After Gore's speech on Sunday, do you think he should run in 2004?

[prolesunited]

Gore's speech has been the subject of much discussion and excitement here. Again, we hear talk that he should run in 2004 and he's our best hope. So, forget your loyalty to the candidate that is running and answer this poll from the heart and gut.

Whatever your answer, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts about a Gore candidacy in 2004.

Edit: Based on suggestions, I've added some new categories

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. yes he should run... but your 1st choice "he is our only hope" is wrong

imho...a Gore/Clark ticket would win....but....

[Kahuna]

2. Gore/Clark is absolutely the best our country could do..

Damn shame what the Greens did to Gore in 2000. Gore is a great, compassionate and smart man. Damn shame.

[Ficus]

13. It's a shame

what Gore's phobia of Bill Clinton did to him. Damn shame.

[mopinko]

3. it is too late, and he said no

he would look like a liar. but vp again? yes,yes, yes.

[Hep]

6. Second

n/t

[bushisanidiot]

12. LIAR? No, just to the repukes who wouldn't vote for him anyway.

gore would win in a landslide.

he'd also make a great vp candidate. that'd be a winning ticket whomever should win the dem nomination.

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. Gore would look like a liar?

Well I think Gore has proved that Bush* is a Liar!

[Padraig18]

4. No, but I voted 'other'.

I don't like either of the supporting rationales for the 'no' selections.

[pmbryant]

5. Absolutely love Gore, but at this point, I don't think he should run

Not that I think he is even considering it. (Of course, I should mention that I didn't see his speech and I haven't heard or read anything about it yet. Yes, I've been living under a rock the last few days. ;-) )

I voted 'other', because neither "no" option fit what I believe. Gore is not too tainted by the media and he is not too centrist. In my opinion, he is pretty much the ideal candidate.

So if he ran, he would easily be my top choice. But I just don't think it is going to happen and I'm not sure it would be a terribly good thing to mess up the Dem race at this late stage.

Currently I'm undecided about who to support. Dean or Clark are the likeliest possibilities for me. But which one?

:shrug:

--Peter

EDIT: D'oh! You edited the choices! :spank:

:-)

Guess I'll now vote for 'no, just not a good idea'. (EDIT AGAIN: Never mind, I can't change my vote.)

[prolesunited]

14. Sorry, Peter!

It became immediately apparent that I didn't have enough choices in my poll. There were only about 12 replies when I changed it, so I hope I didn't skew it that much.

I agree that I do deserve :spank: I apologize to anyone who voted before I made the changes. I wasn't trying to be deceptive or tricky.

As for being under a rock, you could view, listen to or read the speech here:
http://www.moveon.org/gore/webcast.html

I would highly recommend do one of those three things. It was ground-breaking speech.

[pmbryant]

18. LOL

Perfectly good reasons for editing. Just having fun here, so don't mind me. :-)

Thanks for the link to the speech!

So... how did you vote in your poll?

--Peter

[prolesunited]

19. I know you were joking around

:-)

I'll add my opinion later. It certainly is interesting in seeing the wide range of thought here.

[pmbryant]

24. Kick

:evilgrin:

I won't let this thread fade away quite yet.

--Peter

[eileen_d]

7. Just curious - can a person be elected VP three times?

I don't know about Gore running. If he entered the race it would make a big splash, but potentially drowning out other viable candidates, and I don't think Gore has a big chance of winning (although he does have *a* chance).

I can't imagine Gore wanting to be VP again either though. Cabinet? Heck yeah.

[Racenut20]

8. NO But

I would like to see him much more vocal as a party leader. He doesn't have to interfere with the primary campaigns. Just stay out of those states.

[felonious thunk]

9. No, for 2 reasons

The most important of which, is that he doesn't want to run. If he did, he would. But he doesn't want to.

Secondly, he wouldn't be giving these inspiring speeches if he were going to run. It's a shame, and giving thoughtful speeches would help, but face it, not many of us were real inspired with Gore in 2000. I think we're seeing the real Al Gore now, and we like him. But he wouldn't be talking from the heart if he were running. He'd be trying to win votes and pandering like he did in 2000.

[LeahMira]

20. Agreed...

I think we're seeing the real Al Gore now, and we like him. But he wouldn't be talking from the heart if he were running. He'd be trying to win votes and pandering like he did in 2000.

It's a shame, but I don't think we saw the real Al Gore in 2000 and I think that if we had we wouldn't be dealing with the chimp in the White House now.

I also wonder why he isn't choosing to run this time around. Maybe he knows his own strengths more realistically now, and as a leader in the Democratic Party he definitely shines! His analysis of the Patriot Act couldn't have been clearer.

[felonious thunk]

25. it might just be too much

I mean, think of how hard we took 2000. Imagine what he must have felt like. He was backed into a corner, and he knew he won, but he knew that there wasn't anything he could do. Imagine the toll that took on him, all the energy expended and the frustration it wrought. Not to mentionall the media bullshit with calling him a liar. I don't blame him for not being up for that again. I know I wouldn't be either.

[RichM]

10. He's developed greatly in the 3 yrs. He makes the others look puny in

comparison. If the Al Gore of the last two speeches -- and not the Al Gore of 2000 -- was to be the candidate next year, it would be a very exciting development. Clark & Dean are both lightweights compared to what we saw Sunday. (The Al Gore of 2000 was a lightweight compared to what we saw Sunday.)

It was said of FDR that after being stricken with polio, he underwent a profound spiritual change that in many ways made him a different man. Maybe Gore has undergone something of that nature, watching in pain from the sidelines as his country has been dragged in the Bushzis' lies & filth.

[bushisanidiot]

11. Yes, He Should Run. But He's Not Our Only Hope

i'd say about 5 of the current candidates would have a great chance of winning in '04. AWOL is losing support left and right.. the economy still stinks and the war is a disaster. All we really need is someone who can string a sentence together and prounce big words correctly, and he/she'll mop the floor with the chimp.

[1songbird]

16. I wished he had signed on early but it's too

late now because of fundraising and the substantial lead that the other candidates will have. I do think that we should oust Terry McCaulif and replace him with Gore. Al Gore actually tried to acquire Vivendi, he did not get enough support from the DNC and instead GE owner of NBC bought the station. The possibilities of actually having ownership of a true liberal network would have been huge.

[mndemocrat_29]

17. He was my absolute top choice

However, he has repeatedly said he wouldn't run and it would look bad if he ran now. However, should Wesley Clark win the nomination, a Clark/Gore ticket would be FANTASTIC. It would be the perfect ticket balance. Then, Gore (he would be 64) could run in 2012.

[Northwind]

21. No

He is more effective in the role of statesman. he can say whatever needs to be said without having to worry if it will cost him votes. Leave him as he is.

[rucky]

22. Gore for DNC Chair

To beat bush, we need an outsider candidate.

To unify the Democrats, we need Gore.

[4323Lopez]

23. duhhh

Yes,he should, but he won't.

[Bridget Burke]

26. What is this "tainted by the media" garbage?

Do you think that any Democratic nominee will be treated fairly by the media? Why are so many people picking that option? He "has too much baggage"? Of course, "everybody" says so....

[prolesunited]

27. Of course no nominee

will be treated fairly by the "liberal" media and they all have baggage. In terms of rhetoric, however, there is a concept of chaining out and once that theme has been established, you just need to drop hints or suggestions and all of the associations come flooding back.

For Gore, it's that he's a liar. (Doesn't matter if it's not true.) All they have to do is say that he exaggerated and people's minds will make the association with inventing the Internet, Love Story, etc. One mention and all this comes flooding back in the minds of the voters.

Sure, they can do this to any of the candidates and already are starting it now. But, it does take time. One of the advantages of having so many candidates is that they can't focus on any one of them with much effectiveness. With Gore, they can hit the ground running.

[Terwilliger]

28. he's said at least three times that he won't seek the nomination

if he decides to run now, I won't vote for him

[Samantha]

29. Al Gore is in a class by himself

I didn't vote in this poll because I think I have started to evolve into a position on this subject where very few people congregate. I have been a strong supporter of Gore for years, and I am very tired of the negative remarks I read here about him.

Yes, he has been giving excellent speeches but after listening once again to one of them, it makes the rest of the field pale by comparison. Why aren't THEY saying the things he is saying in such a coherent, logical way. In other words, Gore's speeches makes me less likely to become passionate about those currently in the race. I do think he is probably the most qualified person on either side of the fence to run this Country. But I have learned a lot the last three years about how the average American thinks, and overall, I have come to the conclusion Gore is probably better than the average American deserves. He is definitely so much more than the average American appreciates.

If I hear one more time he is too tainted by the media, I think I will scream. Actually the converse is true. What has really driven home to a lot of Americans how biased our media has become, and the extent to which we are propagandized, is the media's coverage of Al Gore. Political pundits I used to watch religiously I now totally avoid because of their bias during the 2000 election. I believe the field of Americans who now turn to the foreign press for its news has increased due to the awareness we have of the slant in the press due to the distortions and/or blatant lies about Gore and election 2000.

As the anniversary of John Kennedy's assination draws near, we revisit a popular stance among politicians from Texas, i.e., I am above the law . Much of what I am now reading about Johnson (our Great Civil Rights Democratic president) reminds me so much of Bush* I understand why a man of principle and love of country like Gore might come to the conclusion he would rather not be a slave to Big Oil, but would rather speak out on behalf of the good of the people. Perhaps if he had thrown his hat back in the ring and won (which I feel sure he would have), he would have met the same fate as John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King and other great leaders. Perhaps remaining removed from the office that used to be regarded as the office of the leader of the free world but which has rapidly deteriorated to that of puppet to Big Business means we the people will have Al Gore around much longer to appreciate. And since it has become apparent that those like LBJ and Bush* are above the law, and it is that very characteristic which propels politicians to the Oval Office, i.e., corruption, it is very telling that Gore has chosen not to run.

Perhaps there is little honor left in being President of the United States; perhaps there is more glory in being a person who can speak out without fear of alienating his most important coterie, i.e., his campaign sponsors.

I will always respect and admire Al Gore probably more than whomever is residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He's nobody's puppet.