Al Gore should NOT run

[NormanYorkstein]

He's not a candidate yet, and hopefully he won't be. Here's just a few reasons why. Please note that these are NOT right-wing talking points like "Gore invented the internet" and other such tripe.

1. Gore was such a weak candidate he couldn't beat Bush by more than a few votes in Florida, not enough to prevent them from stealing it. This was a sitting Vice President serving under a popular President for two terms of relative peace and prosperity.

2. Gore couldn't win his own home state.

3. For all the silliness about Ralph Nader, Bush got more Democratic votes than Nader did.

4. Gore's lifelong support of "free trade agreements" are massively politically unpopular right now and was one of the reasons people said there was "no difference" between the parties. Gore was a founding member of the DLC and one of the key players in moving the party towards the right wing.

5. He's a lousy public speaker and awkward on television, with none of the charisma of Obama or Edwards.

6. We have a number of good candidates in the race already who can beat Republicans. Gore has shown with all the advantages in the world he couldn't beat Republicans at the top of a ticket (sure it was stolen but they only got away with it because he did so poorly).

7. Gore wouldn't even stand up in the Senate or even give his own to the Congressional Black Caucus who wanted to investigate the election fraud.

Gore is a weak candidate with a lousy platform and a track record of losing. Why would we want him to run? He's going great with his environmental work, let's hope he sticks to it.

Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden - plenty of Democrats running from many parts of the Democratic political spectrum.

[LynneSin]

1. I'm up in the air about Al Gore but....

...this is not the same Al Gore than ran 8 years ago. If he could run his campaign with the same enthusiasm that he runs the projects he does today he could easily win.

[Mojorabbit]

2. i agree but for none of your reasons

We need a spokesman for climate change issue (that transcends party) ..which in the end will be more important than the presidency. As President he will be villified and blocked from every corner and will not be able to concentrate on this one most important issue. I think he will be more effective as he is or perhaps as head of a special govt organization ala homeland securtiy but for climate change issues. A czar to get things done. That would be my dream position for him. That being said, if he runs he gets my vote.

[Canuckistanian]

43. There ya go, that's the reason right there

Gore is now a citizen of the WORLD. He has some responsibilities there.

I'd hate to see him dragged down into the muck (a polite term) of American politics, such as it is today.

He'd never get anything done.

Still, he'd be a fine candidate

But only at the expense of the rest of the world.

[joshcryer]

3. Reason #1. Gore is a rock star.

Reason #2. You are wrong.

[NormanYorkstein]

5. "Rock Stars" belong fronting rock bands, not the USA

I'll buy Gore's album when it comes out :eyes:

[joshcryer]

7. In the metaphorical sense Gore '07 is nothing like Gore '00.

I mean how anyone fails to see this is just beyond me.

You're wrong.

[NormanYorkstein]

10. no difference - he's still shilling for FTAs and corporate welfare

Sure maybe his speeches are better but the substance remains the same.

But those who want a "rock star" for President can't be concerned too much with substantive issues.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

24. No he's not.

Did you see his movie or read his book or the numerous speeches about returning power to the people?

[NormanYorkstein]

32. Yes I have, but just like in 2000

Gore says one thing in public and another to the business press. He can say "power to the people" all he wants but he's working for "pollution credits to the corporations".

Maybe your are unfamiliar with Gore's long political career? Maybe you are unfamiliar with his founding of the DLC, his right-wing economic policies, his past as a "social conservative", his anti-gay past voting record (for which he got no less than Fred Phelps' endorsement for, Phelps had a fundraiser for Gore at his house).

Gore is no progressive, he's to the right of Hillary Clinton.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[NormanYorkstein]

61. nice! Call me a Freeper since I don't support your candidate

Your candidate - the economically right wing pro-corporate Al Gore. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a Freeper. It so dishonest and underhanded but I just guess that's the way you "argue".

[SoFlaJet]

14. yea and Cowboys

should ride horses and chase stray cows NOT be the Leader Of The Free World-Run Al Run

[whistle]

4. Correct, Mr Gore needs to retire from politics, he is doing a fine job

....for environmental causes

[melody]

6. Gore should run, did win, will win again

I see we got all the stop-Gore forces out in one thread.

We need the candidate who will (1) have the best chance of winning and (2) do the right
thing when he gets there. For me, that's Al. It's not just about our own preferred
candidate or who we'd like to win. My first choice would probably be Kucinich, but Dennis
isn't electable while primates are still in power.

[Initech]

8. To counter argument #1:

Gore won. There's no doubt in my mind. Bush stole the election thanks to his dad's ties to the RNC-controlled media, and they were able to turn the miscounted votes into a national media circus. That's how they were able to gain easy access to the Supreme Court, which allowed them to weasel their way into the presidency. Bush is a sore loser. Always has been, and the fact that he cant seem to grasp the fact that the Iraq War is a complete and total failure is proof.

[jobycom]

9. Wow, haven't seen this post since 2003.

Quick refutation: Gore would have won Florida by 50K or more votes if something hadn't caused an unprecedented number of overvotes in two heavily Democratic county.

He won nationwide, obviously, despite having the MSM slandering him for over two years.

Without Ralph Nader, Gore would have won New Hampshire, thus the election.

That's all. The fact that Gore won nationwide by half a million votes proves he can win.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. Oh stop now

You know all those Jews in Palm Beach County voted for Pat Buchanan. :sarcasm:

[NormanYorkstein]

15. there's no doubt it was stolen

the problem for Gore was that for all his advantages he couldn't win his home state or key states by anymore than a small margin - enough for them to steal it.

Then Gore lays down and dies and won't even help the CBC do an investigation.

[jobycom]

78. The problem for your theory is that he still won.

He didn't win his home state because it was a southern state and he hadn't lived there for quite some time. Our party rarely wins in the SOuth. If you want to be pedantic, Bush didn't win his home state, either. He lost Connecticut both times. He won his adopted state, but his adopted state always goes Republican.

[NormanYorkstein]

89. the problem for your theory is Bush is President

So while Gore may have "won" we certainly didn't now did we?

[tinfoilinfor2005]

107. I don't think fighting it to the SCOTUS was laying down and dying.

They were the ones who decided to behead him. And for their efforts, America got George Bush and Iraq.

I can't think of anyone who is more qualified than Gore, and if he decides to run, I will support him to the max.

[jbnow]

17. In 2003 I'd have agreed that he shouldn't run

or at least I didn't care if he did or not.

Doesn't time change things.
He wasn't a great candidate then, but he was Ok and did win. He made a political choice for VP that I didn't like at all. He was too free trade. He didn't connect well with crowds, he really was a bit stiff. blah, blah, blah

A lot of people would have withered, turned bitter after 200.
He didn't. He blossomed. He became himself. He spoke out on things he cared about, things we care about, and not just global warming. His talks before the war showed more understanding of the area and situation than anyone who ran. He is not the same on free trade either. He has done a lot on global warming but now the issue is on it's own roll...America lags behind most nations...a president could change that.

He was an OK politician and then he lost in a strange way. He became a statesman and he is a great statesman. He shed the persona and became Al Gore. He does connect now. None of our top candidates has his depth or breadth of understanding.

At another time I'd be thrilled with Obama or Edwards...but this is a unique time in history. bush has the domestic and international situation in such a mess, we teeter on a precipice. This is Gore's time. I doubt he wants the role that much but he might feel the responsibility.

It's funny that I was so-so about him even as I cast my vote in 2000 and now I hope so much he will run. The world has changed, Gore has changed. my view has changed. We need exactly him.

[Why Syzygy]

27. ...

:pals:

[Uncle Joe]

20. Don't forget the tens of thousands of innocent voters purged from Florida's

voter rolls for being felons, when they weren't, just likely Democratic Voters.

[Dinger]

44. Something I Heard Said At A Packer Game A Few Years Ago:

Someone was wearing a * mask (wasn't a * fan). He kept saying: "Yay for me! I WON by negative 500,000 votes!"

[Coyote_Bandit]

11. All that glitters is not gold

Charisma is in the eye of the beholder. Obama is fashionable and relatively inexperienced and untested. Edwards is selling hope. Gore is the most solid and most experienced presidential candidate in either party. Should he choose to run he will win in my opinion. And I'm guessing that he will run.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

12. Gore's supposed awkwardness was a fiction created by media hacks

To perpetuate the horserace aspect of the campaign. They portrayed Bush as a folksy kinda guy you'd rather have a beer with, ignoring his lifelong privilege and nastiness to people who disagreed with him or weren't in his circle. Why weren't we hearing more about the speech where he called his supporters "the haves and the have-mores"? They never shut up about Gore saying he invented the Internet (which he never even said). Then they made a big deal of Gore's sighs and "stiffness" to portray him as a snooty elitist. And you know what? Gore still won by 1/2 million votes.

[kimmerspixelated]

18. Exactly, catburgler!

Gore admitted he let others run his campaign/platform for him, infringing on his real style. He has grown in the best of ways since that time and is seasoned and ready to fight. Sometimes, I think he would get more accomplished if he just kept doing what's he's doing, on the other hand, I think the world would bend over backwards to embrace the new Prez Gore, and the playing field for what he could accomplish would shift dramatically. As far as world trade agreements, etc., I would like to know his new viewpoints on such matters. Bush and co. have screwed up everything that they possibly could in that realm of things. Cheney would sell us all on E-bay if given the chance!

[Forkboy]

35. I don't think the stiffness was a total media fiction.Let me explain...

Before I heard the media say anything like that about Gore I was hearing it from people,and I saw it myself.He wasn't even close to being like he is now where he seems very comfortable with himself and the media.

The trouble was the media took what should have been just an observation that held no actual weight at the end of the day and turned it into something that did matter.The media found a way to make it matter when there was no way something that trivial should be any kind of serious factor.Unfortunately we know how good the media is at doing that.

I know this is kind of splitting hairs because the gist of your post is spot on,I think.But I do see a lot of people get attacked for even mentioning that about Gore,but it was something a lot of people thought even before the media ran with it and distorted it with the results you speak of.If anything I think that's why the media was so successful in that line of attack,because some people already had that seed in their heads to start with.

It shows how easily people's beliefs can be manipulated by exaggerating a truth just as easily as they can be manipulated by using a lie.

[karynnj]

16. You forget Clinton fatigue

which is now considered to be so little a factor that Bill Clinton's wife is running. Using your main logic, you could make similar arguments for almost all of them.

Edwards lost very badly to Kerry in the primaries (Kerry beat him about 2:1) and instead of NAFTA he voted for the bankrupcy bill in 2001 (the progressives like Kennedy, Wellstone, Kerry etc all voted against) Therefore, following your logic, he is a weak candidate.

Obama lost a primary for a house of Representatives seat and he voted against Kerry/Feingold.

Kucinich - no one in their right mind thinks he is a stronger candidate than Gore.

....

[damntexdem]

19. Gore should run:

1) if only to keep global warming in front of everyone throughout the campaign;
2) he didn't lose to Dubya, he had the election stolen from him;
3) he's a much-improved public speaker, and gets passionate about saving the planet;
4) we need to hear what he thinks NOW about trade and globalization;
5) he's better than Clinton, not that that's saying much.

[NormanYorkstein]

21. Gore still supports "free trade" and globalization

He's made his current views known, and he hasn't changed. Gore has spent his ENTIRE political career shilling for free trade. Gore was a founding member of the DLC and his "solution" to the climate change problem is to allow corporations to sell "pollution credits" to each other and continue polluting.

Gore's not a candidate, so I think I'm free to say the guy is a FAKE.

[Uncle Joe]

22. The Power of Myth and Al Gore

Bill Moyers had a series of excellent interviews with the late Joseph Campbell regarding his book "The Power Of Myth". In it Joseph speaks of the commonality of all the world's religions and mythologies, even when they are separated by time and distance. He goes on to state that there are many lessons and much wisdom to be learned from myth. Here in Nashville (The Athens of the South), the home of the only full scale replica of The Parthenon of the Acropolis, mythology is never too far away.

What does this have to do with Al Gore? The lesson of what happened to Al Gore has repeated it self throughout history and myth. A hero or leader comes to the aid of the people and the ones in power trash him for it.

When I think of Al Gore, I think of Prometheus. Prometheus, the son of the Titan Iapetus who took pity on the misery of mankind, huddling in the cold and dark, so Prometheus stole fire from heaven for their benefit. Zeus (Jupiter), enraged at this loss of power caused Prometheus to be chained to a rock on Mount Caucasus, where a vulture each day devoured his liver, which was made whole again each night, this was supposed to go on for all eternity.

Al Gore, the son of Tennessee Titan Al Gore Sr. took pity on the American People as they were fed scraps of information on the vital issues of the day. Al, while he was in congress thought that the people should have equal access to the same information as the rich and the powerful. Al Gore recognized ahead of the curve (as he usually does) that for democracy to flourish, the people should have control over the flow of information that will ultimately control their lives. Information is power, so Al decided to become the primary champion of the relatively new technology (now known as the internet) controlled by the defense dept. and some universities and to open it up for everyone.

CNN recently held a poll as to the most revolutionary creation of the 20th century and the internet won hands down. So one might expect praise for such vision, service and dedication to the people, however that would be forgetting the lessons of Prometheus.

The mass corporate media were enraged at this loss of power, how dare he! They wanted to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth so that they could regale us with great stories of runaway brides, missing pretty white women, shark attacks and various other lurid tales, etc. they could continue do this for all perpetuity. The mass corporate media wanted to create a fictitious bubble or Matrix for the American People to live in and Al Gore had endangered their project.

Why would "American Journalism" want to do this to the American People? Because if you are ignorant, you are more easily controlled, and this is all about power and money. So Al had to be punished for empowering the American People. The mass corporate media not having a taste for liver with the possible exception of pate de fois gras (goose liver), decided to slander, trash, ignore and demean him in every way possible. It still goes on to this day to some degree.

The trashing of Al started in earnest in 1998, although I believe that the witch hunt against Clinton was in truth a back door way for them to hurt Al's chances of coming to power, of course the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment did not help either. The War Against Gore began in 1998 with a Wolf Blitzer interview; in it Blitzer asks Al what separates him from Bill Bradley? Blitzer asking Al of and Al is talking about his record in congress. As anyone would do in a job interview, Al speaks of his achievements, primarily in helping to bring about the creation of the internet as we know it today, which in fact is the truth; nothing is said by Blitzer at the time because he knows this is the truth.

One or two days later Dick Armey begins spouting his Republican Talking Points slamming Al for his hubris, and the mass corporate media begin goose stepping in unison and take up where Dick left off. The MCM says "Al Gore claims to have invented the internet" which of course is a lie, and it does not end there. "Al Gore claims to have discovered Love Canal" another lie, although he held hearings on toxic waste in Toone, Tennessee which expanded to include Love Canal. The MCM said Al Gore was wearing earth tones, so he must be a fake, besides being stiff and boring, etc. etc.

Al Gore has led a remarkable life and sometimes it reads like fiction such as being an inspiration (along with Tommy Lee Jones; his college roommate) for a lead character in the book "Love Story" but it’s the truth. The MCM openly jeered him during the Gore/Bradley debate and they even did a 180 after the Gore/Bush debates overruling their own focus groups and changing their reporting as to who won those debates overnight, someone had apparently heard him sigh (I did not). As long as Bush did not drool on his podium, he was given a standing O. The only time terrorism was ever brought up during those debates was when Al mentioned it. With the MCM, the vital issue of the day (and keep in mind this was after Osama had declared war against us and attacked the World Trade Center the first time, not to mention our embassies in Africa) was who would you rather have in your home for a beer? The nation has been drunk ever since.

The result of all this slander, demeaning and trashing of our best and brightest is the Pottersville, we are currently living in today. But think how much more difficult it would have been for us to get the truth out regarding Global Warming, the Iraq War, the Downing Street Memos, Gannon/Guckert, supporting the anti-war movement, Bush's corruption and incompetence etc. without the internet. Think how much more difficult it would be for you to put your opinions out for the masses or praise your favorite leader’s virtues if we did not have the internet. Even the freepers and Bush owe Al; they are just too clueless to know it. It’s for these reasons and many more that I will never abandon Al Gore for President.

P.S. For a historical refresher, click on link below and google “War against Gore” or 2000 debates.

http://dailyhowler.com /

[Admiral Loinpresser]

23. Most of your comments are off the mark.

1. You state that Gore was a weak candidate. Weak candidates don't come from behind to win. In March 1999, Gore started about 18 points behind Bush. Gore came from behind to win the election, therefore he was not a weak candidate in 2000.

While it's true that he was a sitting VP, you go on to imply this was an advantage. History indicates otherwise. When people have had eight years of Pepsi, they want Coke (& vice versa). Only one sitting VP has been inaugurated since 1836: George H. W. Bush. In the last three historical occurrences (Gore, Bush 41 & Humphrey), the sitting VP with a good economy started the race way behind. The public tends to alternate party after two terms.

2. It's true Gore lost Tennessee. So what? He won the USA. Gore won in 2000. That trumps losing Tennessee for me.

3. How many Democratic votes Bush got versus Nader is an argument against Gore? He won Florida under very difficult conditions (Elian, Monica & the MSM War on Gore). None of those conditions will exist in 2008. Even press hostility will be modified by the power of the bloggers (and ANY Dem candidate will likely be similarly SwiftBoated in 2008 to some extent).

4. Gore's position on free trade is basically indistinguishable from that of Howard Dean (i.e. international trade should not only free but should include environmental and trade regulation). Because of Iraq, Dean's free trade position did not hamper him in 2004. Iraq will likely be as big an issue in 2008 as it was in 2004. The reason some said there was "no difference" in 2000 is because they were grossly misinformed by a corrupt media.

While Gore was a founding member of the DLC in the '80s, he broke with them over his populist campaign in 2000 and is now anathema to Al From, Joe Lieberman and that ilk.

5. Your assertion that he is a bad public speaker is subjective. It is not shared by the massive spill-over crowds inspired by Gore wherever he speaks. Awkward on TV? Did you see the Oscars? He killed'em. His comedy on many TV appearances has been masterful. He is an extremely quick wit.

6. I don't disagree that we have good candidates. But I think Gore would certainly be the best president of any living American. And I think he would be the best candidate. What excites me is how excellent a president he will be.

As to those "advantages" in 2000, please see #1 and #3 above. I think on balance he had major disadvantages, yet kept fighting and came from behind.

7. Your Michael Moore point about the 2000 election and the CBC is unfortunate. But what does that have to do with the 2008 election cycle? The best way to right the wrong of 2000 is to re-elect Gore in 2008.

Gore is the best leader in the party since Bobby Kennedy. He is simply head and shoulders above the rest.

Visionaries like this don't come along every generation. Civilization faces elimination in this century without great leadership and action. Let's elect the clearly best candidate.

[InternalDialogue]

25. *applause*

:applause:

The answer to who would make a good president is, quite literally, who would make a good president?.

Pick a candidate or a presumptive candidate, and I can build a case against them by picking and choosing stats from different topics. Overall, who would I most want occupying the White House come January 2009? Al Gore.

[AtomicKitten]

36. * agreed *

thank you

[NormanYorkstein]

39. they were on the mark, you just agreed with most of them

1. Gore weak enough he couldn't beat Bush by more than a few votes in FL.

2. He couldn't win his home state, and he may have "won" but he's not President. If he could have carried his own state he'd have won.

3. Yes it is - Gore loses Democratic votes to Bush, does he gain any Republican votes?

4. Gore has spent his ENTIRE CAREER pushing free trade and DLC policies (which he helped found of course). Whatever his newest speeches are saying, he's spent his life doing this. None of the other candidates are as fanatic about free trade as Gore.

5. Of course it's subjective. Lots of people agree he's a lousy speaker.

6. How will Gore be a "great President"? By giving us NAFTA II, more job losses and more outsourcing? A lot of people don't find that "exciting".

7. Gore's character became quite clear with this incident, he won't stand up for his own party when they needed him the most and he rolled over.

Gore is the worst Democratic leader in my lifetime. Pretty much anyone would be better than him.

[Doremus]

106. EXCELLENT post. Thank you! n/t

[partylessinOhio]

26. This is America and it's still a free country. Gore is free to make his own choice.

I will wait and see if Gore makes that choice and cheer him on if he does.

:applause:

[KoKo]

28. Could you provide "Links" to your diatribe against Gore's running?

Don't see any verifiable info there..

[NormanYorkstein]

33. Anyone with a basic knowledge of politics in the last 10 years

already knows everything posted there. What do you contest? Or you just want to make a snarky "link?" comment?

[Dinger]

52. I'll Make A "Snarky Link" Comment:

KoKo is right, where the hell are links to your diatribe of President Gore?

[NormanYorkstein]

55. which part do you need a link for?

I'm sorry I assumed that posters here had basic knowledge of the records of the candidates they breathlessly support.

Do you need a link to Gore's lifetime campaign for free trade agreements?

[Dinger]

102. Yes, As A Matter Of FACT I Would

Thanks:)

[Dinger]

53. Strange, Neither Do I, Hmmmmmmm (nt)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. Gore was never a weak candidate!

Apart from Hillary I don't think any of the rest of the candidates can win the nomination.

[PlanetBev]

30. Let's just imagine if Nader never entered the race in 2000...

Let's just say Gore would have been in The White House instead of that fucktard, Bush. You think that we'd have the Clear Skies Initiative or the Healthy Forests Initiative? How about the Global Gag Policy? How about a zillion knuckle-walkers in the DOJ?

Maybe, just maybe, there'd be 3,300 Americans alive now, 20,000 more might have their arms, legs, eyes and brains, and maybe there'd be 650,000 Iraqis alive today.

Oh, no, Ralphie just wanted to give us "more voices and more choices!"

Flame me, I don't give a shit...you Nader voters just stay in denial so you won't have to look at the truth.

[NormanYorkstein]

40. when you say "you Nader voters"?

to whom are you referring exactly?

[AJH032]

93. I would assume...

this refers to people who voted for Nader.

[Bobbieo]

31. Sorry to hear that Norm as Al always speaks so well of you!

[NormanYorkstein]

34. I'm sure Gore is a wonderful person, I'd have a beer with him

He's a terrible politician and way too right-wing for me to support him in the primaries.

[KoKo]

37. Do you have a link to Gore's RW policies you disagree with that you can

point to how you feel that "while I'd have a beer with him he's a terrible politician and way too right-wing for me to support him."

I'm really waiting to see how Right Wing Al Gore is in your "opinion."

[NormanYorkstein]

38. Maybe you should research the DLC, Gore's entire political career

his FTA support, his "reinvention of government" - code for deregulation, etc. Were you paying attention to politics before 2000? You know Gore did exist before his movie came out :eyes:

[Dinger]

51. NormanYorkstein Says Gore Is "WAY TOO RIGHT WING" For his Support

Just so you all know that.

[NormanYorkstein]

57. Yes - Gore is a CONSERVATIVE Democrat

He has been for his entire political career. He moved to the center on social issues, but has remained economically right.

Maybe you just don't know much about politics? Gore didn't show up on the scene when his movie came out.

[AtomicKitten]

62. pick up a newspaper, dude

the man has evolved ... maybe you should too

[NormanYorkstein]

66. oh really? link?

Gore is "evolving" into a Presidential candidate perhaps, but he's spent his ENTIRE CAREER shilling for FTAs. He also "evolved" last time with his "populist speeches" while his second hand man Joe Lieberman went around telling the business press it was all "rhetorical flourishes".

Now - go ahead, call me a Freeper since I don't worship your candidate - Gore's to the RIGHT of Hillary Clinton.

[AtomicKitten]

69. wow - you're an interesting person n/t

[NormanYorkstein]

74. wow that's a reasonsed response

I wonder if Gore-fans can do any sort of advocacy for Gore aside from glittering generalities and personal attacks against his critics? So far - not much.

[AtomicKitten]

80. ah huh

In reviewing this thread, it is you, sir, that has dished up the personal attacks at all kinds of people who have had the audacity to disagree with you.

No kidding; check it out.

Otherwise, and again, support and vote for whomever you wish. :hi:

[NormanYorkstein]

84. please point out a person attack from me?

Go ahead, we'd love to see it?

"In reviewing this thread, it is you, sir, that has dished up the personal attacks at all kinds of people who have had the audacity to disagree with you."

Where?

[Dinger]

103. You Said "Way Too Right Wing," Not "Conservative Democrat" (nt)

[MasonJar]

41. This is the biggest bunch of hogwash I've yet seen on any blog.

Number one: Harris and Jeb expunged an enormous number of voters who did not know until they arrived at the polls. (In excess of 70,000) Number two: Gore still won. He was cheated out of the election...in Tennessee also by Bill "cat killer" Frist, who as the Bush head honcho set up roadblocks to intimidate dem voters, sent our mailings with the wrong date, expunged many voters and etc. Back to Florida, the dem who designed the ballot in Miami area had it arranged so that many voted for what they thought was Gore, but was in fact Buchanan (Jews for Buchanan, of course.) Supposedly a dem, she turned out to be a pug in disguise. In addition you obviously never listened to any of the speeches that Gore gave for Move-on. There have seldom been a more eloquent or impassioned or important series of speeches in the history of the country. I suggest you pull them up. Finally Gore is a partician and a statesman; Bush is a rich piece of white trash.

[flaminbats]

42. I don't think Gore will run..but I think he should run

I believe that even if Gore doesn't run for President, he can still make a huge difference on the state level. I think he could win if he ran for the Senate or for Governor in Tennessee. and Democrats in the south need some competitive candidates to revive their party.

If Gore can't win on the national level, he could still implement many of his environmental ideas on the state level. Not only that, a victory for Gore in Tennessee would not only revive the Democratic party in that state..but make Gore a serious Presidential candidate after 2008. More importantly, as Governor, Gore could fix allot of the problems caused during Phil Bredesen's term...like the gutting of the Tenncare program. Ironically this program was started by a Republican Governor and trashed by a Democratic Governor, this is sad to see..especially since this program is needed more now than when it was started in the 90's!

I agree that Gore ran a weak campaign in 2000, but I think he has learned more than we have from that defeat. I think we need people like Gore to remain politically active, and use their best abilities and name recognition to promote our agenda. many people say Gore can't win after losing the electoral college in 2000, but that's what people said about Grover Cleveland and Richard Nixon.

[NYCGirl]

45. Gore's already been a Senator and a Representative for Tennessee, re-elected a

number of times for each office. Why would he want to do that again?

[flaminbats]

48. because he still cares?

I worked in the state Senate years ago, and even worked as an intern for a Congressional candidate who was defeated by a landslide in 1996. but others like me haven't given up, and now Democrats once again have an active Democratic Party in my county! Gore can just give up and retire, but it is his choice. Even if Gore doesn't run for President, we need a Democratic Senator in Tennessee, and a real Democrat to be Governor.

I doubt he'll run for President, but I hope he remains active politically. Tennessee was one of the few two-party states, even as the rest of the south supported our party. wouldn't it be a huge mistake to allow Republicans to have a monopoly over a state where two-party politics is legendary?

[NYCGirl]

50. Your experience is wonderful, but I doubt you ever served two terms as VPOTUS.

Al Gore will run for President and he will win — again.

[johnaries]

81. Actually, do you know anything about the current Dem gov of TN?

After a Repuke Gov ran TN into the ground, Dem Phil Bredesen turned the state around in just 2 years. He was just re-elected with almost no contest. Actually, he woould make a great president, but TN isn't through with him yet, we still need him.

[Dinger]

46. I Disagree On # 1-5, Last Part Of 6, & "Gore Is A Weak Candidate " Paragraph, &

many of these DO sound like right wing talking points, sorry. Please don't tell me to "Note" anything. I can think for myself, thank you. Not trying to be an ass here, just my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

[NormanYorkstein]

47. I guess *any* criticism of any Democrat is a "right wing talking point"

Anytime someone criticizes any Democrat for any reason, someone on DU screams "freeper" and "why are you repeating right wing talking points"? It's ridiculous.

[Dinger]

49. No It Isn't norman

You know what than means when I "forget" to capitalize people's names? Nevermind. . .

[NormanYorkstein]

58. so far your posts have been substance free

just snark and nastiness. Why do you bother?

Maybe you have some good things to say about Gore? Maybe you can tell us which of his policies you support?

Or not, whatever.

Ironic giving your avatar and sigline you attack posters for being against anti-working class non-candidates like Gore.

[madfloridian]

54. Al Gore should run. He needs to serve his term as president...

the one which he never got to serve because of a coup.

[NormanYorkstein]

98. If he had run in 2004

I would have voted for him in the primaries. When Clinton/Gore were elected in 92, the country was much more right wing then we are now. Clinton/Gore had to triangulate - Gore the conservative, pro-corporate Democrat was part of Clinton's triangulation.

We can do a LOT better than Clinton/Gore now - we don't have to compromise anymore.

[mtnsnake]

56. What are you trying to do, dude?

Are you trying to bust the bubble of so many people living in Ga Ga Land? lol

I'm not sure you're 100% correct on everything you posted, but you do make some good points, and I do agree with you that Al Gore is not the silver bullet that almost everyone here thinks he is, and I love the guy.

While he may have as good a chance of winning the Primary as anyone, I don't think he'd win it in a cake walk like everyone else seems to believe. And as far as the general election goes, I don't think Gore's chances to win would be as good as several other of our candidates' chances...not for all of the reasons you listed, but for some of them, and for other reasons you didn't mention, too.

One of the reasons Al Gore is pushed so hard on DU is that he's perceived as being a "Hillary stopper". That perception is based more on wishful thinking than reality.

[AtomicKitten]

60. not exactly

It appears much of Al Gore's support comes from people like myself who feel he is simply the best qualified for the job. He has already demonstrated by a preponderance of the polling that he would indeed have a tremendous amount of influence on the race if he threw his hat in the ring. There is also an element of those seeking a karmic reckoning for the judicial coup d'etat that deprived him of the office he rightfully won in 2000. We have seen him evolve since then and many people like what they see.

And, as always, if you don't care for him, don't vote for him, but the OP's rather insulting and inaccurate case against him hardly constitutes a legitimate, reasonable argument against his candidacy.

No, Gore's not the silver bullet, but he would most definitely be a contender in a race with already some solid, strong candidates. Wishful thinking? You bet I wish he would run.

[NormanYorkstein]

63. insulting? How?

Inaccurate? How? This post was my opinion, based on years of following Gore's career, and nothing the least bit inflammatory nor all that controversial.

But unless I rave about Gore our Saviour I'll get personally attacked, called a Freeper, etc. Talk about bullshit.

Gore picked Lieberman - figure it out.

[AtomicKitten]

65. and Kerry picked McCain at one time -- so what?

Both Lieberman and McCain used to be very different men. As was Al Gore.

You seem unable to assimilate information over a period of time and understand the evolution of this particular possible candidate. Early in his career he was a much more moderate Democrat involved with the DLC and NAFTA when they were shiny new ideas. Nobody is disputing that, but he has most certainly evolved.

He won in 2000 fair and square, in fact that only thing Gore lost was a 5:4 Supreme Court decision which was a judicial coup d'etat. The MSM treated him horribly and he still won and he fought all the way to the Supreme Court.

The man has evolved. Google his speeches opposing the invasion of Iraq, opposing BushCo's fascist regime. Do your homework. And if you still think he stinks as a candidate, don't vote for him. It's as simple as that.

[NormanYorkstein]

68. Gore has not changed a bit - just last year he did an interview

defending NAFTA and his other FTAs. What has changed?

Sure he did win fair and square last time, but when push came to shove he rolled over for the GOP and then even made sure the CBC couldn't do anything about it.

As for opposing Iraq - Gore spent 8 years bombing and sanctioning them. It's pretty easy to be against the war in Iraq when he wasn't in office and did NOTHING other than make some speeches. Pfft.

Changed how? Gore's a JOKE. I hope he doesn't run. If he does we'll probably lose in the general.

[AtomicKitten]

70. so, if he runs, don't vote for him -- done and done n/t

[NormanYorkstein]

72. I won't and I'll criticize Gore's bad positions

and support someone else in primary, and cross my fingers he doesn't win and lead us to defeat in the general election - again.

[AtomicKitten]

77. you go, girl n/t

[mtnsnake]

100. Ouch

'nuff said.

[mtnsnake]

99. "Gore picked Lieberman - figure it out."

Gore picked Lieberman at a time when Lieberman was widely accepted by most Democrats as a decent running mate AT THE TIME, and if you say any different then you might as well give it up right now.

[NormanYorkstein]

64. actually - what WOULD be a "legitimate, reasonable argument"?

I'm really curious about that. Can you give an example of what would be a "legitimate, reasonable argument" against Gore's candidacy? What are your rules for "legitimate, reasonable argument"?

[AtomicKitten]

67. * okay *

* Gore was not a weak candidate in 2000, he won the popular vote; the only thing he lost was a 5:4 Supreme Court decision.

* He asked the Black Caucus to stand down and to abide by the Supreme Court decision, choosing that over anarchy.

* You need to do your homework before accusing him of "lifelong" anything, DLC or NAFTA; you are making accusations based on 20 year old positions.

* He was labeled "wooden" and "wonky" by the media, but he is an eloquent public speaker.

Your assessment of him was harsh and not particularly well researched. However, you are entitled to your opinion. Don't like him? Don't vote for him. But it seems rather silly to go for Gore's jugular when he isn't even running.

[NormanYorkstein]

71. Well you are simply wrong

My assessment of him was hardly harsh in the OP, and I have done a ton of research on Gore over the years. That's funny - it's okay to lionize Gore all day long, but when someone criticises him, all of a sudden it's "why bother he's not even running"? Are you serious? I mean display the slightest bit of integrity when having a conversation or debate please.

* "Gore was not a weak candidate in 2000, he won the popular vote; the only thing he lost was a 5:4 Supreme Court decision."

With all Gore had going for him, just the fact he *barely* won was enough to let the GOP steal it. Then he baked down.


* He asked the Black Caucus to stand down and to abide by the Supreme Court decision, choosing that over anarchy.

No - he refused to help the Black Caucus even symbolically protest the vote - perhaps you need to do more research on this.

* You need to do your homework before accusing him of "lifelong" anything, DLC or NAFTA; you are making accusations based on 20 year old positions.

Your assertion is FALSE - he is still currently supporting NAFTA and his economic policies are NO DIFFERENT than the DLC's. Maybe YOU should do some homework?

* He was labeled "wooden" and "wonky" by the media, but he is an eloquent public speaker.

That's subjective - many people think he's a lousy speaker.


Again - I would like to know what, if anything, would be "acceptable criticism" of Gore? Because so far absolutely anything said about him that isn't kissing his ass is attacked as "freeperish"

Besides - he's not even running - why the avatar? Why bother to defend him? :eyes:

The hypocrisy can be stunning.

[AtomicKitten]

73. "no need to get snippy"

There is nothing hypocritical - stunning or otherwise - in supporting Al Gore in my sig line (it's not an avatar) and against some rather harsh criticism. Discussion is what people do on message boards.

I have also been known to defend Obama, Hillary, and sometimes Edwards against over-the-top criticism.

I think we have an amazing field this year, and hope Gore and Clark jump in too. Perhaps you disagree.

No skin off my nose if you don't like Gore or any of the others. It is, always was, and always will be your prerogative to support whomever you wish.

Don't like 'em? Don't vote for 'em.
Done and done.

[NormanYorkstein]

79. no that's not the hypocritical part

The hypocritical part is saying it's okay to promote Gore even though he's not running, but attacking people for criticizing Gore even though he's not running.

Do you understand that? Do you see how the double standard is working there? Seems pretty obvious.

And what is "over the top" about pointing out Gore's political record? Be honest - any criticism is "over the top" right? :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

82. his name is in my sig line -- that's promoting him?

Genius! Sig lines. Brilliant strategy. And to think Dems have spent millions on promotion!!

And nobody is attacking you, Norm, they are disagreeing with you. Big difference. And I've already been as specific as you've demanded and I'm kinda tired and bored now. Maybe you can be snotty to someone else now, eh? Have a good evening.

[NormanYorkstein]

85. I can only assume you haven't read this thread

which is full of personal attacks, none coming from me. After all this talk with you it you haven't been able to show anything about how Gore has "changed" nor has anyone even suggested that the facts I posted about Gore's economic record are wrong.

Instead it's "Freeper this" "over the top" etc.

It's okay for you to have a "Re-elect Gore" avatar - even though he's not running. But criticizing Gore on his public record is "over the top" and somehow bad because he's "not running." But defending him is okay, since he's "not running". How is that not hypocrisy?

Have a good evening.

[mtnsnake]

101. I can safely assume you don't like fair disagreement

She never called you a freeper. All she did was argue, bring up excellent points, and you simply don't like it.

God I've never seen anyone use that tired old "stop picking on me and calling me a freeper" crap, as you have. Calling someone a freeper is against DU rules. If you were called that, just alert the mods and they'll delete those posts. Come down off your pedestal, and when you do, try to stop pouting and acting so spoiled. Jayeeeeesus.

[johnaries]

75. Wrong.

1. We don't know how many votes Gore got in Florida, and we never will.
2. I live in TN. Gore didn't campaign here. If he had, he would have won it.
3. Bush got more Democratic votes than Nader? Source?
4. Gore is a Centrist in some regards, which makes him appealing to the swing voters. He is far from Right Wing and your statement is ridiculous for making that claim.
5. He's a lousy speaker? Explain his Oscar, then.
6. Yes we have some good candidates, but according to head to head polls some barely win and some lose, despite that a generic Dem vs generic Rep wins overwhelmingly.
7. Gore explained that once the SCOTUS has made a decision, the only alternative is Revolution.

Yes, we have several good candidates, but Gore would still be the best.

[NormanYorkstein]

86. That's a decent refutation, thanks

I don't agree obviously. But I would like to make one point about your number 4. The "centrist" positions that Gore has are the ones that are the most unpopular with not just the Democratic base but also swing voters (FTAs, etc.) While his "liberal" positions are ones not likely to pick up swing voters. It's sort of like two strikes against him.

[Senator]

97. So, Gore admits his failure to lead

Not that "the only alternative is Revolution" is anything more than rationalizing, euphemistic drivel -- but whatever he meant by that, his position is that "Revolution" is just too much trouble and that we should look to someone else to be strong enough to stand up to election thieves.

Fair enough. We should just take him at his word and look elsewhere for a real leader.

But his rationalization is also patently false. Justice Breyer clearly wrote in his dissent to the BushvGore edict what the required "alternative" was under the (then operative) US Constitution -- that Congress should disallow the unlawful Fl electors.

Gore chose instead to "re-concede" an election that was never his to concede in the first place. Six years of mayhem and a second stolen election has been the result.

--

[drp146]

76. Gore could win

I think a lot more people would vote for him this time and see it as a way to right an obvious wrong. I mean who doesn't think that we would be much better off if he hadn't had it stolen from him last time. This is a man who got the most votes, even if it was trumped by the outdated, unfair and useless Electoral College, which is the only reason they were able to steal it in the first place. We should all demand the abolition of the Electoral College: One man, one vote! As long as it and electronic voting machines exist we face a chance of elections being stolen again.

[AtomicKitten]

83. welcome to DU, drp146.

:)

[NormanYorkstein]

87. I agree about the voting machines

it should be a major issue, so far only Edwards and Kucinich have said anything (that I know about).

[marlakay]

88. Have you met him?

Probably not. One of the girls I worked with met him and talked to him for 20 minutes last year. Have you done that? Do you know what he is really like?

I just read over all the posts in this thread and it seems like you are wanting to flame up the Gore supporters more than an honest talk about Gore.

Every candidate has their faults. We admit Gore had some and probably still has some but one thing you haven't admitted to is that he has changed and for the better in the last few years. We all make mistakes and hopefully we learn from them. He has and I admire him a lot.

If you don't like him. Don't vote for him. That simple. Want another candidate? Support them and run with it. Tearing Gore apart isn't going to change us that like and admire him.

[NormanYorkstein]

91. No, instead I paid attention to his actual RECORD

I'm sure he's a great guy, I'd have a beer with him anyday. I'm tired of these glittering generalizations - Gore is so warm, so wonderful, yadda yadda. They said the same thing about Bush. Who cares?

Gore's record on the economy is pro-corporate, pro-outsourcing, pro-offshoring, and pro-"free trade" and instead of admitting he was wrong he continues to push for more damaging economic policies.

"I just read over all the posts in this thread and it seems like you are wanting to flame up the Gore supporters more than an honest talk about Gore."

Bullshit. So far the Gore supporters have done little aside from call me a "freeper" and use personal attacks. And the glittering generalities about how "wonderful" he is.

You want to talk policy? Let's hear it!

"We admit Gore had some and probably still has some but one thing you haven't admitted to is that he has changed and for the better in the last few years."

How has Gore "changed"? Has he changed his support for NAFTA? Other free trade agreements? How has he "changed"? Huh?

[ToeBot]

90. As I recall, All the past Presidents were trotted out to puke-up their unflinching support for NAFTA

Yes, even Jimmy Carter. I was raised in a union household, with all that that implies, and this was just the latest in a long line of instances where Democrats joined with Republicans to thoroughly Fuck over the unions. I was unaware of any complicity on Al Gore's part, I don't recall his involvement at all. But if free trade is in fact, "part and parcel" of his economic philosophy and political agenda, he's certainly welcome to run, but I won't support him. I won't vote for him. I will actively work against his election.

[NormanYorkstein]

92. Gore spent his entire career pushing "free trade"

Seriously, Gore has been the Democratic party's number ONE "free trade" pusher, not just once but throughout his entire political career.

I'm sick of the Democrats fucking the unions, and the unions give them 100% support year after year after year.

[ToeBot]

94. You'll have to document all this, of course. But if he doesn't run it's a moot point. n/t

[NormanYorkstein]

95. sure, but I thought this was common knowledge?

Does anyone really dispute this? Gore was NAFTA's number one spokesperson. Gore basically introduced the "free trade" idea to the Democratic party when he ran for President in the 1980s. NAFTA and "reinventing government" were Gore's main accomplishments as VP.

I'll say it clearly - Gore's environmental record is extremely good and for all the jokes about him "inventing the internet" he actually did do a good job with the political end of that. He certainly deserves a lot of credit for those things.

But his free trade policies are his *signature issue* throughout his entire career. Does anyone really dispute this? It's as if Gore wasn't VP for 8 years or something.

[Bridget Burke]

105. Which current Dem hopeful has promised to get us out of NAFTA?

And which one has better Union support?

[Apollo11]

96. Gore is the best person for the job -- period.

Al Gore is the best person for the job, in terms of his experience, knowledge, intelligence and judgement.

If he still wants the job, then he should definitely (re-)consider entering the race sometime in the fall.

NAFTA is not really a live issue right now. I don't believe that Dennis Kucinich can win back the Whitehouse.

If Gore really doesn't want to go through another national campaign, John Edwards would be my second choice.

Obama is attractive, but he is not ready for the top job yet. Maybe after he has served 8 years as VP?

"If (Al) was going to run in the future, of course I would support him. I think he'd be a fantastic president. He already got a majority of votes of people in this country once, and so that says something."
-- Tipper Gore on Good Morning America, June 13, 2006
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2069724&page=1

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Read Al's blog: http://blog.algore.com

Get ready for Live Earth on 7/7/07: www.liveearth.org

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:

[babylonsister]

104. He's a lousy public speaker? Read this; he's definitely improved:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=161222