Gore, recently: I'm not planning on it, but thanks for encouraging me

Another statement: I do not have plans to run for president, he said, followed by moans from the crowd. But I haven't ruled it out 100 percent.

~~~~~~~

I laud your efforts to help the climate crisis and other causes. Best wishes to you.

Also, as I have said earlier, a Presidential campaign would be a powerful platform for Al Gore to get his message across to 100s of millions of Americans, which is not easily doable on that scale by other means in short order.

About your "We Don't Have Until 2008" comment, in a certain sense, quite a bit of damage has already been done, but Gore did say that we may have 10 years within which to try and fix this problem.

In political terms, it still isn't too late to get people to add global warming to their platform. Some already have.

Should Gore run in 2008, due to inevitable dialogue ensuing from such a run, a lot of people will start talking about it.

You answered your own question when you said "That is the reality of it, and that isn't going to change in 2008 either": the most compelling way he can force the debate beyond where he has already taken IS by running for the Presidency.

of where things stand at the time they are taken, in a statistical sense. Of course, events and compaigns, would stand to turn these standings as things evolve. I didn't know that McCain was against ethanol subsidies.

I think the surprising thing about this is that he gets such a large percentage points in these polls, while still saying he isn't running (and his numbers are rising.)  I don't believe anyone  is getting paid to go around and put up these web pages and so on.  If he runs (and wins) it will be a grassroots effort whether any anti Gore person likes it or not.

Gore has no chance of beating McCain or Guilliani: The poll shows that he very well can. With a bit of well-designed campaigning, I think he will emerge as the the most formidable candidate that we can field against McCain, Giuliani or any other GOP opponent.

Gore overcame substantial odds in 2000 in a very hostile environment to win the popular vote, after having been handicapped by the scandal and impeachment from early 1999 through July'00. He entered August with a 16 point deficit and pulled slightly ahead on election day. Please see the links posted below on the 2000 election.

But Al Gore would lose alot of the states that he carried last time: To the contrary, without being saddled with Clinton's scandal baggage, Gore will gain many states compared to 2000. I think that he'll strike a chord with the south this time around, should he decide to run.

Gore only needs 10 electoral college votes  beyond what he already won in 2000 undisputedly (i.e. not counting Florida since there was a dispute there); he can get there by winning one or two these states that were either close in 2000 or have turned pro-Democratic since then: FL(27), NV(5), CO(9), MO(11), AR(6), TN(11), OH(20), WV(5), NH(4), VA(13)

BTW, Gore did very well on substance in the debates. Karl Rove and the media told us otherwise by repeating ad nauseum some stylistic errors.

Nevertheless, it turns out that Gore won the 1st and 3rd debates in polls, but lost the 2nd one, and the overall impact of the debates was a slight  net positive for him (some poll results and links below). Bush was very well coached for the debates and did much better in 2000 than he did in 2004.

Sure, McCain and Giuliani are better debaters than Bush, but Gore is better than his performance against Bush was made out to be with the post-debate spin. He won his debates over Bradley, for example, IIRC.

Finally, Gore's recent speeches should tell us that he will hold his own and then some.

Some polling data on 2000 Presidential debates

Regardless of which candidate you support, who do you think won the debate?
Debate 1: Bush (21.7%), Gore (29.3%)
Debate 2: Bush (39.4%), Gore (21.5%)
Debate 3: Bush (24.5%), Gore (28.2%)

From election Day Exit Polls: "Which of these things, if any, had a major influence on your vote for president today?..."   Up to three responses accepted.
"The broadcast debates"      All (11%), Gore(11%),Bush(10%)

Debate Transcripts

A look back at Election 2000

1. Election 2000 overview, 11/02/200, by Stuart Rothenberg/CNN

2. Gore won Florida,  democrats.com analysis

3. 2000 election: A summary, by yours truly.

2008 will be easier, not harder, by schroeder on Thu May 18, 2006

Some dominant factors you are ignoring are:

• Media setting low expectations for Bush
  
• post-debate spins and talking points
  
• second wave of media spins in 2002 about Gore, dissing him, probably to suppress a run by him 2002, which you are repeating here, in part.
  

The TV media personalities were utterly irresponsible and biased against Gore throughout 2000, including in the debate coverage, and in many waves following about the same.

The whole media spectacle and circus that cycle was a turning point in American democracy. There were very few people tracking down that atrocious charade as it was happening.

The Daily Howler, for one, did. Please see these posts by him regarding the debates and Chris Mathews:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081502.shtm l
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081502.shtm l
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh022103.shtm l

Also see this Robert Parry article from the cycle that talks about how the media was badly misbehaving:

February 1, 2000
Al Gore v. the Media

By Robert Parry

To read the major newspapers and to watch the TV pundit shows, one can't avoid the impression that many in the national press corps have decided that Vice President Al Gore is unfit to be elected the next president of the United States.

Across the board -- from The Washington Post to The Washington Times, from The New York Times to the New York Post, from NBC's cable networks to the traveling campaign press corps -- journalists don't even bother to disguise their contempt for Gore anymore.

At one early Democratic debate, a gathering of about 300 reporters in a nearby press room hissed and hooted at Gore's answers. Meanwhile, every perceived Gore misstep, including his choice of clothing, is treated as a new excuse to put him on a psychiatrist's couch and find him wanting.

Journalists freely call him "delusional," "a liar" and "Zelig." Yet, to back up these sweeping denunciations, the media has relied on a series of distorted quotes and tendentious interpretations of his words, at times following scripts written by the national Republican leadership.

In 2008, there will be thousands of people like us exposing the media for its lies, spins and smears.

Sure, Gore made a few stylistic mistakes (but he won on substance in all three debates) in response to the intense revisionism and bashing by the media on debates. But to excoriate him on them and to suggest that he can't hold his own in the future is like denying a Nobel prize winner tenure for poor handwriting on a questionnaire.

Of course, just like the media pundits, you've gratuitously repeated the canard "he's stiff". Let me suggest the reader to watch Gore's MLK-Day speech video to judge for themselves Gore's oratorial prowess, and realize how false that canard is.

Al Gore on "Restoring the Rule of Law"

On Monday, January 16, 2006, an audience of over 3,000 people visited DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, DC to hear a powerful speech by former Vice President Al Gore entitled "Restoring the Rule of Law. " The event was co-sponsored by ACS and The Liberty Coalition, and broadcast live by C-SPAN.

Video and pdf transcript
Text transcript

In fact, instant polls of viewers credited Gore with a rather decisive win. How substantial was Gore's apparent success? According to NBC's post-debate poll, 46 percent said Gore had won, 36 percent picked Bush. At CBS, the margin was wider; it was Gore, 56-42. CNN had a seven-point spread, 48-41. Only ABC had it close; in their survey, 42 percent picked Gore, 39 percent favored Bush. (For the record, more Bush voters watched the debate. Gore won the instant polls anyway.) Adding to the unanimous verdict, Time polled viewers on October 4-5, the first two days post-debate; their sample picked Gore, 51-37. In fact, Gore "won the debate" in these five polls by an average margin of 9.6 percent. In these, the five major instant polls, Gore "won" by a serious margin.

So viewers favored Gore fairly strongly.

Daily Howler

sadly 2000 came down to Bush being a media darling, and Gore being considered old news. It was a case of who was the popular kid in school running against someone who had the right answers but considered the school geek. Now, in 2006- a lot of the press has openly suggested they have buyers remorse in terms of 2000 and they are tauting Gore, I don't think 2008 will have the same dynamics emotionally as 2000- remember back then our biggest consideration were smaller than the the shit we deal with now.

I basically think its hard to gauge 2008 by where Gore is now (he has evolved) to where he was in 2000 (even if one believed 100 percent in the 2000 argument- I partially think Gore wasn't himself then and that hurt him- but now i see him and think he is a new man). This aspect of becoming a new man is crucial. In a sense the electorate would have to be reintroduced to Gore as he is now- but I don't think it will be as hard as before because despite the media bias they do like easy to understand narratives like the come back kid