First thoughts: the Goreacle

Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:13 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

*** The Goreacle: Obama and Edwards may have to prep for another round of "What about Gore?" stories -- particularly if Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize. We've had a theory for some time that if both Edwards and Obama failed to catch on this fall, the calls for Gore by those still looking for an anti-Hillary would amp up. The more Gore is talked up, the worse for Obama and Edwards. That said, if Gore doesn't run, his endorsement WILL be a big deal. If he does endorse (and he's basically promised he would), it's unlikely he'll be for Clinton. And right now, both Obama and Edwards partisans believe they have an inside track on his support. Of course, Gore’s endorsement of Dean was, in the words of Joe Trippi, the beginning of the end of that campaign.

*** What’s up, doc? In Des Moines today, McCain becomes the first GOP presidential candidate to unveil a comprehensive health-care plan. Per excerpts of his speech his campaign provided to First Read, McCain will call for giving individuals a $2,500 tax credit (and $5,000 for families) for having health insurance; providing various insurance choices responsive to individual needs; reducing drug costs by allowing the safe re-importation of drugs; and promoting personal responsibility to prevent expensive chronic diseases. In addition, McCain will argue that mandating insurance isn’t the answer (a dig at what Romney did in Massachusetts?) and will say he wants to judge the performance of doctors. But how important is health care to GOP voters? In the September NBC/WSJ poll, just 18% of Republicans cited health care as one of the country’s top one or two issues -- compared with 47% who picked Iraq, 40% who selected immigration, and 23% who said the economy. Health care will be an important issue for the eventual GOP nominee, but does it matter in the primaries?

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on Giuliani's and Romney's attempts to make it a two man race for the GOP nomination, plus takes a look at the latest on an Al Gore campaign.

*** And then there were two? Interesting that a couple of reports on the Romney vs. Rudy spat yesterday was an indication both campaigns were interested in narrowing things down to a two-person race. We're not sure that's quite true yet for the Giuliani side, but it's definitely true for Romney. Giuliani partisans believe a more crowded top tier is good for their guy, and they certainly would rather see Romney and Thompson going at it rather than having to get involved themselves. As for Romney, while he seems to be losing the rhetorical fight from the post-debate fallout, simply by having "two-person race" stories written is a small victory.

*** Talk about setting your sights low: In a WashingtonPost.com discussion yesterday, Brownback said he would drop out of the GOP race if he finished worse than fourth in the Iowa caucuses. Come again? Can Brownback -- who finished a disappointing third in the Ames straw poll (in which Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson didn’t compete) -- or anyone from his campaign map out a scenario in which he finishes third or fourth in Iowa and goes on to win the GOP nomination? Does he really have enough money to limp to January? What if he were no longer invited to debates, would he stay in? Speaking of fourth place, Richardson grabs a bit of the spotlight today with pretty favorable New York Times profile and his education policy rollout in Manchester, NH.

*** On the trail: Elsewhere, Clinton remains in New Hampshire, where she discusses college affordability and later attends a “barn party”; Edwards, in South Carolina, addresses the Jasper County Democratic Party banquet; Giuliani also is in South Carolina, where he meets and greets with supporters in Greenville and then attends a York County GOP dinner; and Paul talks to supporters in Northern Virginia.

Countdown to MA-05 special election: 6 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 9 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 26 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 37 days
Countdown to Iowa: 84 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 89 days
Countdown to Michigan: 96 days
Countdown to SC GOP primary: 100 days
Countdown to Florida: 110 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 117 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 390 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 467 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I can't believe that Gore wants to be seen as an endorsement loser two times in a row. So Edwards is out in my mind. So Gore would have to decide whether to risk it on Obama. Or he could endorse Clinton and continue his winning streak --- Oscar, Grammy, Nobel, etc.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:22 AM)

Gigolo Rudy is an opportunist extrodinaire who is addicted to power and will say anything to get elected. That is why the true 911 heroes like firefighters and police generally despise him. I have a co-worker who was pregnant and survived (worked 2 blocks away) from the towers and feels the same way.

juan,ft lauderdale,fl (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:23 AM)

Look at Hillary head to head against the GOPers.

She is killing them. She beats them all in FL, OH, and PA.

Gore want to buck that? I don't think so.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_quinnipiac_flohpa_surveys_3.php

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:29 AM)

expect rudi to start crit. fred, while all the gop candites continue to pet McCain

PJL,Athens, Georgia (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:29 AM)

Dickie Flatts,

I am continually saddened by your ability to be mislead by the media. Now you are free to support who you want to support, but in doing so you must ask questions. For one, if I was a Hillary supporter, I would wonder, why is Gore not willing to support her? Why has him and Bill severed their relationship? Gore supported Dean before it was much talk about his Global Warming initiative, you better bet your bottom dollar, if GORE comes out and support Obama, it will be a end to the Clinton-Bush dynasty as you know it!!!!!
It is okay to support a candidate that you agree with on the issues but it is like you are just supporting her because she is a woman and thus making up excuses and reasons to agree with her on issues you know are nonsensical!!!!

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:42 AM)

Juan continues to fear the G-man. No Juan you can't have any of his dresses.

Dan G., Pensacola, FL (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:49 AM)

I am leaning toward Hillary, but want Al Gore to think seriously about running. Why? Because there is to much at stake in 2008 for him to ignor it. (Iraq, health care, Supreme Court, etc.). Adding the Nobel Peace Prize to his list of personal achievements would be helpful, but is not critical to a Gore candidacy. On the other hand, we don't need a Democratic version of Fred Thompson. The clock is ticking. Gore should run only if up to date on the issues. That is the inconvenient truth for Decision 2008.

Gary, Franklin, WI (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:58 AM)

Crystal - Please point me to where Dickie has touted Hillary's gender as the sole reason for supporting her. Thanks.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:01 AM)

Dan, I think you mean the G-string man, Mr Guiliani. And Crystal, if Gore backed Obama absolutely nobody would care except yourelf and perhaps 5 other people, really.

bb (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:07 AM)

and will say he wants to judge the performance of doctors. But how important is health care to GOP voters?

Just so long as it isn't HillBillary HealthCare!!!!!!!

Here is an excerpt from an article today.

Canada's socialized health care system, hailed as a model by Michael Moore in his documentary, "Sicko," is hurting, government officials admit, citing not enough money for more equipment and staff to handle high risk births.

Sarah Plank, a spokeswoman for the British Columbia Ministry of Health, said a spike in high risk and premature births coupled with the lack of trained nurses prompted the surge in mothers heading across the border for better care.

"The number of transfers in previous years has been quite low," Plank told FOXNews.com. "Before this recent spike we went for more than a year with no transfers to the U.S., so this is something that is happening in other provinces as well."

Critics say these border crossings highlight the dangers of a government-run health care system.

"The Canadian healthcare system has used the United States as a safety net for years," said Michael Turner of the Cato Institute. "In fact, overall about one out of every seven Canadian physicians sends someone to the United States every year for treatment."

Yes, this comes from foxnews.com, and no that does not make it wrong or irrelevant.
The government has a place helping the poor and needy. It does not have a place running the whole system. We do not need or want government run socialized medicine. Keep programs like SCHIPS for the needy not the greedy. Poverty level help only.

RH Oregon (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:09 AM)

Now we're calling Rudy the G-man? Is that gross, or garbage, or grand dame(in drag)? Rudy is a joke.

AOWaytogoOhio (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:11 AM)

Al is enjoying his life now in a way he never did in politics, and it shows. He has a, "bully pulpit", for his cause and has a freedom to speak out on the issue that he never could as a candidate for office.
I have always liked and admired Al, and I respect what he is doing with his life. When he endorses someone, he will help that candidate, but his endorsement won't mean any more than it did for the recipient than it did last election.
Let's hope that he wins that Nobel today!

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:14 AM)

Gore will be flattered by all of the attention, but I doubt if he will be enticed to run again. He's not going to take on the Clinton machine, and is at his best as a pedantic proponent of his cause because he sincerely believes in it,not as a campaigner. He was stiff in 2000, and would quickly revert to his former self, were he to enter the race. I think he probably still has the ambition for our highest office, but is wise enough to realize that the 2000 defeat almost destroyed him, and not want a repeat. This way, he'll go down in history as our most successful loser! While W stares down the barrel of a dismal legacy, full of his failures and lost opportunities, Gore will be seen as a brilliant prognosticator, who was right about the most important issues of our time: Iraq, and global warming. If he wins tomorrow he will acquire a new stature, and not just be remembered as the man who lost in 2000 to the weakest president in modern times. Our country still needs Gore, so I hope he remains on the public scene for a long time.

kim, crofton, md (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:15 AM)

Hey Crystal, Gore is very happy being the global warming guy and would never even accept this offer to possibly lose again. Secondly, everyone knows that the Gores and Clintons didn't get along very well for quite some time, who cares? Thirdly, Gores endorsement of Obama is akin to Oprah backing him. So what?

Susan, Miami (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:16 AM)

Gary,

If you would prefer Gore over Clinton, then you should not vote for Clinton if Gore does not run!! The two are polar opposites and Gore seems to think that the Clintons can not be trusted, so if he believes this and was close to them, why should the American people who are at a distance to them think any differently or at least not question it enough to get informed?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa

Dickie Flatts has said in previous posts how a woman president will bring about change, blah blah blah. But Carrie no need to get defensive, you and Dickie should appreciate the challenge? If someone challenged me on the support of my candidate I would be able to point out distinctive policy differences between the candidate I support and the candidates that I am against (and also know similiarities as well). I know how the candidate that I support has voted on issues, how that candidate has also did things in the community without initiative to show me that that is truly what they believe in so that I know it wasn't just simply done for political reasons, etc.

I am very open to a back and forth debate on the issues, but to tout polls and media blurbs of support are meaningless if that candidate doesn't align with what is good for you, your children, and the country as a whole. We can debate all day but at the end of the day we will sink or swam together. I just want to make sure that those who are voting for a candidate are looking beyond gender and race, but really at the issues b/c your vote for the WRONG candidate for the WRONG reason, may be the cause of my son getting sent off to fight a war in IRAN or me not having Social Security when I am ready to retire?

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:21 AM)

Why do all the GLBT types fixate on the G-man's attire? They not only fear him, but also are jealous. Rudy will slay the Hillary beast.

Dan G., Pensacola, FL (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:26 AM)

Dan G-If I ever do decide to go drag I would be a hell alot better looking than him. I also do not talk with a lisp.

juan,ft lauderdale,fl (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:27 AM)

Gore is Gore, with a phoney cause, like music CDs that were bad lyrics, sexy covers and other things that exist m today, much,much worse than before Gore slammed them.
Ah, the same people have awarded Gores cartoon and the socialists will give him a peace award, however Gore is the same hollow suit, a larger than ever suit.
No matter what he says, how he says it,where he says it, its still a cow paddy in a tuxedo, walking down the red carpet on his way to marxville on Rodeo drive.
It never changes with these lefty loosers. All of them, any of them including broomhilda, with the cigar an all giving Bill another chance at dipping his cigar in some loose star struck girl, or perhaps he will take her by force, you can never tell about these peace loving liberal democrats.

djcercone (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:27 AM)

juan, You are right. Rudy wants people to look at him as the 911 hero. The real rank and file fire fighters know what he is really like and can't stand him. Rudy is a power hungry egotistical man, just like bush and cheney.

Blue state baby (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:29 AM)

djcercone says that Gore has a phony cause? REally? The fact that the artic ice cap has almost completley melted doesn't scare you? Did you know that will exponentially speed up the melting of the land based ice on Greenland which will increase sea levels to catastropic levels within 20 years! Doesn't it scare you that we are literally cooking ourselves into extinction? Guess not, because like all good naive republicans, you probably have your head in the sand already on the issue. Thank God that we have people liek Gore who are bringing the biggest threat to our existence - Global Warming [not terrorism!] - to the forefront of the debate. People like you will be drowing.

Pat, Huntington, NY (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:36 AM)

So, Crystal, I have a hypothetical question for you. IF Clinton is the nominee for the dems and Guiliani for the repubs. Who do you plan to vote for? The second part of the question is, if Clinton gets the nomination and Obama then tells his backers to vote democratic(like he probably will), will you vote democratic or republican? The issues differences between the two partys are long and wide. Differences between the dem candidates are comparitively small.

Susan, Miami (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:39 AM)

How dare you slam the second coming. Al Gore is the savior of the world and will bring peace, love, and a moderate climate to Planet Earth. His blessings, words of wisdom, and emotional speaches are missed by all. Why have the mindless capitalistic pigs shunned him? Bring our Troops home!

Hanoi Salley, Madison, WI (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:39 AM)

I think you are all forgetting the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The recipients of it are those that have done a lot of good and brought a spotlight to subjects that may have otherwise been swept under the rug--like global warming given this administration's continued a-- kissing of the oil industry. No matter how much it is denied, this is a war about oil.

Gore's winning the Peace Prize will NOT get him in the race. The Clinton machine will absolutely make his life and that of his family a living Hell especially seeing how much of the MSM has already handed her both the Democratic nomination AND the keys to the front door of the White House.

What his victory and subsequent endorsement, likely to Obama, will do is slow Clinton's march to the nomination. People WILL think twice before voting for her. Do they want the "business as usual" that Clinton, even with her continued "change" mantra, brings or do they want to end the dynasty they and the Bushes have been living in? My guess is that the numbers will change if he wins and endorses someone other than Clinton, which is as certain as the sun rising in the east tomorrow. All you have to do to see this is look at the number of people wishing and hoping he'll throw his hat in the ring himself.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:42 AM)

<<Why do all the GLBT types fixate on the G-man's attire? They not only fear him, but also are jealous. Rudy will slay the Hillary beast. >>

Didn't he get his a-- handed to him by Hillary in a Senate race already? Have you looked at the head-to-head numbers already? They look almost identical now to what they did back then. While I certainly don't want her to win, I trust her a little more than I trust a man that didn't think to take the advice of his own people and move his emergency services offices out of the Trade Centers before they were turned into holes in the ground. That just sounds a little too Dubya-esque for me, personally.

His entire campaing can be summed up like this "Vote for me. I was mayor of New York on September 11th." Big whoop!

Mike K, Denver (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:46 AM)

Oh, hell yes, let's bring back the bullfrog in a barrel, the empty suit receiving meaningless accolades from incestuous imbeciles, and the fool-on-the-hill Al. Let the dam* fool bathe in the lemon-lime light of his newly found niche as global heating blanket as such a cover provides him his much needed face saving comfort. What an arctic puffin!

My good neighbor, Al Knoxville, TN (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:46 AM)

Ah, oh yea Dan I'm jealous of the girly man...like I want to dress in drag all the time? It's odd that a real man would want to do this, maybe once in a lifetime(I haven't even once and had no desire)but 4 times? There is something wrong with this guy.

F StLouis (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:47 AM)

djcercone- Stop channeling Rush and Sean and think for yourself. Attack Gore's ideas with facts, instead of attacking the man himself. If you are even capable of it. Your comment is typical of the right's increasing tendency to smear anything that they can't honestly debate with facts. Gore has accomplished more in a year than most on the right do in their entire lives-yet all you can do is knock him down.Tomorrow this great American will recieve an award that he richly deserves. Admit it, you are just spouting sour grapes!

kim, crofton md (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:51 AM)

Look the Goracle is old news - at least as a force in the Democratic party. He's also famous now and does not need to crown the next dem presidential candidate - but he probably cannot help himself - and he'll probably be wrong - again. That said, Obama has to step it up in these debates and Edwards has to step out - my bet Hillary w/Richardson as the Veep.

Dutch Schenectady NY (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:51 AM)

The draft gore people only raised a couple of hundred of thousands and are a small group unlike Thompson supportors who raised millions even before he declared. So I don't see this having an effect on Obama or Edwards. Its more to do with unfullied dreams, since gore won in 2000. And Chuck we have your pro hillary number.

sonya, atlanta, ga (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:53 AM)

Parties back the candidate they think best serves them in the general. The Republicans think it is Tootsie. The numbers say he loses by the least.

The Democrats will pick Clinton. She wins by the most. Look at the numbers and forget the media.

DickieFlatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:03 AM)

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:05 AM)

Let's not forget Gore gets $100,000 per lecture. If he gets Nobel I'm sure that'll increase. Is he ready to give that up?

Ron Vancouver, B.C. (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:06 AM)

Oh see how they tremble when they hear the G-man is coming. They fear his ability to reason, think on his feet, and oppose the Muslim threat. They seek his cloths for their own wardrobe and admire his ability to slap the Hillary Beast. I'm sorry but childish names and false claims will not keep the G-man from slapping down the DEMS in 08.

Dan G., Pensacola, FL (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:13 AM)

The HillBillary campaign probably would love to have Al in the race. It would pull votes from Edwards and Obama for the primary. Then she and the chinese mafia could move on to the White House.

RH Oregon (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:15 AM)

Blue state baby, And you don't think Cinton isn't a power hungry egotistical "man", just like bush and cheney? Facts? How about she moves to NY, a place she has never lived in her life, and declares herself a candidate "from NY". She knew she'd never win in her own home state of Arkansas so the power hungry woman goes to NY where she knows, because of blue NYC, she will win. And I LIVED in NYC for 16 years so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I was ashamed at NY'ers not having the courage to at least vote, republican or democrat, for one of their own.

Sniffingfacts (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:15 AM)

I have to tell you that Global warming has been a cause of Al's for longer than most on this blog have been able to type. I was vice-mayor of my very small home town back in the 80's, Al was the JR. senator from Tennessee, we had a company that was polluting the air every night after the rest of us went to bed, a nurse called me one day and said she saw and smelled it on her way home from her late evening shift. The next night I met with her and she was correct. I phoned my congressman, the very crooked repugnant Don Sundquist, got no response what so ever, talked with everyone I could, finally decided to give Senator Gore's office a call. He called me back, then came to a special called town hall meeting. And within 3 months that plant shut down and the pollution stopped, we also stopped reporting 4 or 5 newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer (patients who had never smoked a day in their lives) on a regular basis. Before that company got shut down they were also dumping toxic waste in our county landfill and our county is being rightly sued by cancer patients. Al is still my hero, regardless of what the right wingnuts want to say, he is the real deal, knows his stuff, and if you ever interact with him on a personal basis you know there has never been a shrub born that could hold a candle to him - and neither can freddie (know them both - fred is worthless if your town or county need help!). And this company did little for our local economy - they hired almost all exclusively folks from other states and moved them in - all they did was increase the number of kids I had to educate, then they drove to nastyville to shop and I did not even get any tax base money to help educate their spoiled moronic children!
Do what feels right for you Al, you are the best person to run this country, you were the best 8 years ago, and you are the best now, but I sure don't blame you if you don't waste your time cleaning up after all those elephants and slimy shrubs.

Union Baby, Tennessee (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:16 AM)

sonya- that's because the Thompson crowd thought he was the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and the last best hope to save the party's presidential hopes in '08. They knew the GOP base would not vote for a Mormon, a pro-choice candidate and a Senator who sponsored the ill-fated immigration bill. Now that Thompson's out on the political scene, he's revealing that he's not Reagan, and not even Arthur Branch, but a tired-looking dud, whose driving ambition comes from his Republican activist wife.

kim, crofton, md (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:17 AM)

Susan, Miami

If Clinton becomes the nominee for the Democrats I WILL NOT vote for her b/c I do not agree with the way she and her husband has handled issues in the past and continue to do so in the present. And don't get me wrong I was a HUGE supporter of Bill Clinton but I think he made alot of wrong decisions that have subsequently had a huge affect on OUR lives.
*I don't agree with the apathy and indifference that was displayed with respect to the Rwanda massacres. If they would have acted on the knowledge they had it would have saved the lives of 800,000 people.

*I don't agree with how his refusal to get rid of Bin Laden when he knew of his several attacks he had bankrolled the bombing for, if he would have got him when he was cornered it would have saved the lives of those lost to 911. Clinton took no decisive action in retaliation for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 attacks on our embassies in Africa, or the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

*I don't believe with several portions of the Crime bill he enacted and his wife fermently support, given that it has disproportionately affecte 18.5-30 million African-American people.

*I don't agree with how Hillary puts forth plans that has no substance and does not tell how she will follow-through with it. Hillary’s plan would be too financially burdensome for lower-income individuals and families.

*I don't agree with how Hillary flips flops and says whatever is convenient to the audience she is talking to, I just prefer someone who is honest, tell me things that I don't like to hear but at the end of the day I can say, I understand where you are coming from though.

And I can go on and on about reasons why I would not vote for Hillary, but it is based on the record and stance on issues, I don't care how strong she appears at a debate or how she can talk the talk, I need someone who can walk the walk!!!

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:21 AM)

"I think you are all forgetting the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The recipients of it are those that have done a lot of good..." Yes, Mike, you're right. I forgot about all the good Yasir Arafat brought to the world. An extraordinary terrorist, he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. An unmatched embezzler, Arafat looted over $1 billion from his people, most of which came from the good old US of A. In the end, Arafat was not interested in peace, when offered nearly all he had asked for at Camp David in 2000. The "Peace" prize has meant little since it was given to Arafat.

Ron (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:21 AM)

<<Didn't he get his a-- handed to him by Hillary in a Senate race already? >>

RudyG got sick and had to withdraw from the race. Prostate cancer. Hillary got a gimme win to grab her Senate seat. She won't be so fortunate this time around. Her amble a-- will be haned to her this time.

Melvin, NY (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:22 AM)

Crystal - With all due respect, it is not up to you to decide if I vote for the right or wrong person, or whether my vote is based on the right or wrong reasons. It is MY vote, to do with as I choose. If I choose to support a candidate because he has a knack for picking out great ties, that is my right. It may be silly and it may not pay respect to the incredible privilege I have in being able to cast my vote, but it is my right to use whatever criteria I want to decide who to support.

At the end of the day, it is MY decision to make regarding who best represents me. What I value in a candidate may be completely different from what an 80-year-old African American man living in a big city in the south values. (I'm not being racist in that comment - I'm trying to think of someone who is completely opposite of me and an elderly minority male in an urban area in the south fits the bill.) Niether one of us is right or wrong; we place different levels of priority on different things.

As a side note, you should not be worried about how people on a political blog are making their decisions. The people here are legions above the majority of America when it comes to being informed and aware of the issues.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:28 AM)

I don't think Gore is going to endorse anyone, frankly...nor does he need to. He is content with his life outside of politics, and he should be; he is able to do work on a cause that he believes in and has been dedicated to for decades, without the intense scrutiny that comes with the life of an active politician. As much as I wish he would return to public office, I can't blame him for choosing not to do so.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:30 AM)

TO juan,ft lauderdale-
exactly what the hell does that have to do with trying to get Al Gore to run for president?

go Gore for a change '08 (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:31 AM)

Obama: It's time to show the differences

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told CNN Thursday he will step up efforts to clarify his differences with rival Hillary Clinton, in what the Illinois senator is calling the "next phase" of his campaign.
"There's no doubt we are moving into a different phase of the campaign," Obama told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview slated to air on The Situation Room later today. "The first part of a campaign is to offer some biography and give people a sense of where I've been and what I am about.
"In this next phase we want to make sure that voters understand that on big issues, like the decision to go into the war in Iraq, I had real differences with the other candidates and that reflects on my judgment," he continued."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

This would seem to be a major departure from his stated strategy. What does this change represent? How will it affect the race? While it is sure to make some of Obama's supporters happy, it is a double-edged sword that can cut both ways.
Do you think he sees Edwards as being out of the picture in Ia., and is looking to pick up his supporters there? What do the Obama supporters here think about this new strategy? Does it mean that we will begin to see negative ads from Barack in Iowa and NH? What will it mean to the democrats if this happens?

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:32 AM)

Gore needn't step into this viscious race to the top.The election is moving fast and furiously.I have no idea if Hillary will get the nomination but I do know the woman can take a punch.Unlike the crybabies on the right.President Carter spoke out(somebody finally) about Cheney his deferments and love of war and leading Bush around like a horse to water.Of course the infamous Lynn cheney is angry---boo hoo hoo hoo .The way she went after Kerry (phoney anger) made me vomit.These people in this administration cannot be gone fast enough---

HMT-MI (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:38 AM)

I have voted since I was 18 and I have always voted for the democrats but I really don't think I can vote for Hillary. I'm not sure what I will do if she gets the nomination - stay home maybe. Who knows, maybe there will be a good 3rd party candidate.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:05 AM)

Why can't you vote for Hillary? I'm sure that a decision that could lead to another term of republican rule must be based on some strong feelings, and strong feelings politically are usually based on some facts.
What, specifically, has Clinton done, or not done, that would make her, and ONLY her, unworthy of your vote? What would make any republican's election preferable to this one democrat?
I'm sure you have your reasons...

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:53 AM)

If he's successful and happy doing what he's doing, why should he give it up to involve himself in a bruising battle with the Clintons? I have no doubt that many who voted for George Bush in 2000 have had a chance to regret it, but Gore knows he can't go back in time. The Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land, and while you can disagree with their decision, it still stands. Gore has had to live with the fact that he was denied a state-wide recount, yet still made the best of it by finding a new, important, international role for himself.

kim, crofton, md (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:55 AM)

Embarrassing

Jeff, Minneapolis (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:59 AM)

I am a ridiculously liberal person and I will vote Ron Paul before I vote Hillary. Edwards and Obama need to make her Bush Lite reality stick. The only way that liberals lose this election is if Hillary wins and there is an anti-war third party candidate e.g. Paul or Hagel. If it wasn't for MSNBC and the Chuck Todds of the world aggressively promoting the Hillary candidacy she'd be running a distant fourth or fifth probably somewhere behind Biden with poll numbers in the Lieberman range when he ran in 2004. She's a hawk, she sucks, and if she wins the primary I'm not voting for her.

Desperate, OP KS (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:00 PM)

Gore cant beat Rudy or Rommney because he is a phony.Most people who have lived 50 years and heard alarms before dont think global Warming is an issue and they have read all the articles. Terror is the issue and the dems dont know how to deal with it and particularly Gore doesnt. He is a wimp, a beta man, you wouldnt want him to take a hill with you. he doesnt have it and nobody cares about the Nobel prize. its phony put out by flaming liberals who love the UN. We were going to freeze, run out of commodities, be overpopulate, run out fo food. All these alarms came over the last 30 years and none of them were true and this one isnt either.

larlex (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:04 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=407002