part and the “can she be elected” issue. Try not to forget that we havent elected a woman as president and it isnt an accident that this is the case. Until she comes out with a campaign, the speculating we are doing isnt really that useful. Bubba, I think I agreed with about 95% of the things you said about her, and the things you say in general. And yes, there are plenty of lawyers who are where they are because of connections. However, I have lots of friends in the legal field who assure me she wouldnt have been able to do the things she did in the law purely on connections. Its easy to wing it through biz school like GWB did. No biggie. But you dont do law review at Yale without a brain. Incompetents cannot do such things even if someone holds their hand. Surely the Chimp made it to prez just about 100% on connections. But this isnt one of those cases.

  • Ed, I’m with you again. But I like Clark for V.P. And no, just as surely as Nader will get older, I fear he will never get wiser, unfortunately.

  • For the record, I think Hilary is a very smart person and I think she would do a good job as president if she ever got into the Oval Office. The problem is that she would make a rotten candidate because of all the baggage she brings with her.

    Gore would be a much stronger candidate now for a number of reasons, but mostly because he has the advantage of having been totally out of office for so long that he would have virtually no baggage to hold him down.

    Sure, the wingnuts would dredge up all the old Clinton attacks, but he never did a single thing wrong himself so none of it would stick to him.

    Plus a lot of people are actually starting to look back at the Clinton years as almost a golden age of peace and prosperity compared to what we have now, and that can’t help but be a plus for Gore’s image.

    And having been totally right on many issues years before they actually happened would be a big advantage.

    BTW, Obama would be a much stronger VP candidate than Edwards. He’s done more and made a better impression in his few years in office to date than Edwards ever did. Just being young and cute isn’t enough these days, you have to be strong and effective, too. Edwards never did that then and would have even less basis for that now, in my opinion.

  • Regarding baggage, it doesn’t matter who the Democrats nominate, the right-wing attack dogs will do their worst to whomever the Democrats nominate. It doesn’t matter who. As we saw with John Kerry, the truth doesn’t matter to them. They will lie their faces off to smear someone. Gore or Sen. Clinton, both are at an equal disadvantage baggage-wise, because the right-wing will oppose any Dem candidate with equal vigor. All it takes is being a Dem.

    The solution here isn’t to not nominate someone because the right-wing attack machine might have some leverage against a potential candidate. The solution is to work toward breaking down the right-wing attack machine.

  • Regarding partybuilding, there’s a colorable argument that Gore’s endorsement of Dean in 2004 and his subsequent stemwinders have helped build up the new netroots wing of the party. So he does have some credibility banked already. But to translate that potential into a viable candidacy, he would have to build some bridges to the existing establishment by noticeablly contributing to the 2006 midterm. Which means if he’s going to run, he’d pretty much have to decide (or be convinced) within the next six months.

  • If the Wretched Nixon must be used as the measuring stick for a Democrat Presidential Candidate, that Candidate is doomed. Former Vice President Gore’s most notable accomplishment in Office was his unswerving loyalty to the Felonious President he served as that President’s most obsequious lackey. That day of the Democrat shame, when President Clinton’s Felony Perjury was officially revealed for all to marvel at, Mr. Gore chose to grovel, proclaiming the malefactor President “GREAT!” Had Mr. Gore reacted as a patriot instead of as a hack, he would be President today, and America would be a smaller nation. Opportunity beckoned him and he spurned her. Small men make small nations.

  • waumpuscat, you really need to go on comedy central. you are a very funny person!

    Love the “small men make small nations.” As over the past 5 years the US has shrunk in influence, reputation, moral fiber, surpluses, economic standing, average income, solid paying jobs, manufacturing ability and capability, and so on, we have seen this statement to be only oh so, and tragically, true.

  • Ok, while I have a lot more faith in Al Gore than I do in others who have been suggested as potential candidates, I also have to reiterate my support of Hillary that I’ve left in comments here before.

    I’m busy right now though, and I don’t know how extensive this is going to be to write, so I’ll put it up on my blog tonight, which any interested person can find by following the link from my moniker.

  • Gore’s biggest advantage is he’ll be far better known and qualifited than any Republican Presidential Nominee they put up, unless of course Cheney decides to run. Really, who is still prominent in the Republican party that isn’t tainted either by the Bush’s administration or K Street? Colin Powell?

    I can’t think of anyone who could capitalize more on the revulsion the majority feel towards Bush’s administration than Gore. I think he could do a lot to get this country back on track.

  • Gore/Edwards in 2008 and save Hillary for the next open seat on the SCOTUS….
    That would make the righties flip…..

  • Well spoken, jpmist. And “Re-Elect President Gore” could be the most killer campaign slogan in history.

    Morinao also makes a good point, though. If he wants to run (and there’s nothing yet that says he does) he’s going to have to make up his mind pretty soon and get started building his team.

    Frankly, I will support whoever the Democratic candidate is, and there are certainly several possibilities out there. I never really thought about Gore as a serious contender until now, but comparing him to the slate of relative unknowns who would be the only other options besides Hilary at this point, I’m starting to feel rather excited at the thought of him having another go.

    Let’s see how this works out. It could be very interesting.

  • Does anyone remember Professor Irwin Corey? I ask because that what I imagine waumpuscat looking like.

  • Rege–funny.

    Curmudgeon–I think it was all Lieberman’s fault that Gore lost (well, that and Donna Brazile). I wonder if JoMentum even voted for his own ticket.

  • Nixon left office because a group of Republican leaders marched up the hill and told him he had to go. If the Democrats had done the same, they would be in charge now and the Supreme Court would have two more liberal members, and you would be pushing your agendas instead of cowering behind your keyboards formenting the impossible.

    Was Clinton worth all that to you?

  • Yawn. Yes, Clinton was worth all that to me.

    Your sense of history is illusory. Clinton was railroaded to impeachment by a treacherous ratpack of rabid Republicans (Bush has done much worse, virtually every week, without so much as a hearing). The Senate, hearing the case, failed to convict. All least everything followed the established legal procedure (unlike today’s Republicans in Congress and in the Executive).

    The Democrats are not in charge now (entailing all the derived events you list) because the election of 2000 was stolen by the Supreme Court. There aren’t enough obscenely rich and droolingly stupid voters to elect a Republican president without a crime being committed (by the Supremes, by Diebold) — even granted the rural bias of the outdated Electoral Collage (does any other major nation have such an antiquated structure?).

  • “bogie” told it like it was, is, and ever shall be! And Ed Stephan responded with the toad-eater’s standard reply, affirming his love of servitude and acknowledged misgovernment. The disgrace of President Clinton, the groveling of then Vice President Gore, and the echo of the cascade of falsehoods that issued from the Executive Branch during that time of national shame is still reverberating here in this discussion of the squalid politics practiced by a debauched Denocrat Party. Senator Clinton, who has some of Nixon’s virtues and all of his character flaws is the last hope of the secret Camorra that the Democrat Party has become. She, at least is intelligent, and this woman has demonstrated a skill at recognizing the factors contributing to a crisis. Mr. Gore is a dolt. Check out his time at Vanderbilt University. She will compel him to surrender his lunch money and second her nomination at the convention. If, that is, he can wrangle a slot as a delegate.

  • “The disgrace of President Clinton”… man oh man.

    What was it exactly about peace, prosperity and surpluses that bother you nutbags so much? Was it that Clinton just got more tail than you?

    Your president has been a historic disaster–not because he’s evil or stupid (I don’t really believe either to be the case), but because he’s an incompetent who’s surrounded himself with other incompetents. He’s fundamentally uninterested in governing, and that he happens to be a political savant–who else in our history could have turned the horrendous failure of 9/11 into greater popularity?–has only afforded him more space to deepen the hole. And he’s made a virtue of ignorance and simplistic thinking–fine for a right-winger in a bar or on a website, but not for the leader of the world’s most powerful country.

    Get over Clinton. He was a B-minus president; at least he tried. The irony is that the longer Bush stays in, the better Clinton looks.

  • Rian,

    Hillary thread, so I’ll repost what I said in another comments section:

    Assuming you are still around, I responded to your question: here

    Also for the record, I think Gore would be a fine choice, but also think that Clark is just as electable if not more. His national security credentials are unassailable–even by the lying rethuglicans.

  • Comments are closed.