Gore is making telephone calls, so says Al Hunt (Capital Gang)

[Samantha]

The statement was made this evening in reference to the question of a segment dealing with "is Dean the official frontrunner." Hunt also volunteered Gore had said he believed he could beat Dean in the primaries.

I am sure this post will anger the passionate Dean supporters. To tell you the truth, I have nothing against Dean. I think of the current nine, he is probably the best politician. So I am posting this info not to anger Dean supporters, but to give a glimmer of hope to the die-hard Gore proponents, of which I am one.

I truly believe Gore is the only candidate who can beat Bush* in 2004. Everyone who has a passion for a candidate is likely to disagree, and that's okay. That aside, I also believe Gore is the best qualified to land at 1600 Pennsylvania and start undoing the harm Bush* has done (that which can be reversed). Gore had the equivalent of a co-presidency with Clinton for eight years. Additionally, he has an international expertise and a sense of diplomacy I feel is lacking in the other nine candidates. The restoration of our integrity throughout the rest of the world is of the utmost importance.

I hope Hunt knows what he is talking about. He tacitly suggested many Democrats believe Dean might take it, and they are opposed to his having the nomination because he is too far left to win. (I personally do not feel Dean is that far left). I do not think Dean can carry the South, and I do not think he has the international experience to deal with our myriad of crises. Please do not respond that neither did Bush* because that is part of the reason we are sinking in the international quicksand we are now in.

I think the original Hill article stating Gore is under pressure to rethink his decision is true. I think the denial by the Gore spokesperson later in the day was simply to quash the rumor for the advantage of time. I don't think Gore has made his decision, but I think the chances are better today after listening to Hunt than I did last night after reading the disclaimer.

The bitter irony of this story might be (if it's true) that some of the elite Dems who brushed Gore off in favor of their Bush-lite preferreds are taking a second look at the man simply because they prefer Dean less. It's still the people's choice.

[Maple]

1. Well

two times he's lost already.

So even tho you have guaranteed winners out there fighting...hey bring back the two time loser, and do it again.

[Skittles]

4. GORE DID NOT LOSE THE NOV 2000 ELECTION

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GayboyBilly]

24. THATS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND DON'T NONE OF YOU FORGET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Samantha]

6. He only lost his presidential bid in 1988

He was only 39 years old. He thought it was not the right time to run, but his father sat him down and talked him into it. Gore should have listened to his own gut instincts. His first bid was premature.

I certainly hope you are not counting 2000 as a loss. Gore won that one.

[Maple]

10. Skittles and Samantha

Yeah he did.

Complain all you want...count and recount those votes...but yeah he did.

If he'd been popular, he'd have had a landslide, and the ballot count would never have been in doubt.

[joshcryer]

13. Oh c'mon, he did what he did in spite of the media.

I don't care if he didn't win with a land-slide. The man got more votes.

[Samantha]

25. There's no question Gore won the popular vote

and no one can truthfully say how many more votes Gore actually received but were not counted.

The State of Florida should have been kicked out of the process from the beginning for cheating. Florida has a history of "election irregularity" and it should have been barred from participating in the electoral college. The fact that it wasn't only encourages other states under the stranglehold of a particular coterie of people to do the same thing in future elections.

A "win" accomplished by the way Bush* accomplished it does not count in my book as a "win." It counts as a theft.

[w4rma]

27. Al Gore and Joe Lieberman *won* the election in 2000.

Al Gore kicked Shrub's pants off in Florida by ~46,000 votes. He beat Shrub nationwide be more than half a million votes. Had Florida been awarded to Al Gore as the voters in Florida wanted then Al Gore would have won by 45 (46 without the abstention) electoral votes.

"More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html

~46,000 is the margin that Al Gore *actually* won Florida by. *That* was the intent of the voters. Not some measly ~200 votes. Also, *without* those ~46K votes Al Gore still won according to Florida law (had SCOTUS not *unconstitutionally* interfered).
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/yourvote.html
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058793
http://www.geocities.com/dearkandb/supremeqanda.html
http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/

Also, Al Gore got more popular votes that any other presidential candidate in the history of the United States, except for the time that Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes. This was done while fending off an attack from the left *and* while fighting against a heavily biased media.
Sources:
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/whistleblower/palast.shtml
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=181&row=1
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=90&forum=DCForumID45
http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is at least dimpled. Example
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 107 votes.

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is detached from one or more corners. Example
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 72 votes.

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is fully detached from ballot.
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 430 votes.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/yourvote.html

For the count we've been keeping since Election Day, these are now the final numbers for a state-wide cumulative media recount.
http://www.unknownnews.net/election2000.html#count

[DemNoir]

82. How soon people forget!

This guy was a bad candidate that turned a campaign that he should have won easily into a race. Why give him another chance?

[dragonquest8]

84. it is just more than ridiculous

Don't spew that kind of wingnut's talking point
you make me :puke:

[BeachBuckeye]

89. I'd be very interested to know......

who these "guaranteed winners" are? This is my 11th presidential campaign and I can tell you that if the infighting and devisivness that permeates our party continues on thru next year's election, we will lose and lose big. THAT I will "guarantee." Several times before I have seen the present divisions exhibited and we got our heads handed to us on a platter.

[Abe Linkman]

2. "I think " and "I believe"

Wouldn't it have been more honest (and honorable) to put in the subject line: "I Support Al Gore, And You Should Too"

[Samantha]

9. No

The point of this post is not to persuade DU'ers to support Gore. Most of us already have our passionate favorites, and anyone who has read any of my posts on the subject the last two years know my position.

The point of my post is to address the two newsbreaks on this subject discussed on DU Friday (yesterday). They contained conflicting information. I was literally high when I read the Hill article and extremely depressed when I read the contradiction.

As far as who people support, I think everyone should support the person who best represents their interests. For me, that's Al Gore. I have been a fan of his for years. For you, it might be someone else. You have to make that decision yourself, and I would respect that decision.

[joshcryer]

14. You know, I wasn't a big fan of him until right before the war.

Well, that's not entirely true. I didn't know much about him in all honesty until the 2000 elections, and I stood behind him greatly, especially at the point where he stepped down (that's a difficult thing for someone to do, no matter how you feel about it). That man has integrity, this much is for sure.

Anyway, right before the war I was telling people here on DU that Gore would stand up. And he did. I still have quite a few of his speeches archived on my HDD somewhere.

And about the above poster. Your topic is accurate, I see no reason to have changed it.

[Skittles]

3. not only that, but the SWEET REVENGE

oh I'm just SALIVATING AT THE THOUGHT.

[joshcryer]

15. The only thing that would slap the GOPers in the face more...

...is Hillary in '04. :D

[IndianaGreen]

5. Having Gore run again as the anti-Dean candidate sounds far-fetched

I saw Al Hunt say that, but I can't visualize that happening. Why would Gore help the very same people that back-stabbed him and did everything possible to derail any attempt by Gore to run again?

If they want to stop Dean, they will have to coalesce around a prowar candidate, and that means that 3 of the Lieberman-Edwards-Kerry-Gephardt prowar group will have to drop out.

[Samantha]

22. Gore running as the anti-Dean candidate, I think is an overstatement

I have thought from the beginning of Gore's announcement that he would not run that it was based on the fact the party said it would not support him. I think the DLC has a grip on party influence, and it had its heart set on Lieberman, Kerry or Edwards.

I think Clinton has a powerful influence over the DLC, and has made a deal with the devil (I know I will get flamed for saying that, but I don't care). There were many rumors that Clinton was approached by Bush 1 to drop out in 1992 because the Repubs thought he was the only Dem running that could take Bush. Clinton refused to accommodate them (in exchange for a free, clean ride in 1996) -- thus the ensuring Clinton wars were initiated to make his presidency a living political hell.

But Clinton has matured over time, with the country being split evenly, he saw an opportunity to grease the political wheels of his favorite future candidate, Hillary. I think the Clintons' accommodations to the Bush* pResidency is a tacit suggestion of that." I think Lieberman, Kerry or Edwards would lose in 2004, as would Gephardt, but an uncumbent Gore would have been an obstacle to a Hillary run in 2008. Those around Clinton, I think now, have seen the numbers the polls are showing and I believe it is they who might be approaching Gore. I think they do want to win, but they don't think Dean can cross the finish line first.

In other words, the powerbrokers of our Democratic party have had a rude political awakening and are now regrouping. Part of that regrouping might involve heading off an impasse at the convention by extending an olive branch to Gore now instead of at the bewitching hour.

Quite frankly, I find it fascinating. I really think the arrogant DLC has gotten its comeuppance, and it's about time. It totally underestimated the anti-Bush* sentiment among the party ranks, and in so doing, put itself and this party in a likely position to lose in 2004.

[devarsi]

28. Thats Funny, I see Dean as the Anti-Gore Campaign

here's my thread on it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=119713&mesg_id=119713

[Kahuna]

80. I don't believe that report by Al Hunt. I think it is a rumor or

part of a whisper campaign and Hunt should know better than to repeat crap like that.

[jfkennedy]

7. Gore won in 2000 by luck

Gore won in 2000 by luck. The events that led to his victory over Bush are complex and yet tragic. But no way can he win in 2004.The DLC and the DNC will work against a 2004 victory.

The Naderites never got over it.Gore was not Clinton.

Gore is way to liberal for the Republican Democrats. Its tragic that he did not win. I'm sure he would of been the greatest presidents in our history that makes it even more tragic.

That said Clark is the only one that can beat Bush. Or Ted Kennedy perhaps.

[SharonAnn]

19. Hmm, Gore is too liberal but Kennedy isn't?

Is that what you really said?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

40. History is on Gore's side

Every presidential candidate who won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote and ran in the following election won. I refer to Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland as examples.

[Pepperbelly]

42. the Andrew Jackson metaphor is sweeter yet when you consider ...

that he beat John Q. Adams and was, of course, from Tennesee.

[HungryLoser]

56. He did win

and he can again, we need him.
I agree that he would have been one of the best ever. He also has the perfect face for currency. How can we get him to run again? E-mail him at the college where he teaches? Can we write him in? People wrote in Teddy Roosevelt.

[Kahuna]

81. You had me when you said Clark can beat bush. But...

Ted Kennedy????????? No way.

[whathappened]

8. just can't make up my mind

about who to support this time around , dean sounds like he has some fight in him , and kerry to , but what makes you all think gore could'nt be a winner again , he won the last one and if he did run and win the primarys would'nt all of you get behind our suppose to be presadent and vote him back again ???? just asking

[tedoll78]

11. They're all men of excellence.

I favor Dean, but I certainly understand the attraction to Kerry; Kerry's a damn good man. And Gore not running again would've broken my political heart had the Doctor not been drawing my interest.

Like it or not, Gore v Bush II would be a rematch. Gore would come with all of the baggage from the past, but we need not forget that Bush has been handing us ammo for the past three years. With any of these three men challenging Bush, I think it would be close. I would vote for Gore again in the general, but he dropped himself from contention, and I take him at his word.

It's the closest thing in politics to being jilted by a lover; you're hurt for a while, and then you meet someone new and move on. Sure, you look at the past and wonder what could have been, but you're really REALLY happy with the new guy. (does that even make sense?!)

[Samantha]

29. "It's the closest thing in politics to being jilted by a lover"

That's an excellent way to say it. However, I never really thought the decision was made entirely by Gore. He was moving around Washington in early 2002 telling people he was definitely running. There have just been too many bizzare things around this series of events for me to believe Gore withdrew simply because he didn't want to run.

Remember when he did Saturday Nite Live he had made a statement he would announce his decision in January. The day after that show aired, he was sitting in front of a camera telling Leslie Stahl he would not run. That was just too strange. All on this on the heels of a couple of Dems publicly telling Gore he should not run. Barney Frank told Gore to get of Kerry's way (the fact Frank wanted Kerry's Senate seat should Kerry leave it of course had nothing to do with Frank's statement) and the DLC made a lot of noise at various times indicating it didn't want Gore to run.

I have never "moved on" as you were fortunate enough to do -- I have joined the draftGore movement and kept hope alive. Regardless of whom you support, I wish you luck.

[IndianaGreen]

30. I agree, I fully expected Gore to run again

and he seemed a lot more atractive a candidate once he got rid of those idiotic handlers he had in 2000, including the insufferable Donna Brazile (sic).

Gore was right on target in his criticism of Bush's march towards war, and Gore would have earned the respect and support of many people that had not voted for him in 2000.

Then, all of a sudden, Gore pulls a Perot and drops out on a flimsy excuse.

[joshcryer]

32. I know. Damn.

Annoys me just thinking about it.

[Samantha]

39. Did you notice this "coincidence"

In its various rumblings about its displeasure of another Gore run, the DLC leaked the fact half its members hoped Gore would not run. Many people were burned out from election 2000 and couldn't go through that again.

During his announcement that he would not run, Gore said if he ran in 2004, the focus would inevitably turn to the election 2000 controversy. The 2004 campaign should be about the future, Gore said (repeating a statement I have plainly heard Clinton make). Many party members are very tired from the election 2000 controversy, and quite frankly, he said, I am very sensitive to that.

IT'S THE SAME SENTIMENT EXACTLY -- SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WORDING BUT EXACTLY THE SAME THOUGHT. And the DLC was the first to put that out there .... It pulled the political rug out from underneath him because, as a proponent of the Big Business conglomerates, it highly disapproved of Gore's populist campaign. And it already had Hillary warming up in the bullpit for 2008.

[treepig]

85. "They're all men of excellence" . . . .

well, without the lipstick i'd almost agree they're alll men. . .

[devarsi]

23. Gore could win, so could Dean

and so could Kerry.

IMO, generally, when a poster says that Candidate X has NO chance of winning, it's because he/she perceives Candidate X as a threat to his/her candidate.

[Samantha]

34. I tend to agree with that statement

but I honestly do not see any of the currently-announced candidates as having as good of a chance to win as Gore. If I could be so crass, if this were a literal horse race, how would you bet? Most people would look at this history of the races, and put their money on a past winner. Gore is the only one who has taken Bush* on and won. The Republican party (Rove) paid one million dollars for an indepth analysis of how Gore won the popular vote in 2000...and people think Rove is a political genius. (I don't agree with that statement, I think Rove observes no boundaries and just plays dirtier). But if you do agree that Rove is a formidable political opponent, what would you think about his paying that kind of money to study Gore's strategy?

[JustJoe]

12. Why exactly did Gore drop out

in the first place this time?
To spare the nation a repeat of
the suffering of 2000 or somesuch?
So if he drops back in, what has
changed in the meanwhile?

[joshcryer]

16. I think food poisoning, he said something about a ‘gut feeling...’

Poor guy... should've taken some antacid before making that decision!

[loyalsister]

72. The DLC conspiracy theorists believe differently, but

he said that he thought he'd be able to use his abilities better towards unseating the current administration in other ways. I heard rumors of the media stuff, and hoped that that was part of his agenda. He's been keeping quiet for the most part.
I tend to think that he would be able to serve us better by not running. I would support a different candidate, because I want one who has clearly been hungry for the job. I'm not comfortable with the appearance of indeciviness of whether or not the candidate wants it or not here. I'm not a mind reader. Also, without saying "get over it," I do want to say that 2000 is a part of history and we have bigger challenges in the present to deal without refocusing any energy and attention in that direction during this election. Let's keep our eyes on the prize and on the current actions and misdeeds of this administration.
I was an ardent supporter in 2000, but I think we can do that best with one of the other candidates.

[Larkspur]

17. Didn't Gore say yesterday that he was NOT running?

I don't have the link to the article, but it had said that Gore was amused at the stories predicting his change of mind to run for the Presidency. He said that he was not changing his mind about not running.

[joshcryer]

20. No, I thought the same thing.

Apparently he personally hasn't actually said anything about it. This is all third person stuff. One can find something amusing without actually denying a potential...

[karlschneider]

21. I read that somewhere too but can't recall where...

:eyes:

[Pastiche423]

43. Gore still not running

One of Gore's longtime political advisers told CNN Friday that Gore told him that "nothing has changed."

"Every conversation I have had with him leads me to believe there is no way -- under no circumstances," the Gore associate said. Asked specifically about the most recent conversation, the source said, "He was somewhat amused but was clear nothing has changed."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/gore/index.html

[joshcryer]

47. That's not a denial, though.

All he'd need to do is come out and say it. No big deal.

[Samantha]

48. Okay, I now know how to play this game

He was clear that nothing HAS changed.

He was unclear whether anything WOULD change in the near future.

It's all in the verb and what your definition of is was.

[Pastiche423]

50. WOW!

Talk about denial!

:wow:

[Samantha]

52. That Inside the Beltway culture people are so fond of criticising

encompasses a couple of hard and fast rules. "Never let anyone know what you're actually thinking" is one of those. Gore's very good at that, and it's the mark of an extremely well-polished politician.

Compare that approach to the Bush* technique, and you will realize why Bush 1 left the East for Texas years ago. His politics didn't play well here.

No one will know what Gore will do until the last minute, but we are better able to conjugate verbs as a result of the Clinton-Gore years...or were...or will be.

[joshcryer]

18. Only thing I disagree with here is that Gore is more left than Dean.

In my humble opinion. The real thing Gore has above the others is name recognition, and perhaps the potential for getting the nation riled up because he won last time and so on.

In fact, that could be the reason he opted not to run again in the first place. He specifically didn't want to bring up any issues about him being the legitimate winner last time, because it could be twisted so many ways by the media.

[w4rma]

26. Al Gore is working behind the scenes on building a liberal media network

...
Gore has also been helpful to Chicago venture capitalists Sheldon and Anita Drobny, who announced in February that they planned to fund a liberal radio network to counterbalance such conservative commentators as Rush Limbaugh. Several sources said Gore has helped introduce the Drobnys to such Hollywood political forces as producer-director Rob Reiner. Comedian Al Franken, author of the book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," is considering hosting a show on the Drobnys' network, and added that the couple has approached Gore to do regular essays. Anita Drobny declined to comment about any venture involving Gore, telling TIME: "I'm not at liberty to say anything about that. As far as Vice President Gore, you'll have to call him to ask him about his project and what they are doing." Gore and Hyatt did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,459345,00.html

...
Gore has also been spending time with Chicago venture capitalists Anita and Sheldon Drobny, who have vowed to spend $10 million to start a liberal talk radio network to counter conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. Time.com says Gore introduced the Drobnys to actor-director Rob Reiner and other liberal Hollywood heavyweights.
...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/18/politics/main559275.shtml

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

33. wow

Building a liberal media network? Is that anything like the internet?

In all seriousness, Al Gore is not electable. The man couldn't inspire a drowning man to gasp for air.

JC

[IndianaGreen]

35. Al Gore is not only electable, but he was also elected!

But only in America the candidate with the most votes is not allowed to win!

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

36. charisma

Actually he got the bigger share of the popular vote, which isn't the same thing as getting elected.

In any case, I think he lacks charisma. He comes across as very intelligent, very capable, very presidential, even. Maybe a little smarmy at times, which is ok by me. But utterly uninspiring... he's like drying paint.

JC

[HungryLoser]

64. So... should we elect another actor?

I'd rather have a good president than a good-looking president. At least he didn't have to take speech classes for a year, so he doesn't sound drunk all the time.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

51. true

As a matter of fact, I did miss his speeches before the war. I'm basing my assessment entirely on his pitiful performance in the last presidential election campaign.

JC

[joshcryer]

57. I thought he did really well during the election, given the media.

I mean, seriously, you don't have to go far to see just how utterly biased the media was against him. It was amazing that he got more votes with the level of propaganda that was out there against him.

Anyway... go to algore04.com, they have videos of his speeches. You'll be impressed if you watch a couple.

[Tennessee Gal]

93. Pitiful performance? He won!

How is it pitiful when he won?

You really should read what he was saying in the fall of last year!

Al Gore - September 23, 2002

IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM
Al Gore
Former U.S. Vice President

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

[nannygoat]

88. In contrast to the moronic buffoon who sits in Al's house today?

And you need to check out this excellent series from the Daily Howler if you believe any of that crap about Al saying he invented the Internet:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh122002.shtml

Frankly, I'd rather have intelligence, attention to detail, good heartedness, empathy, love of country, not evil, and a command of the English language in my president than "charismatic" any day.

[newyorican]

31. Dominos Pizza?

:shrug:

[maine_raptor]

55. Could be Papa Gino's

:shrug:

[kskiska]

37. I have to wonder WHO exactly is putting the pressure on him?

Did the Dems in Washington finally wake up? And will they support him totally this time? They didn't during the recount. It was the Dems who pressured him to give it up. It was the powers that be in the party who knocked him out of the 2004 race in the first place. Are they now supporting him? inquiring minds want to know.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Yep, inquiring minds want to know the level of treachery the DLC...

Yep, inquiring minds want to know the level of treachery the DLC is willing to go to achieve its evil goals. And once they are done using Gore, will they discard him in favor of their pathetic group of candidates?

[Samantha]

44. I don't pretend to know the answer

but I do think this: the Democratic strategists have seen their plan to eliminate the frontrunner potentially backfire big time in their political face. A lot of money expected to have been donated remains in the bank. Previous big backers have remained uncommitted. Money talks. The silence is deafening. The statement has often been made that many Dems have just not gotten behind one of the nine. I think this is true. On the other hand, a recent poll two weeks ago showed 74 percent of Dems would vote for Al Gore.

The best message in this lesson is that it is not the prerogative of the Democratic elite to choose our candidate any more than it is the prerogative of the Republican elite (via the Supreme Court) to choose our president. It's still a government by the people for the people.

The DLC made a massive underestimation of the anti-Bush* feeling among its rank and file when it opted to give Gore the brush and run a Bush-lite candidate in his stead. It also seriously underestimated the anti-war sentiment existing among the rank and file.

[Generic Other]

69. Hurray for Grassroots revolution!

"The best message in this lesson is that it is not the prerogative of the Democratic elite to choose our candidate any more than it is the prerogative of the Republican elite (via the Supreme Court) to choose our president. It's still a government by the people for the people."

[Eloriel]

45. I am so totally over Gore

it's hard to even read this thread.

He's a man of the past. An important past, a painful past, but the past. It's a different time now. (No, I'm not saying either "move on" or "get over it," because we will NEVER get over it and shouldn't -- but TIME has moved on.)

I believe the DLC -- and possibly the RNC -- is trying to foment disruption and disharmony among Dems with these rumors. The Hillary stuff, the Gore stuff, the stupid polls that for some inexplicable reason keep bringing up people who at this moment aren't even the hell IN the race -- why would they do that? WHO would do that? Only to cause confusion, disharmony, disruption to those who are running.

People like Howard Dean who can't be controlled by the DLC.

Eloriel

[wabeewoman]

46. I totally supported Gore

and thought he would make a great president. But the reasons he gave for not running in 04 haven't changed. And I know quite a few people who really lost it for him in the debates (remember the sighing?). I do think he would beat bush (again) but I also think Dean will beat bush. For some reason there seems to be a lot of fear about Dean from the Dem leadership. I wonder if it is because they don't have control of him.

[Samantha]

60. I think there are three reasons the DLC doesn't want Dean

The DLC is moving the party to the right. Dean is leaning left. The DLC strategists think the liberals are the party's destruction. Independents and moderate Republicans will not vote for Dean (so says the DLC).

As far as control, I am not sure that's the issue. They couldn't control Gore (but they did show him the road), they couldn't control Clinton (but he did win two terms for the Dems so they overlooked it) but it is not Dean's turn. It's Kerry's turn, or Lieberman's.

The Dems think in order to win we must carry the South. Dean has the right position on guns, but his signature on the civil unions bill in Vermont will be a devastating tool Rove will use to panic the Southern Baptists in the Bible Belt. There will only be some OPEN discussion on Dean's support of gay and lesbian rights, but the thing Dean will not be able to respond to will be the way Rove will fight the fight through cultural venues. Southern Baptist ministers will preach from the pulpits if Dean is elected it's only a matter of time until homosexuality will be taught in the public schools. Local civic organizations will spread the same word. In order to protect your children from a life of homosexuality and preserve their salvation, you must vote against Howard Dean.

I spent many of my early years in Tennessee, and I can see it and hear it before it starts. But the hardest part for Dean is that it would not be out in the open where he could respond, but will be conducted in an under-the-radar manner.

I think Gore would stand a much better chance of carrying some Southern States and looking at it analytically, that is one reason the DLC would lean more towards him than Dean. Gore also volunteered during the Vietnam war and has a history of service. (Military service is not an issue to me but it matters to some).

The DLC mistakenly thinks Dean's anti-war strategy will increase the public perception the Dems are weak on national defense at a time when "we are at war." Of course, Gore spoke out against the war (he was one of the first to do so) but he is regarded as a hawk in the Democratic party. So Gore would have (in the DLC's eyes) an edge over Dean in this area.

I personally think Dean is a pretty good politician, but I am a member of draftGore. I simply think Gore is the best candidate we have, but I do not disparage Dean.

[Samantha]

49. Damn...something's missing here...oh, yeah, where's Birdman?

Maybe his cable connection is down.

A Gore thread on DU just isn't the same without some derogatory words from the Birdman. If he doesn't show up soon, I might have to start repeating his Naomi Wolfe mantra and telling myself I am out of touch with reality....

[birdman]

83. Awwww, you missed me

The Al-only-Al-if-it's-not-Al-I'll-swallow-hemlock attitude
seems to have dwindled down to a few remaining die hards here
so it's no longer as much fun doing battle with the Gorestapo.

But since you asked we will review the one towering overiding
principle of Al-only-Alism :

Al is always a victim.

So when Al shows up for three Presidential debates with a different
personality for each one it's not Al's fault - that was forced on
him by the media.

So when Al frittered away not only his own state but the eternally
Democratic state of West Virginia either one of which would have
given him the election and spared us the war-mongering little
insect who occupies the White House it's not Als fault it's the
Karl Rove smear machine.

When Al allows a tenant on his property to live in a condition
befitting a sharecropper when he could have easily fixed up the
property before it became an emabarrassment in the middle of the
campaign it's just one of those Republican talking points.

And when Al quits the '04 race because he can't attract fatcat
contributors who are willing to pay to crank up the Naomi Wolf
makeover machine one more time it not Al's fault it's the DLC
who feared that Al was going to sweep into the White House and
institute a dictatorship of the proletariat.

It's never Al - he's always the victim.

And for those who miss my Tilden picture.

Reelect Samuel Tilden in '04 - I'm still not over 1876

[joshcryer]

87. Couple of fallacies.

When Al supporters condemn the media for discussing his personality and not the issues, they have a point. You can't find that the media disecting Al's clothing from night to night is even remotely relevant, now can you? I think you underestimate how utterly ridiculous the media acted towards Gore. Go here and search for Gore: http://www.dailyhowler.com/

The state of Tenn. had the same voter irregularities that Fla had, so to pass it off as just Gore losing it is stupid, there are some things that are beyond a candidates control, like people acting democratically at the polls and allowing voters to vote if they're qualified.

Worn down housing happens. Personally, when I was poorer, I didn't like my landlord coming around much. This is the same situation. Gore respected the tenents, and the tenents didn't make him any indications they wanted it fixed up. It's generally up to the tenent to tell the landlord if something needs fixing.

Al quit the '04 race on very questionable grounds. The idea that he couldn't get money from the DLC is laughable, given that he's got a huge ammount of money already in the bank, and that he automatically gets a government subsidy since he got more than 5% votes. The guy can run an effective campaign.

[Room101]

53. I'm over GORE ! Lets focus on the present and future

Some of you GORE people (Note: I voted Gore in 2000) are like old girlfriends that won't get a new boyfriend, hoping your first love will come back on a white horse. This isn’t the movies its real life. Gore's political career in dead.

[Samantha]

90. This is rather insulting

Many people choose their candidate based on whose ideologies best represents their interests. Gore has given 25 years of political service to this Country. A large part of the Gore base most identify with Gore's position on the issues. To imply there is some sort of lost love, romantic attachment to this man, as opposed to a political identification, is sexist, insulting and offensive.

[Hubert Flottz]

54. Gore scares the dawg shite out of the Repubs and their :::::::

FReeper Drones! The Freeps are crawling all over Du trying to discredit Gore, because they are scared Shitless of him! The Repubs know the only chance the Dud in Thief has, is to place a Jeblike Oprative in the Governor's mansion in California by recall, so the Pubs can steal California, Georgia and Florida next year!

The democrats in California had better fight the Bush/Enron gang tooth and nail on the recall, because therein lies the keys to the White House in 04! Scream it from every street corner Enron/Bush caused the budget trouble in your golden state! Keep the facts in the voter's faces! These thieves belong behind bars! Bushco is guilty of Grand Larceny in California! BTW isn't Grand Larceny a high crime?

Larceny; The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner.


Synonyms: larceny, stealing, theft, thievery

See Also: breach of trust with fraudulent intent, defalcation, embezzlement, felony, grand larceny, misapplication, misappropriation, peculation, petit larceny, petty larceny, pilferage, robbery, rustling, shoplifting, shrinkage, skimming.

Gore can thump Bush bigtime this time, because of Bush's sorry record on about every issue! That is, if Gore can force a fair election in 04 and I'd say Gore stands the best chance at doing just that! If Bush tries to cheat Al again it will be a civil war IMO! That's what it should have been in 2000!

[lifelong_Dem]

58. Gore had better not run again

If he's the party nominee in 2004, we'll probably have exactly the same result as 2000, maybe even going to the Supreme Court again.

[joshcryer]

61. If that happens again...

Then the US is beyond hope.

[HungryLoser]

62. We, the people, won't let that happen

again! Too many people in congress really don't like, maybe even hate, Bush. He and his brother will be under a magnifying glass.

[HungryLoser]

59. RE-elect Gore in 2004

Anyone know where can get a poster?

[TheDonkey]

63. Gore won't run, and he knows why.

The media would have a field day blasting the bejezzus out of him. Sore-loser, baby, recluse would be thrown out every hour of his campaign. The media (or Corporate America) is scared to death of Gore and would do all in their power to discredit him while giving Bush the upper hand, "After all Bush, DID, win. Why can't crybaby Gore get over it and give up."

Complete and utter BS, but with so many mindless sheep out there watching their TVs be sure that Gore's credibility would be damaged. Gore knows this isn't him time to give Bush a "re-match" and knows a fresh new person has a better chance of tearing Bush a new one in the eye of Joe Blow USA.

I think Gore very well would of been one of the greatest presidents in our history. Intelligent, passionate, and progressive we needed him but he must wait his turn now.

[ScreamingMeemie]

65. Here is my problem with this...

Part of beating Bush is getting a lot of conservative fence sitters to vote Democrat this time around. A lot of those people were left with a very bad taste in their mouth after the 2000 elections. I cannot see this group of people jumping up and running out to vote for Gore. How do you nab these people? Put someone fresh in front of them who wasn't part of the 2000 elections. I think Gore would be a handicap. I, personally like him, but I think his time has passed and that he knows it.

[HungryLoser]

67. I believe the opposite

may be true. So many people are p***ed off at Bush and the 2000 election they'll come out in droves to vote for Gore. Not all people are educated about the candidates in an election, some don't care, and some are nervous that we'll get stuck with the old "lesser of two evils" election. People know who Al Gore is and what he's done and can do. It's a safer bet, I'm absolutely confident he would win again.

[ScreamingMeemie]

68. Again, I have to say...consider my husband...

Middle of the road, pro choice, pro gun...can't stand Gore given his speeches during the debacle. Sad but true. Would he vote for him? Yes, because his wife would make him. But I bet that's not true for the other folks who feel like him. And really, we don't know what Gore could do, because he wasn't given the chance.

[HungryLoser]

73. My family can be the same way

They're from Upper Michigan, but they do know Bush = Bad. And Gore is familiar. They're pretty set in their ways and don't like to worry about new people running they've never heard of before.

[Samantha]

96. With Bush* remaining a part of the equation in election 2004

how can election 2000 not be an issue, with or without Gore. The NYT article posted over in LBN states 39 percent of those polled do not feel Bush* is legitimately elected. That bad aftertaste of election 2000 will not be swallowed simply because Gore is not running. It will be there as long as Bush* is in the limelight, if not longer.

[ScreamingMeemie]

97. Because our candidate, hopefully, won't be one of the parties involved.

We want that bad after taste to be connected to Bush. That's a good thing in my opinion.

[angka]

66. gore's a smart man

he's certainly prepared to run a national campaign. he knows these ropes well, and the whole apparatus can be turned on like a switch once he makes the decision.

the thing that he needs to understand—the thing that could bring him back into the race—is the grassroots support for him the exists because of the theft of the 2000 election. that is the truth that must be slammed home.

we need to all send letters and other correspondence to explain that we are ready to support him and why...

[e-mail]/if not gore then DEAN

[HungryLoser]

70. I vow, that if he ran again

I will donate my time and energy, for free, to help in his re-election campaign. It's sad that Bush has to pay people in India to help him. Tells ya something doesn't it?

[joshcryer]

76. You know. I would, too.

I really think I would make time for that.

[Generic Other]

71. After 2000, I was so angry at him I didn't think I could ever support him

I only can because I believe he could trounce Bush and it would wound Bush twice as much to have President Gore dismantling Bush's "legacy." It's just poetic justice. Grassroots commonsense. I wouldn't have picked Gore as my knight-in-shinging-armor in a million years. He's like Arthur accidently pulling the sword from the stone. And now he's forced to give the sword to the squire's son.

I wish any other Democrat could manage to get as high of poll numbers as Gore.

[HungryLoser]

74. Why were you so angry at him

really? He's not a knight, just a human being, and a politician at that, so he's obviously not perfect. But to get so many working class people, who have nothing more to lose, to want him to run, he has to be doing something right.

[nannygoat]

95. Excellent article addressed to Al...

James Higdon: 'Against all enemies, foreign and domestic...'
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=12476

<snip--8th paragraph down>

I tend to think of this incident whenever someone mentions that the United States government should be run like a corporation, and by experienced corporate managers. I know I also thought of it in 2000 when Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris disenfranchised over 90,000 voters in order to steal the election for George W. Bush. While corporatism preaches that the idea is merely pragmatic, history teaches that the notion is encompassed by Benito Mussolini's definition of fascism. In fact, at one point in his political life, Mussolini said that the better name for fascism would be corporatism. It is a prospect completely counter-intuitive to American conservatism, but it is fully supported by American neo-conservatism. America did not defeat fascism in WWII, we merely beat it back - temporarily - and it is now rising again on Main Street, USA.

<snip--11th paragraph down>

It is not that I would encourage conservatives to abandon their chosen party, and to become Democrats. I do encourage conservatives to attempt to take their party back. The Republican Party is not the only lost party, it is merely the first to fall. For those traditional Democrats, who wonder why their party has lost the ability to fight, understand that the Democratic Party is within a hare's breath of falling as well. It is not beyond saving, as it seems Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich are attempting to prove, but redemption requires casting off every ounce of apathy. As Burke once said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for some good men to do nothing."

It is also incumbent that downed soldiers must rise to fight again. And here, if I may, I'd like to direct my comments directly to Al Gore.

<snip--13th paragraph down>

The most insidious attack on democracy, in my lifetime, is what occurred in Florida in the year 2000. And yet it is that moment in time that finally turned apathy into action. At a time when America had become bored with American politics, that event ignited a new generation of activists. Such is logical, for it is said that one never appreciates what one has until it is lost. I have never seen a generation of activists more determined to right a wrong, and so unwilling to "get over it." They can only be encouraged if you, Sir, allow them to take that chance. It is only by taking your proper place in the White House that that wrong can truly be rectified.

<snip--16th paragraph down>

When explaining your decision not to run in 2004 you offered that a return to the arena would place an improper focus on what happened in Florida almost three years ago. I respectfully disagree. I cannot think of a more dynamic influence to raise the stakes on what will be the most vital election in this nation's history. There is simply nothing that could possibly influence public interest more. Those who work for your campaign will show more ferocity than you have ever known in your support. I ask that you let us begin that work.

In 1993 and again in 1997 you gave this oath, "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." While the oath regards the office, you will bear the title of "Mr. Vice President" until the day you die, until you renounce the title, or until you achieve a higher office. That oath follows you still. Please consider, once again, how best to be true to that oath. Is it as a leader, or as a private citizen? A new generation of good activists ask that you lead them to do something.

[joshcryer]

75. Link to transcript and quote.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/02/cg.00.html

HUNT: Well, that's the way insurgencies typically work. This is a -- we've never seen a front-running insurgent before. I want to say six weeks ago on this program, I said Howard Dean would clearly have an impact on the race and certainly wouldn't be the nominee. I now want to withdraw that latter assurance, because I think that -- I think that Kate's right.

He -- what he's done, I think it's less ideological and even slightly less war than sometimes people say. I think he has captured, as Bob Matsui told me this week, the anti-Bush mantle. And there is a great, there's an anti-Bush sentiment in that party that's very, very pronounced, and he's captured it. He's the one. And Margaret, it's not just the Gore people. Al Gore himself has been making phone calls the last couple days. I happen to think it would be a dumb idea, but I think that is -- for Al Gore to get back in the race. But he's been calling around, and because he really thinks that Dean is now the alternative, and he can beat Dean.

Hunt may well be on to something.

Interestingly, earlier on in the transcript people were saying stuff about how Bush was tough on terrorism. Bullshit... if any politician had balls about them, they would call Bush out on the Saudi connection. If Bush really gave a shit about terrorism, he would've went straight into Saudi Arabia...

[Samantha]

92. Here is the essence of the issue

Many people are passionate about Dean. I personally think Dean is a pretty good politician. I think the most astute thing Dean did is to make a play for the Gore base when Gore announced he would not run. It was pretty easy for some Gore supporters to transfer their allegiance to Dean, particularly when he assumed the anti-war criticism Gore had propagated, and specifically when he picked up elements of Gore's populist campaign (note: Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry and Gephardt missed this opportunity, Dean seized it). I have tried very hard in this thread to make it clear I am not a Dean critic; I certainly don't want to offend those who support him.

There is a residual base that will not support anyone but Gore. There are many reasons for this, and if you have read the threads on DU, you know the reasons why. Essentially, most of us in this latter group truly feel Gore is the only hope we have of dislodging Bush* from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2004.

Now the power brokers of the Democratic party seem to be faced with an unexpected problem: their Bush-lite candidates have been rejected by much of the base of the party, the anti-war segment refuses to vote for 4 out of 9 of the candidates, the African-Americans are unlikely to get out and vote for Kerry, those too angry over several series of events will not accept Lieberman, etc, etc. It appears the DLC is now looking at Dean and Gore (neither of whom are their preferred) and asking who has the best chance of beating Bush*. Not exactly the question they wanted to be asking at this point, but the question which must be asked. My answer is the same as it has always been. Two years ago on this site I said if the Democratic party refused to run Gore in 2004 it would splinter the party and face defeat. I stand by that statement today.

So looking at the situation analytically, who in the general election will most voters (moderate Republicans and Independents, the swing voters) prefer: Gore or Dean. I believe the answer is Gore. I believe the DLC now thinks it has no choice but to take a second look at Gore. I am sure Dean supporters feel he can pull it off given the opportunity to do so.

Today on the McLaughlin Group, it was apparent some feel this 2004 election will come down to a horse race. That's how tight it will be.

[HungryLoser]

77. Here's a link to the "Support Gore in 2004" site

www.algoresupportcenter.com/

Maybe a huge show of support would influence him. (Bet he has a lot of Pisces chart, good people those fish)

[HungryLoser]

78. My close friend from Bagdad

loves Al Gore, says most of his family hates Bush almost as much as Sadam Hussein. (he's a catholic)

[CMT]

79. "I don't think Dean could win the South..."

well Gore didn't either (except Florida)and in fact he even lost his homestate. I don't see how Dean could do any worse. Infact, given his record on guns and fiscal responsibility and representing a rural state I think Dean could be competitive in some southern states.

But could Gore beat Dean for the nomination? maybe, but I think he would be the toughest one of the nine for him to beat. Dean has lots of passionate supporters--I again worked the farmers market today at a Dean table and lots of people approached telling me how enthused they are about Howard Dean. Some are ex-Gore supporters. I asked if Gore got into it if they would dump Dean for Gore and all of them said, No Way.

[DemPopulist]

86. I don't think that's very typical

Of course the people that approach a Dean table are going to say "No way" but you have to consider the millions of Democrats that don't even know who Dean is. Gore is just loads better-matched with blacks, Hispanics, Southerners, labor - you name it - than Dean. A lot of Dean's success so far is that all these critical blocs of Democrats haven't rallied behind one candidate, many probably aren't even paying attention yet, whereas the Tsongas/Brown/Bradley "latte liberal" set has consolidated around Dean (and to a lesser extent, Kerry).

Now, on the South, it's true that Gore didn't officially win any Southern states last time but you have to consider a few things. One is that Gore was competitive in at least 4 Southern states for most of the fall campaign: Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and of course, Florida. In any case, his baseline in these states, assuming Bush isn't wildly popular in '04, would be the 45% to 49% that he got in '00. Dean would probably start off 20 to 30 points behind Bush in every Southern state but Florida and his baseline would be much closer to the 35% to 45% that Mondale and Dukakis got. Dean's record on gun control is just ONE issue, in fact the ONLY issue, where he would be in sync with the South. Everything else about him is totally wrong for the region. Btw, this is not an endorsement of draft Gore, just explaining why he'd beat Dean and do better against Bush.

[dansolo]

91. They don't want Gore or Dean

You are deluding yourself. The only reason that Gore is being promoted is to take away support from the rapidly rising Dean. If Gore tries the same populist appeal that was soundly criticised by the Democratic Leadership, he will be supported enough to knock out Dean, and then they will stab him in the back.

[Q]

94. Gore has my vote no matter when he runs...

...and I'll keep voting for him until my vote is finally counted.

[Samantha]

98. You need to re-read my original post if you think I am deluding myself

"The bitter irony of this story might be (if it's true) that some of the elite Dems who brushed Gore off in favor of their Bush-lite preferreds are taking a second look at the man simply because they prefer Dean less. It's still the people's choice."

I have never looked to the DLC for advice as to whom to support. I like Wellstone vote my conscience.