Gore speculation heats up

May 8, 2006

The [tag]Wall Street Journal[/tag]’s Jackie Calmes has what I believe is the first confirmation to date that [tag]Al Gore[/tag] is considering the [tag]2008[/tag] [tag]president[/tag]ial race.

The demurrals aren’t persuasive to some Democrats, including former Clinton-Gore White House insiders. “I do know that he’s thinking about it. I know for a fact,” a former adviser says. “He’s talked to people about the pros and cons.”

Among those said to be pushing Mr. Gore are billionaire venture capitalist and high-tech entrepreneur John Doerr and Laurie David, a global-warming activist and producer of the film, and wife of “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm” creator Larry David. “When people see this movie, I know they’re going to see the real Al Gore, and they’re going to demand that he run,” Ms. David says. But, she adds, he changes the subject whenever it comes up, and had to be talked into making the movie when she pitched it.

Mr. [tag]Gore[/tag] has begun assembling a Nashville, Tenn.-based operation to help with the demands on his time. He has hired longtime friend and top aide Roy Neel to head the office, and environmental activist Kalee Kreider, from a Washington public-relations firm, to handle communications. Mr. Feldman says their work will focus on global warming, not on maneuvering for 2008.

To be sure, the article has all the requisite denials, but that quote from a former Gore advisor seems to suggest that the former VP, at a minimum, is open to the possibility and weighing his options.

As the WSJ noted, publicity stemming from his movie, “[tag]An Inconvenient Truth[/tag],” has put his face on the cover of The American Prospect, Wired, and Vanity Fair. Time recently named him one of the world’s 100 most influential people. “His star will never be higher than it is right now with his movie coming out,” Democratic consultant Karen Skelton, Gore’s former political director, said.

But while this publicity might help encourage Gore to run again, it’s also a reminder of how much fun he’s having outside the political world. Tad Devine, a top Gore strategist in 2000 who hasn’t spoken with him lately, told the WSJ, “He’s in a really good place, and he’s succeeding fabulously. Why would he want to walk away from it all?”

In all likelihood, Gore wouldn’t. It all comes down to whether he wants to be president and whether he believes he can win. At this point, neither question has a clear answer.

Re-Elect Al Gore in 2008

Gore/Warner

Gore/Clark

Gore/Clinton (nah!)

On another topic entirely, have you noticed various pundits (I’m thinking Chris Matthews in particular) commenting how Hilary Clinton can’t be elected because she’s a sitting senator (only JFK this last century), but how they fail to make that same point about John McCain, who has a much longer and uglier (remember the Keating Five?) record than Clinton?

  • I’m starting to believe the Democratic Party’s only chance in 2008 is if Obama is on the ticket.

  • I’m starting to believe the Democratic Party’s only chance in 2008 is if Obama is on the ticket.

    I’m slowly coming to the same belief — and will have a post on this very subject later today.

  • This guy claims to be printing up t-shirts that say:

    “Don’t You Dare Kill Obama (… and we know you’re thinking about it)”

  • “Don’t You Dare Kill Obama (… and we know you’re thinking about it)”

    might be more effective with that audiance > “Barak Obama, not desended from American slaves.”

  • I have my doubts on whether Gore could win, primarily because the MSM’s war on Gore, which has never really ended, would likely be as intense as it was in 1999-2000. (Though, unfortunately, their concurrent war on Democrats in general will continue for any nominee.) But asuming we get the post-2000 Gore as candidate and president, I can’t think of a single conceivable Democratic candiate I would prefer on substance than Al Gore. Or one more passionate. And Re-Elect Al Gore in 2008 sure is a catchy slogan.

  • I think the point about JFK being the only sitting US Senator to be elected president during the 20th century was first made here, on this blog. Unable to find such an assertion through the ‘net, I made a list of the immediate backgrounds of all 20th century presidents and published it here (though I no longer remember the date).

    Even JFK’s election might have been in some doubt – the only reason it didn’t wind up in court was because Nixon was willing to fore-go his claim of fraud in Cook County for Robert Kennedy’s dropping his counter-claim of voting irregularities in California.

    I do think it’s strange that Chris Matthews is willing to use that fact against Democrats but not against McCain. Well, I *would* find it strange if these were normal times and the press were doing its traditional job.

    As to Obama being on the ticket, I used to be opposed to the idea, simply because of his lack of political experience. But after seeing what DC has done to our sitting Democrats, I’m not sure such experience is an unmitigated blessing. I’m still fond of Edwards for the role of #2 (he’s the primary spokesman for the working class – i.e., most of us), but I’m beginning to think Obama just might fill the bill.

  • In Moral Theology class, I learned that restitution for theft requires the return of the thing stolen, and not a substitute, to the one from whom it was stolen, and not a surrogate.

    Thus, if I steal money from the parish poorbox, and in an attempt to make restitution I send a check to the Home Missions, I haven’t really made restitution for the theft at all.

    Gore ’08. Deus lo vult.

  • A reminder of the limits of his political talent, one example out of many: Gore performed horribly in 3 televised debates… (and I mean on TV, not if you read the transcript) this is a man who at that time had already run for President, had been a VP, should have known the medium, message discipline, the press….and it was late in 2000….shouldn’t he have had his game together by late 2000? His 2000 campaign was miserable; Kerry was outstanding by comparison.

    I have absolutely zero faith that Gore is capable of changing his performance abilities. Yes, I’ve seen and heard his recent speeches….they are still wonky and intellectual.

    That’s what this is about, performance……on substance, he’s great. But so are a lot of people…..

  • I could definitely support Gore for “re-election” and agree with Marlowe that the SCLM would continue it’s gleeful denigration of him. Gore/Clark would be a strong ticket.

  • Gore performed horribly in 3 televised debates

    Among those polled, who watched the debates, Gore won all 3, 60-40.

    Among those polled, who only watched coverage of the debates, Gore lost, 60-40.

  • Gore’s everything Bush isn’t: competent, honest, experienced, uncorrupted. And since Rove’s strategy is to attack the opponent’s strengths, Gore should get ready to preempt and go on the counter-offensive. Maybe his slogan should be “We saw what happens when we elect the guy you’d rather have a beer with …”

  • Davis, uh, you should know that Gore should have managed every detail of his message and communications far, far better given his experience level.

    This is about performing for the press, as well as the cameras. It is about his entire press operation.

    Why did Gore’s high polling negatives persist well into 2004? Case closed.

  • “And since Rove’s strategy is to attack the opponent’s strengths…” – petorado

    Well, here are two hopes.

    1) Rove will be indicted and go to jail.

    2) Rove will blow the 2006 congressional elections and get exiled to Texas to help with school board elections.

  • Gore is my choice. But if global warming continues to be ignored by Republicans, and to a large extent Democrats, then I see the possibility of Gore getting Swiftboated as an alarmist, and an extremist. If the country is not yet ready to accept this threat as one of the major challenges of the 21st century – and it is – Gore could be shot down, and our inaction might ironically continue on simply because Gore championed the cause as a presidential contender.

    I don’t think that’s likely, and it’s not likely Gore will run anyway, but it’s been on my mind lately, so I thought I’d throw it out.

  • What about the important Gore questions?

    Such as: will he be in any of the upcoming Futurama DVD’s?

    sommeone should get to the bottom of this.

  • NOO!!!!! Please, no Gore!!!

    What is it with the Democrats dredging up their old losers. Mondale ’84. Oh wait, Repugs did it too: Dole ’96. And look how well *he* did.

    No Gore. No Kerry. NO LOSERS!! NO GODDAMNED SENATORS! And, that means Clinton too.

    Instead: new blood, exciting, innovative, magnetic characters to captivate people’s imagination and point them towards the future, not the past.

    Schweitzer. Maybe Warner or Richardson. A governor– an executive-branch experience. I’d give Obama a pass since, despite his inexperience, he’s such a stirring orator and has such insanely perfect marketing instincts– and he will not have been in the Senate long enough to get corrupted into a tired old wonky windbag.

    Let the Repugs try to run a Senator who represents the past and not the future– like McCain or Frist– only to get soundly trounced.

    The next Bill Clinton is absolutely out there right now, in some statehouse in America, waiting. If Schweitzer gets his coal gasification scheme off the ground before 2008, and thus gets gas prices down, he will get carried into the WH triumphant on the shoulders of a cheering mob. Even if that project goes nowhere, I think he’s got the right stuff, and it seems Warner and Richardson might too.

    • Comments are closed.