Al Gore should *not* run in 2008 . . .

[MrModerate]

Because regardless of who the next president is, that person is going to be completely consumed with extricating the US from Iraq with the minimum amount of chaos and catastrophic aftereffects. Throughout the next president's term(s), international cleanup of Bush crimes will consume almost all energy (not to mention money).

Meanwhile, Al can keep the environmental ball rolling as a private citizen. Come 2016, he'd be in an ideal position to take the presidency with a real head of steam (steam *not* being a greenhouse gas) behind global repair efforts. And clearly he's the right guy to be American president when the world gets serious about global warming.

Frankly, I think whoever sluices out the White House after Schimpanski slithers away is going to end up as a martyr for the country, sacrificing their dreams and vision to the need to clean the stables.

[stellanoir]

1. Al Gore should do as he pleases.

He's earned far more than that.

He is DU's patron Saint after all.

[melody]

2. Yup, you guys are getting nervous ;)

Seriously, who better to extricate us from the most dangerous time in this nation's history than the best person for the job?

[lwcon]

3. Amen n/t

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[redqueen]

4. Yeah or the guy who WE FRICKIN ELECTED!

:nuke:

[MrModerate]

6. My take on it -- and why I posted what I did . . .

Is that the effects of global warming are likely to be even more damaging to the human race than the effects of Bush's war, and since the next president is going to be able to do little else than clean up after that war, it'd be a shame to waste Gore's capital on what is, after all, a lesser issue.

Let Hill, or Barry, or Johnny, or whoever shoulder that burden, while Al continues realigning the world towards some realistic solution to climate change.

[melody]

8. And I'm wondering if that's not a disingenuous attempt on Gore's support for your candidate

Al Gore will be 68 in 2016. Al Gore can start things in motion now -- it's not like a President does every task by himself. Gore's expertise and intellect are far, far too important a resource to keep out of the Oval Office based on one issue, no matter how important. Obama will be 55. He has time to wait.

[MrModerate]

12. Well . . . 60 is the new 40. Al will be in fine shape in 2016.

And don't get me wrong. All things being equal, I'd prefer that Gore take the oath in Jan 2009 for the office he won in Nov 2000.

But the last 6 years have changed everything. A little alternative history: Al is sworn in Jan 2001. As he's pretty serious about terrorism and the proper resources are allowed to do their jobs, the 9/11 plot is uncovered ahead of time. Having dodged a bullet, America gets serious about terrorism, and under Gore's leadership, the appropriate mix of intelligence, police and (occasionally) military force is applied to the problem. Gore is able to emphasize his number one issue, what will be his legacy: developing global consensus and commitment to solving climate change. The ball is rolling big time when Gore leaves office in 2009. He is the world's leading figure on the issue, lending his credibility while gaining the flexibility of action that his status as a private citizen lends him. Life goes on. Maybe it gets better.

But that didn't happen. the 9/11 horror, followed by the much larger disaster of Afghanistan and Iraq. There's a huge wreck to clean up, which has almost nothing to do with global warming. While I respect Gore immensely, he's invested so much of himself in the global warming issue, I'd hate to see it wasted (or even vitiated) by the ten thousand pieces of crap that every president has to eat just to execute his duties.

I'm saying Gore is more valuable as a private citizen in the period 2008-2016 than as president. Timing is everything.

[melody]

19. And I completely disagree -- aside from the fact he's the only Dem who can absolutely win

Anyone else is just a roll of the dice. This election is far too important to risk on a lesser candidate.

[The Count]

11. Who's Barry? (wondering whose water you're really carrying)

[MrModerate]

13. Surely Obama has some sort of nickname that's something like "Barry" . . .

I was just guessing.

[davidwparker]

5. Stop the funding. Bring the troops home. Send in the UN. Maybe I should

run. But, then again, I stole most of that from Kucinich and he would be better at it than me. I don't know how he feels about sending in the UN.

Gore should run. He doesn't have to get into the race yet. I think he will.

[surfermaw]

15. Right on Davis

Gore and Edwards...

[Joe for Clark]

7. You know he'd be pushing 70 at that point.

And if he is right about the environment- may be too late to correct anything at that point.

And he is probably correct.

I believe he has more than enough support to win - and some from unlikely quarters.

He is smart to wait a little.

Joe

[rainy]

9. he is the only one up to the challenge.

[The Count]

10. I bet in 2000 you were saying he should concede - because the GOP-ers would

be the one saddled with a "divided country" - and Gore better run again next time...heard you guys in 2004 saying it too - albeit kery didn't give you much time to "advise" him
Funny how Gallup made a whole poll just to sell us the amazing lie that Gore's numbers went down lately (to a measly 16%!)

[MrModerate]

14. You'd lose that bet . . .

I was one of those shouting, "Al, don't give up now."

I do think he screwed himself by not demanding a whole-state recount, but that was tactical, not philosophic.

Regarding Kerry? I missed the ebb and flow because I was out of the country. I went to bed before the polls closed in the states and woke to a fait accompli. Kerry disappointed me hugely. He should have fought, and the fact that he didn't just handed the 'licans more ammunition to claim that Dems are weaklings. While Kerry might have made an OK president (like anyone could be worse than Schimpanski), that failure to fight soured me on Kerry, probably forever.

[The Count]

16. He didn't "screw himself" - the numbers were "worked"

he demanded what he could lawfully demand. Fot the state-wide he needed W's waiver - which he asked for and W refused. People conveniently forget that.
nevertheless, your reasoning now is just as flawed as those people's. And who's Barry?

[MrModerate]

18. I don't pretend to be a scholar of Florida 2000 . . .

But I always understood that Gore didn't request a statewide recount. Please enlighten me otherwise.

[The Count]

20. GORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCH REQUEST. NOT PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION.

There was a limited time window as well as a limited array of choices prior to Cruella's certifying the count. Gore didn't leave any legal option un-exhausted.
The only way to do a whole recount was if both candidates agreed. Gore challenged W to let it be done - in a press conference. Il consegliere baker called this 'mischief' in a response press conference. And that's how the statewide recount didn't happen - no self screwing involved. After the certification it was requested - and ordered by a Florida judge and appealed by W and taken on by Scalia & comp - who in the name of equal rights and "not damaging W's interests" stopped it.
If you don't know these facts, try to avoid spreading falsehoods, OK?

[Joe for Clark]

17. You make a good point about Gallup, you know.

Don't judge me - I think many of us - we knew he won in 2000. And this has all been a nightmare.
And this is all just like an episode of Dallas.

Funny isn't it - the guy who said he won't run - has no campaign - is running 3rd in the dem primaries - pretty weird, huh??

I voted for him and all that - but you know when I really respected him? When he took the 2000 fight all the way to the supreme court and they screwed him.

The day he runs he will suck the air out of the room. If he wants this election - it is his.

And you can mark my words - a lot of conservatives will support him too.

They know what is going on here.

Joe

[RestoreGore]

21. I get your point

Those with pie in the sky notions about climate change being the first and only item on the agenda in that beltway now are sorely mistaken. Whoever gets the position of Chairperson of the Military Industrial Complex will not have a legacy in the first term. They will be spending most of their time holding their finger in the dyke and working to reverse the damage done if they can even do that. There will be no groundbreaking 90 percent reductions on GHGs by 2008 or 09 unless there is an enmasse demand for it not only by the people, but by companies taking on the responsibility. That is why his three year plan through The Alliance for Climate Protection is so needed now, and it is exactly what Mr. Gore was made for now. And it is the present and this crisis that now takes precedence.

[Milo_Bloom]

22. As Bill Maher has said...

The Climate Crisis is such a big issue, ONLY government can solve it. 2016 is far too late.

We need the next president to focus on it and luckily, intelligent presidents are capable of doing 2 things at once... sometimes even more.