Testing the DU waters: Would you support a Gore-Obama ticket?

[Fridays Child]

I suppose there's not much more than a glimmer of a glimmer of a chance--if even that much--that Al Gore will run. But, if he were to make that decision, I think he and Obama would make a great team. I also think a Richardson-Obama ticket would be great.

What do you guys think?

[helderheid]

1. yes.

[countingbluecars]

2. Yes, I would. eom

[DavidDvorkin]

3. I'd support any ticket where Gore was the first name

If it were Gore-Lieberman, I'd have to grit my teeth, but I'd still support it.

[jgraz]

69. Gore/Rumsfeld 2008

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but I have my limits :hi:

[DavidDvorkin]

88. Ack!

Okay, I guess I have my limits, too.

[calimary]

118. I'd stop there, too, but Gore-Obama would be GREAT!!!

A dream ticket!

[BlooInBloo]

4. White folks' support for anything-Obama is quickly ebbing into nothingness.

[illinoisprogressive]

12. huh?

[Fridays Child]

15. Why do you say that?

I think (and hope) you're wrong but I wonder why you think it's true.

[BlooInBloo]

17. Just from thread after thread on DU, and the polls showing him dropping.

[MethuenProgressive]

20. Dropping? He's a strong second place, and holding.

The race is Clinton-Obama, clearly.
The knocks are one has too much experience, and one has too little.
If we were a Parlimentary system, they'd already be in charge on the nation, imo.

[hippiechick]

22. maybe its because his lack of experience is starting to show ...

not because 'us whiteys' are losing interest ...

[BlooInBloo]

26. Maybe - but he didn't look any more experienced 3 months ago. lol!

[Matariki]

34. That's been a criticism, if you can call it that, since he announced.

His popularity and charisma would make him a great candidate for VP and would circumvent the 'not enough experience' critique. It's not because he's black but because he has a bit of a baby face and only a short time in the Senate. 8 years as VP and he could easily win the presidency.

[Robson]

53. I could see him as VP to Al Gore

I'm not at all a big fan of Hillary, not because she is unqualified, or because isn't smart enough. I don't support political dynasties...period. She is also way too political for my tastes. If she is the candidate I'd probably vote for her.

Putting Obama in the VP slot with Gore would vet him and give him experience and a shot at the Presidency 8 years later.

[intheflow]

128. I think a recent historical trend is for parties to put forward

minority (women, blacks) candidates to be nominated so that they can take months and months of flack before another traditional white male candidate can be brought to the forefront to win the election. I'm not saying this is intentional, like "We'll put Obama up for sacrifice before bringing in Edwards," but I think forerunners becoming sacrificial lambs is what happens during the process--and it's just more noticeable with minority politicians because they're are just so few of them.

Two examples I can think of:

1972 - Shirley Chisholm
2000 - Elizabeth Dole

It's as I've said before. We'll know we've achieved true democracy in America when a bi-sexual paraplegic woman of Asian-African heritage is elected president.

[AwakeAtLast]

68. Do you have any research to back that up?

How do you know it's the "white folks"? :shrug:

[spoony]

126. When speaking of race, why is the word "folks" so often

employed instead of just "people"? Not a shot at you, I've probably done it as well and I see many instances of it. I wonder why. Maybe "black people" sounds harsh whilst "black folks" sounds friendlier?

[Ethelk2044]

144. Actually

His poll numbers are going up. I do not know where you get your information.

[MadBadger]

5. My ideal team would be those too

I would love for Al Gore to Run and for Obama to get on board with him even before the primaries.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Sure.

I'd support a Gore-Anybody ticket.
I'd support a Gore-My Cat ticket.
I sure wish he'd run.

[BuyingThyme]

7. Yes.

[Mojambo]

8. For sure.

Gore Obama
Gore Edwards
Gore Clark

Sign me up.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. i already support obama so and thought about Gore last year so....

[dave_p]

10. When?

Will I support for nomination, or after? These bullshit questions are really getting to piss me off. Of course 99% OF DUers wqould support it if that was the Convention's choice. But that's a long way off.

[Fridays Child]

30. Nice.

Who pissed in your Cheerios?

[dave_p]

54. People asking dumb questions

Like I said, When? It's a meaningless question otherwise.

[Fridays Child]

65. And you respond to what you think are dumb questions because...

?

[JANdad]

63. Here Here!

eom

[MethuenProgressive]

11. Absolutely.

Gore is the most Presidential of all our potentials.
And with 8 years as VP, Obama certainly would lose that "no experience" albatross around his neck.
Gore/Obama
Gore/Clark
Gore/Richardson
Gore/by gawd almost anybody!!

[John Q. Citizen]

73. Gore will choose someone who also supports single payer health insurance.

Why would he want to muddy the waters with a VP choice who believes tax payers should subsidize private insurance companies?

Unless his primary concern is image over substance. But that doesn't seem like where Gore is at.

So my bet would be Clark.

[ddeclue]

13. Except that Gore ain't runnin'

Counter offer : Edwards-Obama..

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Fridays Child]

18. I could get behind Edwards-Obama.

I'm concerned about Edwards' gay marriage remark, though. Do you have any thoughts on it? Also, what do you think of a Richardson-Obama ticket?

[MadBadger]

23. I couldnt deal with Obama behind either of the two because I think he is better.

[ddeclue]

28. I prefer Edwards but I wouldn't take my ball and go home if

it were Obama-Edwards instead of Edwards-Obama...

[MethuenProgressive]

24. 3rd place for Pres, and 2nd place for VP? Nope.

I really don't see Edwards even lasting until the primary season.

[ddeclue]

29. See an optometrist then...n/t

[ddeclue]

27. I missed it.

I'll have to watch again when it repeats later tonight.

I don't think he's ever been for (and pardon the pun) straight-up gay marriage but has been for civil unions for a long time and for removing don't ask don't tell for a long time.

Personally I am for allowing gay civil union and/or gay civil marriage but don't think the gov't has any power to tell religions that they must marry gay couples within their church or on the flip side that the gov't has the power to tell churches that they can't marry gay couples either.

I will have to wait and see what Edwards said exactly before I can comment further.

Overall, though, I see the gay marriage issue as a Karl Rove manufactured to order wedge issue. It is my understanding that only Edwards got asked this question, not Hillary or Obama. I would like to have heard the same questions answered by all 3 candidates myself.

Doug D.

[MadBadger]

40. I dont think anybody is saying that religions institutions should have to marry Gays

Maybe I am wrong. I believe if gay marriage is made legal, like it should, places like City Hall shouldnt be able to turn them away.

[ddeclue]

43. I agree with this.

I can't speak for Edwards until I see the rerun or read the transcript.

[Fridays Child]

64. Me, too. Here's what Edwards said...

EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I think what the governor did and what New Hampshire's done is a great example for the rest of the country. Not only civil unions, but all the partnership benefits, including, Senator Clinton talked about getting rid of this "don't ask/don't tell" policy.

I don't think the federal government has a role in telling either states or religious institutions, churches, what marriages they can bless and can't bless. I think the state of New Hampshire ought to be able to make that decision for itself, like every other state in the country. I think every church ought to be able to make that decision for itself.

And I think it's very important that we stand up against intolerance and against discrimination.

But I want to add one thing on something that Governor Richardson sad, because it's been a tone of everything that's been discussed here today. The place that I differ with Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, and I guess, to some extent, Senator Obama, and I agree with Governor Richardson -- it is the job of the president of the United States not to legislate but to lead.

Complete transcript

Unless I'm misunderstanding Edwards' position, I disagree with him. I think the federal government is obligated to enforce the constitutional separation of church and state. And, if states want to prohibit same sex unions, for other reasons, those restrictions would need to be constitutionally sound, as well.

[MadBadger]

103. Sounds like John McCain I believe

Against Gay marriage but for state's rights on this issue.

Though John McCain has flip flopped on this a lot.

[ddeclue]

147. I think you are misunderstanding then...

I don't see Edwards saying he's against gay marriage in this quote so I'm puzzled by the outrage here. He just said that he's FOR civil union and for getting rid of don't ask/don't tell.

I don't see how the Federal gov't can "enforce" the separation of church and state by forcing religious organizations to marry gays? That sounds like the opposite of a "separation" to me to force an established religion to marry people in violation of their established doctrine.

The notion that the Federal gov't won't or can't tell the states what to do might be a violation of the spirit of the 14th amendment which says states can't abridge rights of a citizen that are granted at a Federal level but then the 14th amendment doesn't extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation and I don't know how you get an equivalent amendment past 38 state legislatures given that there are still plenty of backwards states in this country where they will oppose such a Federal constitutional amendment.

Therefore, I think the best that can be done legislatively speaking at the Federal level is to let states do their own thing (as Edwards is describing) with the more progressive states liberalizing gay marriage rights while the backwards states will restrict it (similar to abortion).

The consequence will be gay marriages will take place in certain states that will then eventually be forced to be recognized by the other "non-gay" marriage states when married gay couples relocate to those "non-gay" marriage states under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution (Article IV Sections 1 and 2).

There is already a good precedent for this.

This situation has a strong Constutional precedent in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) a case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in which a mixed race black white couple went to the District of Columbia where such marriages where legal to Virginia where anti-miscegenation statutes prohibited black/white intermarriage.

The Supreme Court ruled this law unconstitutional but they DID cite the 14th Amendment rather than the full faith and credit clause as their primary movitivation - they did also say that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.

(http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html)

The main thing that will happen by letting the states take the lead on this issue however is that by legitimizing gay marriage in the progressive states, the people of the backwards states will eventually come to realize that it really isn't the "end of Western Civilization" after all that they were told would occur by the R/W religious zealots and will eventually come to accept it just as they have come to (more or less) accept inter-racial and inter-faith marriages in the past.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Sapphocrat]

152. No, you are not wrong.

NOBODY is saying that any religious institution should/will have to marry same-sex couples.

Please, when you see that myth repeated (that churches will be "forced" to marry us), would you correct it? It's wrong, it's all over the place (I can't count how many times I've seen it on DU alone), and it's damaging. Thanks.

[JeffR]

14. In a freakin' heartbeat, yes

Gore's running mate could be a bowl of tapioca, and they'd still get my vote.

[Kurovski]

79. Or a bagel with a nice shmear, maybe?

;-)

[JeffR]

85. That works too!

:9

[ClayZ]

16. Yes!

[hippiechick]

19. Gore/Feingold - in a heartbeat. Gore/Obama - not so much.

:shrug:

[loudsue]

21. You bet! Sounds like a good one to me. A Gore/Clark ticket sounds pretty good, too!

But I'll take Gore and ABL = Anybody But LIEberman.

:kick::kick::kick:

[proud patriot]

25. Most definately

:thumbsup:

[jaysunb]

31. My Dream Ticket !

:thumbsup:

[Pachamama]

116. Mine too!

:applause:

[BattyDem]

32. Absolutely!

:bounce:

Gore/Clark sounds damn good, too!

To be perfectly honest ... I'd vote for Gore/Mickey Mouse. ANY ticket with Gore as the top name would get my vote. :-)

[movonne]

33. I would love a Gore, Edwards ticket...but I would vote for Gore no

matter who he picks..with the exception of Lieberman...

[SharonRB]

52. Exactly my usual answer.

[salin]

35. uhm, let me think, er...

what - are you kidding? OF COURSE!

[lonestarnot]

36. Obama wouldn't go for that would he?

Besides, I prefer Dennis.

[Kurovski]

93. I'd LOVE it! (nt)

[Swamp Rat]

37. Al Gore and Anybody Else 2008. n/t

[DemGa]

38. I'm seeing massive turnout for that

That's a revolutionary ticket; and we need a revolution.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Whole Heartedly. But Then, I'd Support A Gore With Any Democratic Candidate Ticket. :o)

[smtpgirl]

41. I would

[SallyMander]

42. Dude, i would vote for Gore/Lassie

Arf!

[BattyDem]

44. LOL!

I said I'd vote for Gore/Mickey Mouse ... but Lassie works for me, too! :hi:

[SallyMander]

46. Hmmm, Mickey Mouse may be more qualified

PR experience and all... many photo-ops with small kids... unless someone falls down a well of course! ;-)

[JNelson6563]

150. Yeah but that timeTimmy fell down the well....

There's bound to be some great footage of good ol' Lassie saving Timmy! Besides, Lassie's more "real". ;-)

Julie

[jgraz]

72. Still a better Veep than Cheney

And waaay smarter than Quayle.

"What's that Danny? You want a capital gains tax cut? Good boy!"

[Kadie]

100. Awwww.

That would work! LOL

:hi:

[DesertRat]

45. Works for me. n/t

[vard28]

47. This is a no brainer...

but we've got to convince Gore to run again. I keep hoping. If he does run, he's shown the greatest poker face I've ever seen.

:7

[Kajsa]

48. Absolutely!

Yes, I would support Gore/Obama.

:thumbsup:

[O.M.B.inOhio]

49. 100%

[MikeNearMcChord]

50. I would support Jack Daniels and Ron Barcardi

if it gets the nutcase Republicans out!

[Initech]

137. So would Jose Cuervo be the secretary of defense?

And would Jim Bean be the attorney general? :evilgrin:

[SharonRB]

51. No doubt about it.

[mopinko]

55. gore and whoever he says he wants

bout the only thing i think i would reject out of hand is like- gore/bush or gore/cheney.
really, whoever al wants is great with me.

[Nimrod2005]

56. Si

[goclark]

57. Absolutely ~ they compliment each other nt

[Initech]

58. I'd support Gore / anybody at this point!

[dysfunctional press]

59. Obama isn't ready. Gore/Edwards would be the better bet...

nt

[jtrockville]

78. Gore/Edwards for 8, then Edwards/Obama for 8

[mzteris]

60. heck, I get the impression

most would support a Gore/(Charlie) McCarthy ticket!

(Don't get me wrong, I like Gore and I would love for him to run. I would have loved even more if he could have been in office the past gd 8 years!!!)

[LisaL]

61. Yes.

[in_cog_ni_to]

62. ABSOLUTELY! Gore/Obama. . Obama/Gore..

Clinton/Obama....Obama/Clinton...ABAR! :hi:

[Zomby Woof]

66. Yes, but

Al Gore is not running. He will continue to be effective on the bully pulpit, much to all of our common benefit.

[baldguy]

67. yes

[AwakeAtLast]

70. Any of our Dem candidates make the repukes look like amateurs

but a Gore/Obama ticket would be great! :bounce:

[Kurovski]

92. I dunno, the Repubs look like professional criminals to me.

:bounce:

[libodem]

71. I think i could go

Gore...anybody.

[barbtries]

74. i WILL support Gore

pretty much regardless of who becomes his running mate. seriously. i'm holding out rooting for anyone but gore until he firmly nixes any possibility of running: to me, Al Gore is our next president.

[Pastiche423]

75. Gore/ABE

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

76. Gore doesn't want to run, Obama doesn't want to be VP

Several months ago I thought Gore-Obama or Clark-Obama would make really good tickets. But Clark's not running, and I can't believe anything Gore says about running - plus, his protestations about not trying to be coy aside, he's being really coy and it's getting irritating.

And most importantly Obama does not want to be VP. He wants the whole sack of walnuts.

I had not considered a Richardson-Obama team-up but it's a very good idea. Richardson has the experience to balance Obama's lack, and I think Obama's personality would mesh better with Richardson than with Clark or Gore. But though I like the governor and what he has to say, I'm not sure he's going to make it to the primaries, much less win them.

[kiteinthewind]

142. Irritating? How about smart. No need this early. "Obama doesn't want to be VP. He wants the whole

sack of walnuts"? Are you saying he feels he is too good for VP? Do you know this as fact? I'm sorry, but he is just too green for me. Has nothing to do with race, before you jump on that, it has to do with depth. He does not have it, IMO. If he categorically stated he did not want VP and would only 'settle' for Prez, then that is just one more reason for me to say he is definitely not ready, :shrug:

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

145. I was speaking my own opinion

[johnaries]

77. HELL yes! or Gore/Edwards.

Gore/Clinton? Well, that would just be too funny for words, wouldn't it?

[cascadiance]

87. Or how about Gore/Reagan! :)

That would be Ron Reagan Junior! or Patti Davis Reagan... Then for sure we'd get stem cell research passed! :)

In seriousness though, still hoping for Gore/Feingold!

[AllyCat]

80. Yes. nt

[sellitman]

81. Gore & Jeffrey Dalmer

Just an expression.

[Patsy Stone]

82. Does the Pope wear a funny hat? n/t

[Kurovski]

89. Even in the woods.

Gore/Pope's Mitre '08!

[Patsy Stone]

94. If a mitre falls in a forest

does it make a sound in a vacuum?

[Kurovski]

95. What's the sound

of Tinky Winky clapping?

[Patsy Stone]

107. A rolling purse

gathers no moss.

Snatch this pebble from my hand, Grasshopper.

[Kurovski]

108. The Grasshopper stole his aunt's purse

and wintered in Boca Raton.

[Patsy Stone]

111. I went to Boca yesterday.

And all I got was this one-handed, mossy Teletubby who'd been mugged in a well-vacuumed forest by a grassshopper's aunt.

What a waste of gas.

[Kurovski]

112. Lol!

I was just gonna yell at you for leaving me behind, but, never mind.

GO GORE!

[Patsy Stone]

115. Now, I am leaving you behind

to go to bed. Sweet dreams.

[Kurovski]

117. Sweet dreams...

of a Gore presidency.

[here_is_to_hope]

83. Absolutely! n/t

[cui bono]

84. Gore/Obama would be wholeheartedly supported by me. :)

[mmonk]

86. Yes

though I like Kucinich and Richardson.

[tblue37]

90. Yeah, but I would much prefer Gore/Clark. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

91. Judging by the responses so far, it looks like a downhill battle.

[Nothing Without Hope]

96. I don't trust Obama. I'd prefer to see Clark or Kucinich. And I love Conyers,

but he knows he's needed where he is and won't run.

[MadBadger]

104. What about Obama dont you trust?

[tavalon]

97. A gore/fill in the blank with almost anyone would work

That said, there are better choices than, say, Lieberman. Or Clinton. Or McCain.

[WillyT]

98. now wait... let me think about this for a moment... HELL FUCKING YES !!!

I've been saying that this ticket would be unbeatable about for the last year or so!!!

Now if we can just get Al to run, we get the Presidency in 2008.

Any other questions?

:evilgrin:

[KaryninMiami]

99. Absolutely, immediately, without question!

Gore Obama is my dream ticket.

[autorank]

101. Uh, hmm...let's see. Like RIGHT NOW, today.

That's how it will play out I think.

Great team, someone who will be a partner in the campaign. loyal, etc. And Gore could teach
Obama a lot so that after he saves the world, Obama can make it better.

Pass the popcorn;)

[AtomicKitten]

102. yes, please

[AnnieBW]

105. Heck, yeah!

I'd support anything with Gore in it. My dream is a Gore/Richardson ticket, though.

[caligirl]

106. do you like sex? yes yES YES!

[Colobo]

109. Yes.

[Spiffarino]

110. Hmm... Gore/Obama? Check! Gore/Ham Sandwich? Check!

Gore/Humvee? Well...

Check! He'd convert it to bio.

[w4rma]

113. I would wholehartedly support any ticket with Gore on it, but I would rather Edwards be his running

mate.

I don't think Obama adds anything to any ticket.

[Liberty Belle]

114. Yes, absolutely.

A Gore-Edwards ticket would also be good.

[Laurier]

119. Certainly.

n/t

[farmboxer]

120. President Gore should be reelected

and I will vote for him, Gore/Obama ticket would be fine.

[chknltl]

121. A two-fer: Gore/ Kerry

Al and John...:woohoo:

And when that runs out they could swap spots and do it all over again! (Kerry/Gore in 2016!)

[Fridays Child]

122. That swapping places idea is interesting. I wonder if it's constitutionally possible.

[jgraz]

129. No. Or else Bill could be Hillary's running mate

[Oeditpus Rex]

123. Yes

I actually believe that may end up being the ticket.

[RB TexLa]

124. If Gore runs and gets the nomination. He would be in a position to have the V-P candidate

known as "what's his name." Al Gore would win or lose on his own, there is no one that really gives or takes votes as a VP candidate. He would be able to select a totally unheard of person and have them do nothing in the campaign. It's an ideal situation for a presidential nominee, one less person to owe something to.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

125. I think it would be a good combination

Gore-Clark and Gore-Edwards would be good as well IMO. But yeah, a Gore-Obama ticket would be a great ticket

Richardson-Obama I'm not so sure about. I think Richardson should probably go with someone like Edwards if he is nominated

[intheflow]

127. Yes. n/t

[bigwillq]

130. Yes.

It's basically Gore-Any other DEM for me! :bounce: RUN AL RUN!

[wryter2000]

131. Just give me the chance

I would love that!

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

132. Gore/SpongeBob would be fine with me.

[Ladyhawk]

135. ...

:spray:

[Ladyhawk]

133. Hell yes. n/t

[ThomWV]

134. Yes, but I'd prefer Gore and Richardson or possibly Edwards

[roamer65]

136. YES!

[Geek_Girl]

138. Yes but a Gore- Edwards ticket would be unbeatable

nt

[bpeale]

139. no. i think gore could do better

[Control-Z]

140. YES!! eom

[kestrel91316]

141. Not just yes, but HELL YES!!!!

[kiteinthewind]

143. Gore/warm body nt

:toast:

[fortyfeetunder]

146. Yes, I'd do that one too.

Experienced statesman balanced with new energy and spirit.

[Critters2]

148. Yes. nt

[Kazak]

149. Pfft...Gore/Petri Dish

:eyes:

[Fridays Child]

151. I hope Al is reading this.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

153. In a heartbeat n/t

[Grandrose]

154. My fondest hope!

Any ticket with Gore and a warm body will be fine by me, because I have so much confidence in him.

No doubt in my mind he would pick the right partner this time around. My preference would be Obama! :)