More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

paul — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:13:53 GMT

Gore is making a mistake to endorse a candidate before the general campaign. It'll make his voice a partisan campaign ad wherever he goes. Turn attention to issues he feels are important, then jump on a campaign.

http://political-buzz.com/

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

bb — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:19:00 GMT

NOT!

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Ida Rose — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:19:25 GMT

"The falling out between Gore and the Clintons has become the stuff of political legend.”

Placed into the category of "Who gives a crap."

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

diane — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:23:23 GMT

I would be surprised if Gore endorsed someone other than either Edwards or Obama. They seem to be the most likely. I would love to see Edwards and Obama, plus their supporters team up together to derail Clinton.
As for the Republicans abandoning the party. I watch Washington Journal and when the topic is politics you get republican, tried and true Reagan conservatives, who call in and say they are voting for a dem. candidate. Mostly It is Obama because he evokes many of the same feelings that Reagan did. Pride in their country again, a feeling the respects their views, the can do spirit against anything, the optimism. ect.
They are perfectly aware of his progressive views but, don't care. they simply like him.
it is just such a pity my own party is too blind and dumb to see what a golden opportunity it would be to nominate Obama, have a landslide victory and begin a new era. Instead, they would rather support our weakest candidate in the general, keep the tiresome and damaging same old thing, same old corruption and same old ethic problems and same old partisan divides so nothing is accomplished. And drive away the many republicans willing to band with us. but, that candidate will only strengthen the republicans to come out in droves and the indies to hook up with the republicans.
Why is my party so dense and cannot learn from the same mistake they have been making for almost 30 years. Why are they so dumb when picking nominees.
Stick their heads in the sand and pretend their is no problem with this one this time.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Jt, okc — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:32:21 GMT

How about the those intelligent democrats who are appalled by the mainstream democrats accusing Gen. Patreaus of being a liar and traitor. MoveOn.org came out with an ad asking "would Patreaus betray us?" or something of that sort. Thats dishonorable and frankly un-american.
You can speak against the war all you want, but don't go as far as rooting for the enemy to win to improve your election chances.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Independent, Texas — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:39:30 GMT

First Read - a small correction:
"Here's an ex-Reagan voter explains why she’s casting a Dem ballot in the primary."

The article was written by KEN BRAITERMAN, so unless you know something that I dont' (always possible) the pronoun should be "he's".

This article represents precisely the views I hold. Even down to the previous voting history, Mr. Braiterman's assessment could have been describing my own position.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

American Voter — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:54:22 GMT

Who cares who fat Al endorses?

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:01:50 GMT

Al Gore is yesterday's news. A guy who won the 2000 election (supposedly) and has concerts that polluted the earth more and is the butt of more jokes then jay Leno can put out in a week. I hope he does run, maybe some new joke material will come out that I can use.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

LDP — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:05:24 GMT

As much as the current candidates know it is a very likely Mr. Gore himself will decide he will seek the Presidency and they keep trying to squash his support, they all have also tried to claim the prize, all giving stories of how it will help their candidacy.

All of this hype from one question asked from Harvard, in an interview where Mr. Gore gathered the top spot when they asked if he was going to endorse a candidate in the Primary and he said "he probably will".

No one seems to be addressing the REAL story where he has will not rule out a run for himself.

The endorsement belongs to Mr. Gore himself.

Time for a COOL change,
Gore
2008

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

LindainSFNM — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:16:55 GMT

And btw, any of the other candidates possibly making the running mate status, Al Gore has consistently stated sharing the same values and principles are required. That leave off Obama, Biden, Clinton DEFINITELY. Possibilities for Richardson, Dodd, Edwards on their environmental positions only. They have other issues to debate.

I still think a Gore/Dean ticket would be the best fit.

If that couldn't work because of Governor Dean's current committment, there is always, Kennedy Jr, Feingold or Boxer. Too there are others we may not be thinking of.

Superman wears Al Gore pajamas

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:19:01 GMT

LDP - Realistically, it's most likely too late for Gore to run himself at this point. He's been out of politics for almost 7 years now; he doesn't have the organization in place necessary to compete in primaries that are beginning in just a few months.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Justin, Orono, Maine — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:29:59 GMT

Gore should endorse himself [hence, run] or stay out of it.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

H P Boston — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:33:21 GMT

Gore for President is just a figment of the medias imagination! To bad they spend so much time and energy on BS. They are star gazers who are not worth believing anymore. They are after the almighty dollar and big Business is the Media!

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:36:07 GMT

As a Republican who voted Republican for every President from Nixon (1968) to Bush the Younger (2000), I understand Mr. Braiterman's feelings. I don't necessarily agree that they are a natural extension of the "government is the problem" school of conservatism, but I can understand how someone might equate the two.

There are, of course, things that government can and must do. These do NOT, manifestly, have to be done by the national government (education, health care, disaster relief, housing, etc. are the province of the States, and scientific research should be the province of the private sector), but whatever government does should be done efficiently, cost-effectively, and by the lowest level of government responsible for the project. None of this excuses incompetence in execution or planning.

I am deeply conflicted about who, or which party, to support next year. I have looked at many of the candidates and find them all deeply flawed, both by background, ideology, and positions. None of them (with the possible exception of Rep. Paul) understand the role of the Federal government as one of strictly limited and delegated powers. Sens. Biden and Dodd (but not Rep. Paul) understand the complexities of foreign policy, but they don't understand the role of government (at least as far as I can determine). Gov. Richardson has the broadest experience, but his positions (at least to the extent I can divine them) don't reflect his experience. As far as the "big six" are concerned (Giuliani, Romney, and McCain for the Republicans, Clinton, Obama and Edwards for the Democrats), the only one with relevant experience is McCain, and he doesn't seem to have learned much from it (based on his expressed positions). The others collectively don't have enough experience or understanding to justify keeping them in their current positions (for those who have current positions).

I would truly like to have someone to vote FOR next year, rather than voting against someone (as I did in every election since 1980), but I just don't see anyone worthy of a vote (and I mean from anyone, not just me). I find it hard to believe that this lot is the BEST the country can offer (if it is, public service has sunk to a new [and abysmal] low).

I wish I could just "vote the Republicans out" (like Mr. Braiterman is apparently prepared to do), but exchanging flawed Republicans with equally flawed Democrats is not the answer. What is apparently necessary is a new, constitutionalist but internationalist, third force. THAT would get my support (even if I know little about the candidate).

Anybody see anything like that out on the horizon?

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:36:49 GMT

Al Gore may be yesterday's news but if Democrats snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory (as they have done in the past) in the 2008 election, he may wind up being the Nixon (pardon me Mr. Gore for the comparison) of the new millenium. To those of you who may not remeber history, Nixon lost the election to Kennedy in 1960 and lost California's gubonatorial election in 1962 and said, "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around any more." The big difference is Gore is intelligent and has new ideas. Both of them were bland campaigners.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Dave M., Miamisburg, OH — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:43:11 GMT

Ida Rose wrote, "The falling out between Gore and the Clintons has become the stuff of political legend.”

Placed into the category of "Who gives a crap."

Right On! Sista.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

LindainSFNM — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:48:35 GMT

H P Boston, No It is the PEOPLE's desire.

For the same reason all the candidates are playing fantasy hoping he won't get in and endorse them, the people KNOW Al Gore is the true leader we want in the Oval Office.

From Iowa polls, to New Hampshire to California, to Idaho and Michigan. Al Gore has been the winner in all of them.

Honest, Passionate, Visionary Intelligent Statesman is Al Gore.

The corporate media is not exactly thrilled to jump on to a Peoples, not a Special Interest candidate as Al Gore is, but we can hope they will think of the better for the many instead of the power and wealth of the elite few.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

jt,okc ok — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:05:13 GMT

Richard Fifield,
I suggest you look into Mike Huckabee (www.mikehuckabee.com).

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:06:54 GMT

diane--Amen

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

nuanced — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:25:15 GMT

Inquiring minds want to know. Anybody know and willing to share the backstory on the Gore - Clinton falling out? Please, no snide remarks and made up stuff.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Independent, Texas — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:37:05 GMT

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA (Sent Monday, September 10, 2007 10:36 AM)

I am a former Republican and would love to see that party reestablished and affiliated with its founding principles. Howevever, it is not happening with the current slate of candidates with the exception of Dr. Paul who is more libertarian in his leaning and will, therefore, most likely not get the R nomination.

Seems as if you answered your own question! If constitutional interpretation is your primary concern, then Dr. Paul is your candidate.

If the question is more of a pragmatic nature (who can actually win), then there are different answers.

You know that I share your frustration about the overreaching of the Federal level of government. However, in this particular race, I'm willing to settle for:

- Someone who won't turn the constitution into a pretzel!

- Someone who won't use the Dept of Just Us as a political tool to destroy the other party, for example, would be a big seller for me.

- Someone who commits to ending our involvement in Iraq - not just lip-movement about it. (Yes, I understand that it will take time. I am not proposing that "precipitous" withdrawal, which btw no one has ever suggested to begin with.)

- Someone who is willing to really address UHC even if it means a full-scale no hold barred fight to get it funded and not just coordinating the attempts by state levels of government.

- Someone who will vigorously fight for ethics in lobbyist participation.

- Someone who understands that "immigration policy" and "illegal alien enforcement" are NOT the same thing would have a huge impact on my voting decision.

I will vote in the general elections for the Democrat nominated whomever that may be as each of these candidates have, at least, proffered opinions close to my own in these areas.

So far, Edwards is the only one addressing all this directly, although Biden's view of Iraq and his outrage over the Libby sentence commutation really draws me. IMHO, Obama and Clinton are using the topics to fight with each other but I am not impressed with either's specific positions. Obama is too "dreamy" per his written position statements of these issues. I do like his openess to full diplomacy efforts but I don't see the pragmatic steps needed to make things actually happen.

Clinton is too "combative" for me. I actually think she would be a formidable administrator but her rage-inducing election would likely stall any attempt she would make to get things done. I shudder to even think how awful the campaigns will be should she garner the nomination.

Things could change though as we are just now really getting into the home stretch for nominations. Even though it seems the campaigns have been going on forever!.)

With the exception of Dr. Paul, I find ALL of the republican candidates to be simply, amazingly, and horrifyingly awful. I sincerely do not understand how anyone can take any of them seriously.

I'm not at all concerned about all Dem majorities in both houses combined with a Dem President. This would be only for 2 years. In 2010, another congressional race will be in place and by that time the Rs will have regrouped and will mount a vigorous campaign.

That is another reason I want the Dems to sweep in 2008. The Rs need to have this as an impetus to kick the neocons out and I hope that such a blistering defeat will help in that goal.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Independent, Texas — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:53:35 GMT

nuanced (Sent Monday, September 10, 2007 11:25 AM)

It's news to me as well.

I know that Mr. Clinton was a little irked that Gore's campaign didn't want him to actively campaign for Gore and, in retrospect, that may have been a mistake on Gore's part. However, Gore's position on this was that he wanted to win on his own without be perceived as "Clinton's heir". The other part of the percieved distancing was Gore's heartfelt pain that Clinton's, er, excesses in his private life put Gore in the uncomfortable position of having to support Clinton-the-president while sincerely condemning the behavior of Clinton-the-man.

I don't remember even in the autobiographies written by both Clintons that they ever expressed anything but respect for Mr. Gore. It has been a long time since I read those books and I have to admit that I just couldn't finish the one by Hillary Clinton (Boring!). My memory on this, therefore, could be at fault.

Looking forward to any answers you receive on this question.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:57:13 GMT

Al Gore as Richard nixon????
Hmmm...
Hopefully Al won't break into the watergate hotel...

Nuanced:

I googled Bill Clinton Al Gore fight.....
or bill clinton al gore fighting with each other....
several interesting stories about those two.....

According to several stories, What broke the camel's back for Gre was when Clinton acknowledged the affair with Monica. He never forgave Bill for that after all the time he spent defending his boss....

On the other hand, Bill got mad at Al because he thought he had given Gore the blueprints to victory, all Al had to do was follow them and he did not....

Bottom line....Al tried to distance himself from Clinton and thought he could run on his own and win on his own. But you know something is wrong when you cannot win your own home state.......

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Pete Caloger Bushkill, PA 18324 — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:10:05 GMT

Here's what I remember....Gore, and other key members of Clinton's administration, were made to look like first class fools for continuing to support the president when Bill was caught in his "never had sex with that woman" lie. Gore did not allow Clinton a role in his presidential campaign and many suspect that Gore would have won if Clinton were involved. Also, Clinton expressed criticisms about the way in which Gore was conducting his campaign.
I respected his conviction to keep a proven campaigner and vote-getter out of his campaign.
And I would be happy to see Gore run again.
I am worried about the democratic choices right now. Hillary Clinton is a hack and a fraud. The rest of the field just doesn't cut it for a variety of reasons. Gore is an intelligent, experienced politician who would oppose wars of the republican variety and focus attention on the global climate crisis and other issues of import. And please forgive me, but only an imbecile (or a partisan republican) still believes that we are not in an environmental crisis.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, N.Y. — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:18:17 GMT

Obama '08 This guy is the real stuff, intelligent and a concensus builder and that is what competent government should be about. This guy would re-invigorate the political system in America and for this reason alone (although there are many others, not to mention his foresight to oppose the incursion into Iraq [speech October 2002] while recognizing that the true battle was against the terrorists in Afghanistan - [now holed up in Pakistan]), I support his candidacy without reservation. This is the first time that I have been excited about a presidential candidate in my adult life (btw, I am 55 tomorrow - my shared grief with all of those other 9/11 babies). I realize that Obama is not Jesus but I think that his leadership would be a great boon to our nation (that is still the greatest experiment and experience in government known to man). And as a sop to Republicans, I have to say that I also like and respect Ron Paul who is not afraid to tell the truth, no matter how unpopular that may be with his party's base. But to keep relevant, I'll end by saying, that I will not be surprised if Al Gore endorses Obama. And that is not just wishful thinking. I think that both are sincere about their passion for this country and in their belief that we can still do great things. That audacity of hope is pretty audacious.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Class Warrior, D.C. — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:37:18 GMT

I'd vote for Gore in a heartbeat, I agree there's nobody much worth voting FOR, everyone's just voting against (I plan to vote AGAINST the Hillary machine, which has become virtually indistinguishable from the Republican machne---both rich, corrupt, and WAY too big for the good of America.) But I'd vote FOR Al Gore. I suspect he'll endorse Edwards, but whomever he endorses (unless the snowballl in hell stays unmelted and it's Hillary), I will have to give serious thought to---anyone Gore endorses deserves a second look.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

lek — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:56:53 GMT

I think the Clintons-Gore feuds started during Monica Lewisky's scandal. Probably Gore didn't give Bill Clinton 100% backing during that time. I don't know this for fact but i am guessing that is what happen. I don't really care about all this power monger belt way insiders.

Vote Change for 2008

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Rummage — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:00:51 GMT

Gore's endorsement will be that candidates kiss of death.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:17:05 GMT

Independent in Texas: It seems to me that GWB truly succeeded in his goal of being a uniter and not a divider. I doubt, however, that he intended the consequences to result in a country united in their desire to see him and his cohorts turned out of power. This has truly been a two term nightmare and the trouncing that the Republicans will receive in '08 (no matter whom the nominees may be) should provide them with the opportunity to re-prioritorize their selection criteria so that in the future, we will be presented with candidates from two parties who will respect the Constitution, present C.V.s that speak of competence and who will address issues that are truly important to this country (instead of railing hysterically about social issues in which government should have no business).

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Abraham, SF, CA — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:20:28 GMT

Al Gore will endorse Himself.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Independent, Texas — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:22:35 GMT

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Monday, September 10, 2007 2:17 PM)

Your prediction of the post 08 political environment is exactly what I'm hoping to see.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:36:12 GMT

Independent: I agree with you

I read her book and it was a good way to go to sleep
She probably does that to a lot of people when she speaks at the rallies.

The only reason women stay awake at her rallies is because they want to jump her husband's bones.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:12:35 GMT

Mitchell--

It would be great if your vision would come from a Democratic victory in 2008.

Unfortunately, a Democratic victory will not bring that result. What it is likely to bring is further disrespect for the Constitution's limits on government power, because the Democratic candidates are united (for the most part) in a desire to see a more expansive Federal role in society.

To me (at least), that is not a respect for the Constitution.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, N.Y. — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:54:12 GMT

Richard, with all due respect, I think that it would be a vast simplification to assert that Democrats are for the most part, only desirous of a more expansive role of the federal government in society. The goal of the Democratic party from the inception of political parties in this country has been ostensibly (the key word being ostensibly) to ensure that the little guy had a chance in this society. The Democrats initially were the 'states rights' party when this was seen as the best means to protect the working guy from the landed aristocracy and to encourage social mobility. Then during the age of the progressives and finally during the Great Depression, the Dems switched their strategy to a strong central government because it was through that vehicle that they were best able to achieve these goals. Later of course 'states rights' became code for segregation and even later for prolife interests. So there have always been hidden agendas. Certainly the Supreme Court decision, stopping the Florida recount in 2000, made by the conservative justices, was a severe disruption of states rights. In any case, my point is that when disruption of the Federalist system suited their aims, both parties have used the central government to their purposes. In any case there has to be a balance. The Articles of Confederation were a failure because they lacked the balance of a well working federalist system. There are good regulations and there are bad ones and the goal, as Reagan once aptly stated, is not to throw the baby out with the dish water (yes, he said dish water). The process should always be one of evolution. Regulations that are seen to be detrimental or intrusive are to be tailored or eliminated but still, sporting events without regulations would be mayhem.
Anyway, my previous comment was meant to be politically neutral. Although, I am an unabashed Democrat, I was stating that we are all entitled to a choice of candidates that meet the above said basic requirements (my former comment), no matter what side of the political spectrum they represent. Damn' it, I ust want candidates who can put two sentences together and won't speak down to me or lie to me or lie to the Congress and then act in a monarchal manner in pursuing policy. I want these candidates to have an understanding of the Constitution so that, at the very least, they don't tread on the Bill of Rights.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

nuanced — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:39:14 GMT

Thanks jerry, Pete and Independent for input on the feud.

I think Al would have walked away with the election if not for the backlash and message-sending anti-Democrat vote over Bill's affair. Al might have won with Bill's help but it would not have made up for the votes lost over Bill's idiocy. We truly have Bill Clinton to blame for the long national nightmare with Bush. I think Al couldn't stomach being associated with Bill after being lied to and I don't blame him; I know I felt betrayed.

I also think Al could have squeaked by if he had not made the stupid mistake of picking Lieberman for VP; it dampened the enthusiasm of the liberal base while the evangelical right wasn't about to go with a jew -- so where was the gain? Maybe the DLC made him go with Lieberman and that ticked him off? Was Lieberman really his choice?

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Jerome, Queens, NY — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:25:30 GMT

Clearly the prospect of Gore endorsing anyone is sending Hillary Clinton supporters into a panic. They seem predisposed to the notion that Gore will not be endorsing Hillary, I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Hillary has been complicit with Republicans on every major issue of concern to Democrats?

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:10:03 GMT

Mitchell--

I cannot quarrel with most of your historical analysis, as, indeed, it is quite accurate. The original Democratic Party (the party of Jefferson and Jackson) did stand foresquare for individual liberty and limited government--exactly what the Constitution requires. And while both parties have been willing to expand governmental power, by far the greatest and most intrusive expansions have come since the New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society--all Democratic initiatives--until the recent Administration's "security obsession" efforts ran roughshod over much of the Bill of Rights.

I am no fan of the current Administration's position on the Bill of Rights, or of its obsession with security. It is wrong, as is the focus on a "moralist" agenda supported by the so-called Religious Right (which is neither, in my opinion). But I cannot separate those wrong-headed policies form the equally wrong-headed efforts to expand the reach and scope of the general government into areas that it was never intended to enter (education, health care, urban planning, housing, the list goes on), and I cannot, for any reason, give those who advocate such expansions a pass just because I like their civil liberties policies or don't like the current Administration's.

To me, the Constitution is a seamless whole, and stretching, distorting or ignoring any one part is the same as doing it to the whole. I guess I just don't understand why others can't see that.

Unless they don't want to see that, that is.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:59:05 GMT

Richard: Well said. I can't argue with your basic tenets and know better the most how even the most well intentioned interventions of the federal government, in terms of social engineering, go awry (although social security and medicare have provided a good safety net for the elderly). But somehow, within the framework of the Constitution, there has to be a way to ensure that the concept of 'economies of scale' (WalMart, a frightening example on the retail level, with destructive implications that go beyond simple economies of scale) doesn't act to ultimately sclerose the social mobility that is really the cornerstone of the pursuit of happiness and is what makes this democracy a thriving entity.

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

daylightahead, Cambridge, MA — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:50:17 GMT

Mass For Gore

http://www.mass4gore.com was recently mentioned in the Boston Globe...

More oh-eight: Wooing Gore

Jessica, Wisconsin — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:42:24 GMT

League of Conservation Voters releases environmental ratings of 2008 Presidential candidates - Obama is at the top of the list!
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org

There is more info. on his record here.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/14/9017/67671