For the most determined Gore optimists, when is your point of no return?

[RiverStone]

Al Gore is the ONLY candidate I'd trade my Kucinich vote for! Believe me, I wish I could make that trade yesterday. Though I've come to the very difficult realization that (as they used to say where I grew up in the rural south) --- This dog won't hunt.

I mean, would you quit a day job you loved if you just won the Nobel Peace Prize doing it?

At some point there may be a loud and collective thump on DU - and the sound will be all the Gore supporters hitting the ground in frustration. I had held out dim hope that an announcement hinting a Pres run would happen, if at all, after Al won the NPP. Sorry folks, I still hear the crickets chirping...

I wonder when is the vigilance waiting for Gore to run become a waste of precious energy? In my view, Gore could still effect the race and the Dem platform with an Edwards endorsement; whom I think is the most likely candidate that Al would endorse. I'm trying to figure out the best way to channel my deep disappointment that Al's not running...into something positive. For the record, even as a strong Kucinich supporter --- if something amazing happened and we ended up with a brokered convention, I'd switch to Al in a heartbeat. In the mean time and probably for the duration, the BIGGER picture is we all need to put our Al's-not-running-blues on the back burner, and kick rethug ass in the General. That's what Al would want us to do!

QUESTION: At what point in time will or would you finally throw in the Gore towel?


p.s. And if you do, I hope you plan to still stick around and help us beat the rethugs in the General. We need ya!




peace~:)

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. FYI - The filing deadline for the NH Primary is November 12

[Danieljay]

3. Nov. 12th. The best birthday gift I could ever receive. Come on Al, do it for my birthday!

[Peregrine Took]

6. For Illinois its 11/5. He's got to make a truly definitive statement soon.

[TheUniverse]

2. I threw it in about 3-4 months ago

There is pretty much a 0 percent chance he will run now.

[JuniperLea]

4. When he says he isn't going to run...

He knows the English language very, very well. He knows the difference between "I am not going to run" and "I have no current plans to run"... I know the difference too.

Gore is not a selfish person. He would not throw out the idea of being president because he's so comfy now. That would be selfish.

He would have more power to do what needs done for his global warming deterrent efforts as POTUS.

Why would he risk losing the opportunity to do far greater works for selfish reasons, when that action alone would likely cause failure in the selfish plan? Why think you can remain all comfy cozy when your world is going to hell in a hand-basket, knowing full well if you got off your ass and became president, you would more likely be able to change things and give yourself and the rest of us more time on Earth to be comfy and cozy?

When Gore uses the language to actually say he isn't going to run, I'll believe him. Not until.

[youthere]

9. I believe he still has one foot in the door too...

He knows very well he could stop the draftGore movement and all the pundit speculation by simply saying "I am NOT running." But I'm betting he's got something big up that sleeve of his...the little minx.

[JuniperLea]

11. I agree! It's so transparent!

He knows full well how to stop this! He can do as you say, he can offer his support by endorsing another candidate, he can do many things to make it all stop. And it can be done in a very caring way. As I said, he has full command of the English language.

He has something up his sleeve, I'm convinced. There's no way he would let the whole DraftGore movement go on for so long. And I'm not all that convinced his announcement will have anything to do with this "Nov 12" deadline for primaries. I'm thinking it could be something like a call for write in votes, or something like that. It would require a lot of counting by hand, not machine, which we know is all part of the GOP scam.

I trust him to do the right thing. What I don't trust is all the nay-sayers on DU!!! What the hell??? Why do they care so much? Why are they so insistent that "we" give up? I smell something rotten every time I see that sort of rubbish.

[youthere]

13. I really don't believe that he would be so cruel as to allow the false hope.

[JuniperLea]

18. Exactly! eom

[TwilightZone]

5. For some, I don't think that there is one.

Some have indicated that they'll write him in. I suppose that could change if he officially announces that he's not running at some point.

[Javaman]

7. fast forward 2060...

Poster on city street. "even though Al has been dead for years, please sign petition to have him drafted in to next election!"

[TwilightZone]

8. Ok, maybe "there is none" is a bit of a stretch.

:)

[Milo_Bloom]

10. I said Oct 30th in another post, but am rethinking based on new info

I was under the impression that there was a major deadline on November 1st, but I am reading now that the first major deadline is November 5th (illinois), which in essence he COULD skip since Obama SHOULD win it handily.

In fact, I am going to change most of what I said in that other post to you (as far as dates go) and offer rationale...

The Presidential election is going to be held on November 4, 2008. He has stated over and over again that he felt the campaign window was too big. What type of statement could he make by announcing WITHIN the 1 year window of the general election. This would mean that he would probably announce between 11/4 and 11/12 (most likely ON the 5th, the filing date of the Ill, which as I said above, he could technically skip.)

So, based on that... My NEW drop dead date is 11/11 my personal prediction for announcement is 11/5.

After 11/11, I hate to say, if he hasn't announced, I will most likely abandon this entire crop of candidates retire from DU and look for a third party option. Its not only that I can't get excited about any of these people, but I believe most of them are fundamentally incorrect on the issues and are offering band-aid solutions that will only make the underlying problems worse in the long run. Kucinich is the only one really saying the things that need to be said, but unfortunately, he comes off to me as a petulant child and doesn't "convince" people he is correct, as much as berates them into believing he must be wrong. We need someone in the White House who will address underlying problems and find solutions to those problems by getting to the root of it. (e.g., you don't fix the health care system by bringing everyone into a fundamentally flawed system)

[RiverStone]

12. I hope your right --- though if not, I hope you stay

Milo you said: After 11/11, I hate to say, if he hasn't announced, I will most likely abandon this entire crop of candidates retire from DU and look for a third party option.

I fully understand your sentiments; though my guess is as a progressive - you may change your mind.
Why? One word (or acronym) - SCOTUS!

A year from now when your looking into the eye of Rudy, Mitt, or Fred and actually hearing the righteous-wacko-neocon bullshit and knowing that another tenure of a rethug in the White House could mean a conservative SCOTUS for a generation...you may bite the bullet???

If our nominee is Hillary, I'll be voting for her with a tremendous amount of UNenthusiasm, but she is still better then any rethug. If/when you know Al is not running, it will be a BIG disappointment.

Though you don't know yet what listening to the rethug nominee will sound like after 7,8,9 months. My guess, you will even be more disgusted with him then with the current crop od Dems.

I'm voting Dem no matter if it is Hillary; though I hope to be voting for a Dem that far better reflects the values I hold dear. Al would be #1 - but I'm not hoping everyday for that anymore.

[Milo_Bloom]

16. I hear ya... here are the counterpoints fwiw

"I fully understand your sentiments; though my guess is as a progressive - you may change your mind.
Why? One word (or acronym) - SCOTUS!

A year from now when your looking into the eye of Rudy, Mitt, or Fred and actually hearing the righteous-wacko-neocon bullshit and knowing that another tenure of a rethug in the White House could mean a conservative SCOTUS for a generation...you may bite the bullet???"

I have a one word answer and then a long drawn out explanation lol... The one word is: Souter

The long drawn out explanation: I have NO FAITH that any of these candidates will pick a progressive Supreme Court nominee.. in fact, I entirely believe they will be bullied into picking a "compromise" candidate (much like bush did with Souter), who will turn out to be a conservative in progressive clothing. If Clinton is capable of voting for a war that signed the death warrant for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and 4,000+ of our own soldiers, why would I believe she would stand up to the right wing and not wind up with some compromise candidate who will ultimately turn out to be not what she envisioned. The GOP has learned that they can bully the Dems. They don't need to compromise, they just need to stand strong and force the dems to do all the compromising. What evidence do you see in Clinton's past, Edwards' past, Obama's past that suggests they won't continue this behavior?

As for the GOP, I am already disgusted with them and wouldn't even consider voting for any of them... well MAYBE Ron Paul, but only if I am confident the dems will have strong control of the Senate and House (even thought I find 99% of his beliefs incorrect, I can explain the logic for that potential vote in another post if you like).

In the end, I see the problems in this country a little different than some others and I fear that the current candidates method of addressing the problem is actually WORSE than not address the problem at all.

Some examples:

Global Warming: Yes, the problem is releasing global warming gases into the atmosphere, but this is a SYMPTOM of a bigger problem, which is corporate control/influence of government. The corporations are essentially writing their own rules and until we address these problems, you won't solve Global Warming in any major capacity. Factory Farming of meat does more harm than cars, but no one is going to take on "farming".

A democratic candidate gets into office and comes up with some band-aid solution of increasing mileage, requiring some regulation. Result, the problem isn't solved, but there is a PUBLIC PERCEPTION that SOMETHING WAS DONE. Those still calling for more are considered left wing radicals because, after all, the DEMOCRATIC president did something. The REAL PROBLEM gets buried.


Health Care: The real problem in health care is not access to health insurance, but it is about a flawed system that jacks the cost of health care by 100% by including a money sucking middle man in the process. A Democratic President comes in and offers government subsidy of insurance. Now everyone is a party of the crappy insurance system and 1/3 of the country is receiving sub-standard health care. Those still calling for a solution are considered left wing radicals because, after all, the DEMOCRATIC president got everyone health insurance and what more could they want?


I could go on with each issue, but I think you get the idea. Sometimes solutions to problems are worse than the problems, because they create the perception that the problem is solved, when it fact, it is still there.

[RiverStone]

17. If ye have little faith...

Or NO faith Milo, then maybe your right - it may be best for you to look 3rd party.

It may be that even Hillary, once actually in power AND with Dems controlling the Congress and Senate...that she will feel less obligation to compromise. She WILL have majority rule. I'd say that could be true for any Dem that wins the Presidency in 08.

I agree that the Dem party has marginalized their power dramatically in the areas you mentioned. I'd love to see Harry and Nancy replaced with different Dem leaders on The Hill. Again, will they function with the same wimpish attitude when they control ALL branches? Time will tell.

I respect your right to go 3rd party - and I may do the same IF it continues business as usual once the Dems move into the White House. But I'll give it a year before I'll bag my 30 year history of voting Dem.

Hopefully I wont have to.

And neither of us can predict what kind of wacko propaganda the GOP machine will spew out next year???

I still have FAITH we can move the party back to the left of center; lets see how many progressive Dems win in 08....we may be pleasantly surprised!

[Milo_Bloom]

19. I am sorry to say, you are correct, I have NO faith in the dem candidates.

I asked in a thread once for acts of real political courage from the front runners (Edwards, Obama, Clinton)
and was met with virtual silence. There were a couple of half-hearted attempts to show when they stuck their neck out, but nothing that showed real courage.

Remember when Howard Dean signed the Civil Union bill with 6 months to go to an election and it was at 35% in the polls? THAT Is political courage. Risking your career to do something you believe is right. I don't see that type of courage from any of the democratic candidates (Kucinich, Gravel excepted b/c they aren't going to be the nominee). Obama did come out strongly against the war in 2002, but he wasn't a national figure yet and was in a community where there was strong opposition to the Iraq war. Starting with his endorsement of Lieberman (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446) I have questioned his ability to really stand up for his beliefs, over what may be politically popular. I want to see his Russ Feingold moment (voting against the Patriot Act), but I just don't see that type of courage from him and the more he talks religion and courts the religious vote, the less I want to do with him.

How can I have faith in people who haven't shown me that they are capable of being courageous?

[Uncle Joe]

14. 2028, I believe his age will become a factor then. n/t

[annabanana]

15. When he endorses someone.. . . .n/t

[stlsaxman]

20. For 2008- it's a "Shermanesque Statement" and no less. n/t