What do you think of the idea of a Gore/Edwards '08 compromise ticket?

[Tropics_Dude83]

Compromise candidates to keep our 90% support amongst African Americans and to appeal to lunch-bucket voters more. Gore would do the former/Edwards the latter.

I've read multiple articles today that the final nail has probably be hammered into Obama's coffin because of the Wright circus.

I fear that Hillary Clinton has so alienated the AA base that she can't carry them by as large of a margin as she needs to in the GE and Obama has minimal support amongst whites. Also, Hillary Clinton is trailing in Wisconsin. She needs Wisconsin even if she were to win Ohio.

Both candidates may be fatally flawed.

A Gore/Edwards compromise ticket might be more electable.

And if not Gore/Edwards, tell me how we win with Barack who has trouble with key constituencies that we need to win in the GE or with Hillary who will have a massive problem courting the AA votes she needs.

I'd also be more hopeful and enthusiastic with Nobe Laureate Gore and a champion of the poor and health care, John Edwards, on the ticket together. Not to mention the TREMENDOUS ASSET Elizabeth Edwards is not just to our party but to America. Tipper Gore won't be too shabby of a first lady either!

[WeDidIt]

1. Unacceptable

Gore didn't pick up a single vote and Edwards dropped before Super Tuesday.

[elocs]

22. Oh, picky, picky, picky. Other than that, what's wrong with the notion?

The OP must have given this a lot of thought. At least a minute or two and it is based upon impeccable logic.

[WeDidIt]

33. You'll lose at least 25% of either camp

It won't work.

[chimpymustgo]

38. GREAT ticket. And Clinton and Obama need to get behind it! Not only can we WIN,

we can fix this mess of a country.

[WeDidIt]

44. I disagree compltely

The African American community will feel robbed. The fanatical base of the Clinton camp who refuse to vote for Obama will feel robbed.

In the end, a third of the party will be dissatisfied and won't come out at all.

[Bluebear]

66. Says "IWantAnyDem" lol!

[ihelpu2see]

82. Im thinking a Gore/Obama ticket may be the only way to solve this thing. If Obama gets

rooked out of the top spot by Clinton, The only dem. ticket I would vote for would be Gore/Obama otherwise I will work to get Nadar on every ballot possible.

[rodbailey]

94. This is the dream ticket

that gets mentioned quite a bit. It would keep a lot of the young, new voters (hopefully) involved because Obama would be on the ticket. Gore would clean McCain's clock in November, and we could be looking forward to 16 years (at least) of a Dem. in the WH. Not that's a DREAM! Click on the link in my sig. line and stop by the Yahoo group to see what we're doing to try to get Gore on the top of the ticket.

[LSparkle]

2. I wish that had been the ticket in 2000 ... better late than never

I'd got for it.

[fed_up_mother]

3. Never gonna' happen. A waste of bandwidth

but - hey - this isn't my website. :)

[anonymous171]

How about a Kucinich/Paul unity ticket while we're at it.

[IDemo]

8. The Keebler ticket?

[Innocent Smith]

17. Who is Keebler?

The only Keeblers that I know of are elves.

[IDemo]

29. That was kind of the idea

[4_Legs_Good]

14. Now there's a ticket I could get behind! (n/t)

[Exilednight]

62. Paul's racist ass needs to stay as far away from the Democratic party as possible................

anyone who votes for Ron Paul needs to go find the nearest white sheet convention and cover their head in shame.

[Adelante]

4. Obama/His Choice nt

[Birthmark]

5. I think it's the greatest idea in human history.

If only the superdelegates would be smart enough to do it.

[NYCGirl]

6. No. NT

[BobbyVan]

7. kicked and recommended!!!

[Buzz Clik]

9. The GOP would embrace it openly, no doubt.

[4_Legs_Good]

10. Edwards is worthless at the bottom of a ticket

He proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2004. I wouldn't write him off at the top (not this time, though), but definitely I would never consider him again at the bottom.

No comprimise ticket, though. As much as Gore has always been my #1 choice (from 2004 onwards), it would be lame to ditch the two candidates we have now.

David

[Tropics_Dude83]

13. With Gore/Edwards-we don't have snipers or controversial pastors to deal with n/t

[4_Legs_Good]

18. But Edwards will claim he can raise Christopher Reeve from the dead!

Kidding!

(but that's what my RW co-workers will say!)

Anyway, I say bring on the sniping pastors!

David

[intheflow]

55. No, we'd only have two candidates who could be

successfully smeared as losers for both having already lost in presidential runs. Then there'd be the smearing of Gore for his "extremist" environmental policies, and we'd have to listen to the banal sniping of Edwards for his haircuts ad infinitum. What's worse, the RW media could also smear the whole Democratic party for not having the guts/flip-flopping on trying to elect a woman or a black man. The fact is, the way the media is tilted against the left, no candidate or ticket we put forth will be embraced by the media.

I also think the SD's putting up a ticket of two monied, white, male southerners would split the party apart more than having either Clinton or Obama as our candidate. African Americans and youth who have been working for Obama would be pissed off, and they'd also piss off the women and blue collar folk who have been working so hard for Clinton. I think usurping the two candidates we have now would lead to much more disillusionment, apathy and disenfranchisement than the 47%% of Clinton supporters who'll defect if Obama gets the nod, or the 37% of Obama supporters who'd leave if Clinton is chosen. The SDs will never dismiss the voting that has already happened, especially since so many of them are up for re-election themselves.

[izquierdista]

11. McGovern/Mondale would be better

If you need to go digging in the past to find a candidate. I think there's also some leftover tuna casserole in the fridge if you are hungry.

[democrattotheend]

12. Hate the idea

Gore did not run and Edwards lost to Clinton and Obama because fewer voters preferred him. To install him now would be incredibly undemocratic.

Depending on how things go down between now and August, I'm not completely opposed to Gore being the nominee, but only if he makes Obama his VP. And I still don't like the idea...he hasn't earned the nomination. Clinton and Obama have been out there working their hearts out for it for over a year. Gore might have some legitimacy because he was robbed of the presidency, but it still does not seem right to me.

[msallied]

88. The thing is, if Gore wanted to be the nominee

he would have run... I think most of America would be appalled at the "installation" of Al Gore at the top of the ticket, even if he is considered something of a hero in the party. He would suffer a lot of backlash as a result of something like that, especially since his opponent in 2000 was installed in a similar fashion... having had his opportunity ripped away from the hands of the electorate and placed in those of an elite few. The psychological implication for voters would make that outcome a travesty.

[midnight]

15. I know that it would make me happy......

[Innocent Smith]

16. Here is how the media would report it

MSM: "The Democratic party today replaced a lady and African American with two middle-aged white guys."

[Joe the Revelator]

19. You really need to stop trying to debate politics

You have no idea what you're talking about. The final nail in Obama's coffin? If you had any historical perspective you'd know how silly you sound.

[graycem]

20. Not going to happen

Gore has made it exceedingly clear he is WAY above American Politics. He would not want to get back in this gutter when he's achieved a much higher position. Why on earth would he?

[VenusRising]

21. If Gore wanted to be President, he would have run.

Let. It. Go.

[RiverStone]

37. Agreed! Would you quit your day job after winning a NPP for doing it?

[VenusRising]

48. Hell, no!

And not because of the NPP, but because it's important work on a global scale.

I wanted him to run this time, but I respect his decision. Besides, I've grown to really like Obama and think he'll do the best job at this point in time.

:hi:

[RazBerryBeret]

23. so, the last few months haven't been bad enough...

we decide the votes don't count, install 2 new white men and manage to piss off the AA voters AND the female voters...good plan, prez. mccain.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. I'll take that

Even before all the circular firing squad bullshit, I felt our two 'front runners' were weak.

ABOorC

I'd rather have Gore/Clark, but I'd settle for Gore/DamnedNearAnybody

[cyndensco]

25. I doubt seriously a Gore/Edwards ticket at this point

would be enough to keep "your" 90% support among African Americans. At best, it might be 89.99...9% cause it wouldn't get MY vote.

[slackmaster]

26. I'm afraid that on 11/5 a lot of us are going to wish we had gone that route when we had a chance

:nuke:

[berni_mccoy]

27. Spoken like a truly desperate Hillbot running from his candidate.

[BeyondGeography]

28. Funny as hell that anyone would seriously contemplate it

that's what I think.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. I think you misunderstand what the verb "compromise" means. n/t

[depakid]

31. I think a compromise candidate Dems best (and perhaps only realistic) hope of winning in November

Barring a complete meltdown by McCain, his narrative- boosted at every turn by the corporate media, will win handily over either of the two prospective nominees.

Unfortunately, neophytes (and some "true believers") who haven't seen (or been involved) with the process over the past 25 years, won't grasp that they're headed for defeat, and even if they did, many so are quite content to take everyone else down with them, just to prove a point or to follow through with their obsession to take down that evil Hillary.

[Frances]

32. What would you do with all the pledged delegates?

And all the people who bothered to vote in the primaries?

[Tropics_Dude83]

40. OK-explain to me then how....

Clinton and Obama put their electoral hurdles behind them?

Gore/Edwards have remarkably few non-manufactured negatives.

[cali]

79. hmm. let me explain something to you. Most negative crap is

manufactured. And here:

Gore:

Financial shit. He made hundreds of millions after 2000. Fine tooth comb, etc.
Environmental "radicalism"
Pro-gay marriage (yes, I'm pro-gay marriage, but it's a negative in the general)
The old Occidental crap.
He's a lousy campaigner.

Edwards:

Fortress Hedge Fund- hypocrisy
off shore tax shelters- hypocrisy
28,000 sq ft house- hypocrisy
brought nothing to the ticket in 2004
lost in freakin' Iowa this year
flip flopper
elitest crap

[Tropics_Dude83]

41. Dupe

Dupe.

[Texas Hill Country]

34. i think that it will never ever ever ever ever ever happen... ever.

[DefenseLawyer]

35. I would wholeheartedly embrace a Gore/Obama ticket

but only if Senator Obama wholeheartedly endorsed it first, obviously.

[JaneQPublic]

36. Two white guys knocking off the woman and the black guy.

That would be a sure-fire way to drive down voter participation in November.

Gore was my first choice -- I was even planning to write his name in. However, his time has passed.
Edwards' time has passed.

[Apollo11]

51. Strongly agree

I admire Al Gore and wish he had been President these past 9 years (I also wish Bill Clinton had resigned from office in 1999 after the Senate voted 50-50 on his "obstruction of justice" charge).

Edwards gave this his best shot but failed to break thru in any of the 4 early states.

For the Democratic Party to once again put forward a national ticket with two southern protestant white guys would be a disaster for equal rights in America.

[knixphan]

56. exactly.

[brentspeak]

61. Only the idiots who vote according to a candidate's race and gender wouldn't vote

I would hope the majority of Americans weren't that dumb.

[ecstatic]

78. Or the ones who thought we had something called RULES

Why are the rules changing NOW? I would definitely stay home if such a ticket were created, because only an IDIOT would remain in a party that constantly shits on voting rights.

[brentspeak]

91. Uh, the "rules" say that a candidate can be chosen on the second ballot

So it would not be "against the rules".

Also, no one would even care if you and a few other people "stayed home"; the vast majority of Democrats would happily vote for an Edwards or Gore.

[cali]

80. bullshit. people who object to bigwigs installing a candidate

who didn't run and didn't receive a single vote, may well not vote. I'll vote for hlll if she's the nominee- she fought for it and put herself on the line. I won't vote for someone installed over the votes of millions.

[newmajority]

39. While I would vote for any Democratic ticket without Hillary on it

It would be absolutely a travesty at this point to nullify the results of a full primary season and remove Barack Obama from a nomination which he won fair and square.

[loyalsister]

42. I didn't vote for either of them

so, absolutely not!

[colonel odis]

43. whether it's framed as a compromise or not, gore/edwards would win and win big.

precisely the reason we democrats will run like hell from it.

[Tropics_Dude83]

47. And Gore/Edwards are far more left-wing than either Clinton or Obama, which is good n/t

[karynnj]

63. You don't know that

Edwards has never lived up to his hype. He won exactly 1 primary in 2 election years and was pretty poor as VP last time. Do you think he would use Gore's slogans or simply write his own?

As to Gore, he is very happy doing work that he believes in and which has won him praise and a Nobel Prize. He hasn't though been running for an office since 2000 and he hasn't developed a platform and a stump speech to run on. Then there's the little matter that neither Obama or HRC would likely agree to it. (Gore was my second choice to Kerry - and I would be against it even if it was Kerry you proposed, who would run on the 5 excellent Faneuil Hall speeches that he wrote for a 2008 run. It is just wrong.)

The other thing is why Edwards?

[cali]

81. that ticket would lose.

anyone emerging from an embattled brokered convention is fatally wounded. Period.

[Poll_Blind]

45. Both candidates are not fatally flawed, only Senator Clinton. n/t

PB

[Crunchy Frog]

46. No.

That is not the way we choose our presidential candidates.

[book_worm]

49. It will be Obama, but as long as Hillary isn't part of it I'm fine with it.

[NorthCarolina]

50. No thanks, I want CHANGE

eom

[bpeale]

85. i personally don't want CHANGE. i want a FIX IT ticket. and that's GORE/EDWARDS

[cascadiance]

52. That or a Gore/Feingold ticket...

So then I could use one of the t-shirts I put back in the closet this year. I have too many others there that are useless now (JE for president, Pelosi '2007, etc.)

[frazzled]

53. Gee, talk about changing the rules

First of all, it's not how it works.

And second, even if such a compromised were to be reached in, say, a deadlocked convention, this is not a ticket that will or should be picked. Both have previously lost in presidential/vice-presidential elections. They've both got as much baggage as the next guy or gal for the Republicans to exploit.

After a kazillion dollars spent, millions of miles traveled, untold hands shaked and babies kissed, 21 debates, and millions of votes cast ... pick one of these goddamned candidates already: whoever has the most delegates when the bell rings. Please, don't think you are better than democracy. Even my idol, Al Gore, would agree.

[JackORoses]

54. Sorry, tropics_Hillarite. She has lost, get over it

Obama will be our next President despite your Chicken Belittling.

[smalll]

57. There may be some Belittling of the Chicken going on here (Ba-rok-bok-bok-bok-bok!) /nt

[JackORoses]

65. does your name refer to your brain capacity or your privates?

[EmilyAnne]

58. Talk about MAJOR disenfranchisement! Edwards kept losing because the people did not vote for him.

Period. Whether because of the media or not, he didn't get enough votes to remain in the race. So, he dropped out.
Gore has not recieved a single vote in this primary, as far as I know. Maybe a few write-ins, but not enough to receive a single vote.

This would be asinine, but it won't happen, so who cares.

Its not true that Obama has "minimal support amongst whites," by the way. He has plenty of support from white people. That's why he is winning.

[karynnj]

59. I agree - and you can't really blame the media

for Edwards not winning - they pushed him big time in 2004, but he won only SC. PS Obama has lots of support from white people - otherwise he would NOT be leading Clinton.

[brentspeak]

60. For the trillionath time, Edwards has rejected any notion of being a VP candidate again

[bpeale]

86. he would do it if GORE asked him to. they are the best of friends.

[nsd]

64. No way.

Gore would be a great president, but he didn't run. I wish he had; I would have supported him if he had. But he didn't. That's too bad, but that's the way it is.

As for Edwards. Well, he did run -- and he lost. End of story.

Obama has run a tremendous campaign. He's brought lots of new voters and excitement to the Democratic party. He's done what just six months ago was unthinkable: halted the Clinton restoration. He's going to be our nominee. I predict he's going to be our next president. And I for one am damn proud of that fact.

Just because the MSM is gunning for him at the moment is not a reason to panic and go cower in the corner. Now is not the time to be a weakling. It's the time we have to stand up for what we believe and have the courage of our own convictions. Obama's whole career is a repudiation of much of Wright's worldview. Obama is about America's future; Wright (and Clinton and McCain) are about the past.

[democrattotheend]

67. I think we should stop buying the media's electability meme

I know that you were for Barack before, and it's a shame you gave up on him because of the media BS about electability. It's a vicious cycle...the more people who deem him unelectable, the worse he does in the polls, and thus the less electable he looks.

[GoesTo11]

68. Gore can be swiftboated too, again

He's been speaking his mind for 8 years now. He's written and spoken with passion. Somewhere in there - a lot of places in there - are little things that can be taken out of context, looped endlessly, and make him look like a nut. Incorrect statements of fact, anti-war statements that sound like hatin' America, accusations that will sound like conspiracy theory. Even when he was winning awards, they were going after him about his high heating bill. The point is, it's not the candidate, it's the game. Need to change it to win.

[LWolf]

69. I think it's the ticket I want to support in November.

It's a great idea, and I'm behind it all the way.

[OnionPatch]

70. It would be so totally undemocratic.

For the party to just *appoint* a candidate would be outrageously insulting after we've all voted and campaigned for our candidates. There is no way this is going to happen. I'm actually having a hard time with the idea that anyone in the *Democratic* party would even think this would be ok. And Al Gore was even my first choice candidate back when it was a possibility.

Our nominee will be the one who wins the most delegates, period.

[krkaufman]

71. How would Gore/Edwards keep 90% support among AAs...?

... without Obama being on the ticket? And how would a Gore/Edwards ticket placate Hillary supporters? If Obama can be denied the nomination in favor of Gore/Edwards -- without Obama even being on the ticket -- Hillary's supporters will feel that she could have been made the candidate.

Just makes no sense.

[Sabien]

72. uh...NO n/t

[Better Believe It]

73. mmmmm .... The All White Men Ticket!

No way!

[davsand]

75. Why not alienate both women AND African Americans? That will win the day!

The DNC can pucker up and kiss my ass if they screw it up that bad because of some racist or sexist bullshit. I am REALLY starting to wonder if the people continually floating this "compromise" shit are honest to gawd Democrats. Compromise does NOT mean shitting on everyone else.

We have TWO candidates left in this race. DEAL with it--neither one is a white male.


:puke:


Laura

[brentspeak]

90. Since when do we choose candidates on the basis of race or gender?

The American people are not that dumb.

[cali]

74. It's a sure loser. it's fucking insane.

Replace two groundbreaking candidates with a legacy white man who didn't get a single fucking vote. And let's be clear: Both Gore and Edwards, when they had the chance to be liberal champions, hewed close to the DLC.

Such a move would disenfranchise millions of voters. I'd march in the streets of Denver against it, and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for that ticket.

[LSK]

76. so we are completely ignoring the Dem party rules now???

:shrug:

[knixphan]

83. exactly.

[ecstatic]

77. So you see an all white male ticket as a compromise that AAs will welcome?

What planet are you on anyway? :crazy:

[bpeale]

84. i'd feel like i died & went to heaven! this is a dream ticket for me!

[msallied]

87. And destroy the credibility of the Democratic Party? Um... no.

If we can't run with confidence the candidates selected by our very own Primary process, then we're toast. It might work for hardcore activists (like, say, the people on this board) but not for Everyday Joe Democrat.

[TheWraith]

89. For the umpteenth time, NO, NO, NO.

Media bullshit aside, we are NOT going to overturn an entire primary election season just because some jackass with a typewriter thinks that we should.

[LVjinx]

92. Yeah, let's pick two candidates who got ZERO percent of the vote. Smart.

[oviedodem]

93. It is almost too liberal a ticket in a sense that the right will hammer on the

greenhouse thing and a LOT of americans side with them on that. Second, other than healthcare, Edwards for me did not really lay out his econimic ideas. I know he was not in long enough but right now the economy is front and center.

[livetohike]

95. Not much. One who wouldn't fight for his Pres. win and one who

dropped out of the primary process. How is that a winning ticket?