Do you really want Al Gore to run?

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

2006 is coming to a close, and in 2007, political discourse is going to be dominated by discussion about the candidates for president. In the netroots, the only candidate that is seen as anything near a 'consensus' candidate this time around is former vice president Al Gore. Although he has reintroduced himself to the general public this year via his accessible documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, he's long been a favorite amongst us as a candidate for president in 2008. In the most recent dKos straw poll that includes Gore, he garners 57% of the vote, with all other candidates trailing far behind.

In recent statements to the press about the possibility of running, this is what Gore has to say about 2008:


"I am not planning to run for president again," Gore said last week, arguing that his focus is raising public awareness about global warming and its dire effects. Then, he added: "I haven't completely ruled it out."

What has become clear to me is that Gore would be a great president - but he does not seem to be enthused with the idea of having to campaign for the job day in and day out. Nevertheless, many folks in the grassroots and the netroots would love to see a Gore presidential campaign. Ever since he was 'defeated' by George W. Bush in 2000, the vice president has become a progressive in the best sense of the word. He was one of the first to speak out against pre-emptive military action in Iraq, and he's spoken out similarly against the Patriot Act. Of course, we are all familiar with the long-time work possible Democratic candidate for president that I truly feel comfortable supporting at this point in time. When I had a chance to see him campaign with Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen.-elect Bob Casey, and Rep.-elect Patrick Murphy a week before the election, I told him that I'd like him to run in 2008.

But, as we head into 2007, I'm going to stop considering Al Gore as a potential presidential candidate until a viable draft movement exists...because drafting the vice president into the race is the only way that he will seriously consider entering the race. And as of right now, I don't see such a movement existing.

Why do I say this? If one does a Google search of Al Gore 2008, there are plenty of sites that state a desire for Al Gore to run in 2008. Some sites are a collection of links, others have forums, and a few have petitions where people can put their name. But overall, the Gore supporters, from my vantage point, are highly disorganized. There is certainly the passion - which is great - but there is not a clearly-organized infrastructure in place for a Draft Gore movement to effectively step in and really push for the vice president to enter the race. But one's desires only become reality if one takes action, and I have seen very little of that. With the presidential field likely to be fleshed out in the next few months, there has to be a clear push to get Gore to run soon. I disagree with Markos' belief that Gore can wait until December 2007 - a year from now - to declare he's running. No matter how much grassroots support there is for Gore, there is no way he can round up the political talent, the money, and the ground game necessary to start having an impact on the race early on. The main 'draft' movement in the 2004 presidential election cycle that worked - the one which encouraged retired Gen. Wesley Clark to enter the race - failed largely because Clark didn't have the money or the organization to compete effectively once he officially declared. And he entered the race in mid-September of 2003.

To reinforce my point, I'd like to reference Chris Bowers, who had this to say about a potential 'Draft Gore' movement back in April of this year:


What is going on here? Is there anything behind this Gore "movement" besides howling at the moon? Why is there so little action? Gore '08 after Gore '08 diary goes up on Dailykos, and yet most of the websites I find on this page haven't been updated in the last month. Gore '08 after Gore '08 diary goes up on Dailykos, and yet there are no substantial Gore groups over at MySpace. There is no email list of any size. There is no fundraising. There certainly is no staff, even on a volunteer level. Basically, there is nothing. All there seem to be are diaries on Dailykos.

[...]

Draft Gore in 2008, but only do it if you mean it. Back up you words with real action. Don't whine to me about how I or some other leadership element is keeping you down or preventing this from happening. Give over your persecution and get to it. The Draft Clark movement wasn't damaged in the slightest because Markos didn't include Clark in his Cattle Calls until a week after Clark officially announced. Instead, the people behind that movement, who included my brilliant comrade Matt Stoller, did something. Hell, they did a lot of something. They were the white-hot burning core of a new wave of progressive activists who shook the very throne of power in DC. They were a perfect example of why people pay attention to blogs now, and why what we do here does in fact matter. Actions like those are why it is now possible for Ned Lamont to make a serious run at Joe Lieberman. They were netroots activists. Are you?

I am a Gore supporter. I'd love to see him run in 2008. I would be first in line to get a 'Draft Gore' movement in functioning order...if I could. The fact is, given my current obligations with regards to my academics, my job, and my focus on a permanent job after college, I cannot devote the necessary time to building that movement. It's not from a lack of passion or a lack of motivation that prevents me from doing so. Cold, hard reality prevents me from doing so.

This brings me to my challenge to anyone in the netroots community: do you really want Al Gore to run? You can wish for him to run all you want, but it is abundantly clear that if there is no strong grassroots movement to draft him, he will not run. If you do, it's time to start organizing and making a genuine effort to get Gore into the race. If this is something you really want to occur, make it happen. With 2006 passing, you only have 2007 to work with - and it's starting tomorrow. And if there continues to be a complete lack of action on drafting Gore, there is no reason to consider him when one looks at the current field of presidential candidates when deciding who to support.

So what will it be?

Tags: 2008 elections, Al Gore (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

Re: Do you really want Al Gore to run?


Al Gore is the best man for the job and our "best and brightest" talent.

Recall, that he won the 2000 election by a whopping <u>540,000 votes</u> and the Exit polling showed that he also clearly won the state of Florida and was the choice of the public.  

If another Democratic candidate were to become the President (Obama?), I hope that they have the good sense to create a new Cabinet-Level position on Global Warming/CO2-free National Energy Stratgey and Indepence from Foreign Oil and put Al Gore in that position.

But Gore is perfectly positioned on all the issues as a candidate for 2008.  From seeing video and TV clips of him, I do not think he has any plans or intentions in place to seek office.  I also think he enjoys his "new life" as a post-politician and resents the things that you have to do to get elected.

The strongest Democratic Ticket that we can put out there would be any one of the following:


  1. Al Gore/Barack Obama
  2. Al Gore/John Edwards
  3. Al Gore/Wesley Clark

A draft Al Gore movement (MoveOn.org anyone?) might just make that possible....


by DerekLarsson 2006-12-31 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you really want Al Gore to run?

If you want al gore to run then you should go to http://www.actblue.com and contribute to his draft fund. I would like to see this fund grow to $25,000 by the end of the month and $100,000 by the end of winter. we need to put our money where our mouth is if we want to make this happen. I have already given $20 and i will give more in a couple of weeks when i can. I really hope more people start contributing to this cause.

by abc 2006-12-31 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you really want Al Gore to run?

How will this help Gore to run?  The ActBlue money will sit in a fund, doing absolutely no good in actually building the organization and infrastructure needed for a real campaign, draft or otherwise.  It's like putting your money in a mattress, and not into a credit union, where it can be invested into the community.

No, DG08PAC didn't make it, or at least it hasn't so far (whether it can re-emerge successfully, I don't know.)  But in the three months we were active, we wrote a campaign plan, raised money from 1400 small donors, and made face-to-face contacts in a dozen states, including a  very productive month in Iowa.  Had we not run up against the 2006 Congressionals, or were at least independently wealthy, we might have weathered the drought better.  But at least we showed up in the first place, and tried to put our funds into actual field operations, not merely a website and forums, for supporters to talk about how much they'll contribute to Gore when he runs, rather than actually getting up off their butts and doing something.

Using ActBlue in a draft context is a recipe for failure, unless you think all that is needed for a draft is rhetoric.

by MBW 2007-01-01 10:10AM | 0 recs
Actually, I'd rather not see him run

I'm as big a supporter of Al Gore as you'll find. There has probably never been an American better prepared to be president than Al Gore was in 2000. He should have been elected, and he was. Dubya was the Supreme Court's president, and Al Gore was the people's.

We're almost two years away from the next election, and that's a long time. Remember, Clinton didn't declare until Oct. of 1991.

But all that said, I think Al has moved on, and has found his role. My dream team for January of 2009 would be to see the ticket of Edwards and Obama sworn in, Al Gore named Energy Secretary, and Bill Clinton named either Secretary of State or Ambassador to the UN.  Could we really do any better than that?

by gas28man 2006-12-31 05:44PM | 0 recs
Yes and I'll gladly help out

I'll contribute money, canvass, put up yard signs, bumper stickers, and whatever else it takes. He should have already been the president and he's past due.

I have to admit there's some guilt at work here. I voted for Nader in 2000 believing the "they're all the same" lie. I owe Al Gore more than my vote this time.

by Spiffarino 2006-12-31 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you really want Al Gore to run?

In a word, yes.  And it's clear preaching to the choir on DKos ain't going to get Gore to run or help him win the nomination if he does.  But let's keep in mind that the problem until recently has been having a way to concretely demonstrate our support prior to him announcing he's running.  

Now with the ActBlue draft candidate funds active, as abc has mentioned above, we have a very tangible way of demonstrating support for Gore to Democrats, the media, and most importantly, Al Gore himself, by being able to financially support his campaign-to-be on ActBlue.

The amount of money raised, and to a certain extent, the number of donations, are a good measuring stick for Gore's support among active Democrats at large, I'd argue.   And it's clear that if Gore supporters donate to this fund themselves and we pat ourselves on the back, then this effort will go nowhere and no meaningful amount of funds will be raised.

Rather, it will take all of us doing the harder work of actually personally approaching our networks (online and offline) to get them to give to this Draft Gore fund, so that those $50 and $100 donations start multiplying. The time to do this is now, and Gore supporters have a couple months to prove ourselves willing to spread the word and get people we know to actually give.  

Personally, I plan to use my ActBlue page and personal emails to my contacts to get them to contribute.  I will especially focus on reaching others who wouldn't otherwise be approached, aka people who've never read a blog and don't want to, but like Al Gore.

by PeterB 2006-12-31 08:50PM | 0 recs
In case I wasn't clear, giving is the first step

and getting others to give is next.  Our personal financial sacrifice is essential to getting others to do the same.  

If our efforts are successful, though, the amount of money that we can afford to give, though, should be a fraction of what we can get others to give, and it'll be cash from those folks that will be necessary to amass a significant amount of money for Gore.  

by PeterB 2006-12-31 09:10PM | 0 recs
Hell, no.

Global warming aside, Al Gore's political career consisted of charging to the right when it was advantageous, hugging the center when it wasn't, taking gobs of cash from the sort of corporate donors that progressives have sworn to oppose, hurling negative attacks and lies at Mike Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Bill Bradley, and Ralph Nader, and helping the Clinton administration to undermine progressive achievements of 21st century.

I suppose it's possible that Al Gore, in his scant few years out of power, has changed, becoming a progressive champion who will go down the line for what really matters. And it's also possible that if you clap your hands, Tinkerbell will live after all.

by craverguy 2007-01-01 02:56AM | 0 recs
Correction:

"of the 20th century"

by craverguy 2007-01-01 02:57AM | 0 recs
Long response

as always :)

Al Gore's political career consisted of charging to the right when it was advantageous, hugging the center when it wasn't

Al Gore has been consistently progressive since the early 90s. He was always a populist that put people ahead of powerful interests.

Policy isn't about labels and ideologies. It's about  rational logic in an attempt to make the government work for people.


Gore's work on:
  1. advancing the internet to bring the world closer
  2. the enviornment and global warming
  3. helping build a successful economy during Clinton/Gore that created millions of new jobs
  4. advancing science and technology
all have one common thread. Empowering people. Common people. All people. Giving them what it takes to change their lives. Change the world.

That's real hardcore modern progressive populism. "Doing the right thing" being the driving philosophy.

helping the Clinton administration to undermine progressive achievements of 21st century.

What's unprogressive about helping lift people's lives like this:


Clinton-Gore economic accomplishments
  • 22 million net new jobs
  • lowered of unemployment from 7.5% to 4%
  • real wage growth of 6.8% (after adjusting to inflation)
  • turned record deficits into record surpluses
  • record low African American unemployment
  • lowered unemployment among Hispanics from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 5.4 percent in April 2000 (lowest rate on record)
  • lowest unemployment rate for women since 1953
  • increase in manufacturing jobs by 391 thousand
  • increase in IT jobs by 1 million (roughly half of which survived even the Bush's outsourced "economy")
  • a two-step minimum wage increase in 96/97 from $4.25 to $5.15

Gore promised another increase of $1 in minimum wage, and would have probably a few more after it.


making environmental progress like this (while facing a hostile Republican-majority congress):

From: Clinton/Gore environmental record. See this as well.

Taking Action on Climate Change

Forging (Kyoto) International Agreement (Congress would not ratify in 1998 due to lack of "political will", but a non-binding agreement was signed. Bush withdrew from it in March'01).

Won more than $1 billion in FY 1999 and in FY 2000 for the Climate Change Technology Initiative,

Issued an Executive Order to coordinate federal efforts to spur the development and use of bio-based technologies

Increased funding for the United States Global Change Research Program to more than $1.7 billion in FY 2000

Issued new energy efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers and room air conditioners that will save consumers money and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil.

Issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to reduce energy use in buildings 35 percent by 2010, reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking 1.7 million cars off the road and saving taxpayers over $750 million a year

Protecting the Global Environment

Phasing Out Persistent Pollutants.

Healing the Ozone Layer. Successfully phased out CFCs (chloroflourocarbons) by 1996 and other major ozone-depleting substances by 1994. Approved the introduction of more than 300 alternatives to ozone-depleting substances.

Promoting Environmentally Responsible Trade. Ensuring that U.S. efforts to expand trade reflect a strong commitment to promoting environmental protection worldwide. Signed an Executive Order requiring careful assessment and written review of the potential environmental impacts of major trade agreements

----

Other

Expanding Recycling. Issued an Executive Order requiring federal agencies to buy and use only recycled printing paper and increase efforts to buy environmentally preferable products

Encouraging Smart Growth. Launched a nationwide Livable Communities initiative -- spearheaded by Vice President Gore -- to help communities across America grow in ways that ensure a high quality of life and strong, sustainable economic growth. The initiative provides communities with new tools and resources to preserve green space, ease traffic congestion, and pursue regional "smart growth" strategies.

Environmental Justice and Redevelopment. Issued an Executive Order on Environmental Justice to ensure that low-income citizens and minorities do not suffer a disproportionate burden of industrial pollution.

Add to that Gore's lifelong work on global warming (which you acknowledge; a good sign):


Gore's lifetime work on global warming

1. held the first congressional hearings on global warming ever

2. wrote a book on it in 1992 (Earth in the balance).

3. worked hard to push Carbon tax during Clinton/Gore.

4. helped draft Kyoto

5. signed a version of Kyoto (when the whole political spectrum was utterly afraid to touch the issue, the Clinton economic team opposed Kyoto, and Clinton had little understanding of the issue and was only lukewarm towards Gore's efforts on this front). Bush promptly pulled from the treaty in March 2001.

6. he put it sufficiently prominently on his presidential campaign platform. Talked about it in campaign speeches and debates. Here is an 2000 campaign ad by Gore on the need to address global warming and hold polluters accountable.

7. he has given over 1000 free lectures about it all around the word, and continues to do so

8. made a successful movie (3rd highest grossing documentary in history): An Inconvenient Truth.

9. wrote another book about it, a companion to his movie: AIT Book

Clinton/Gore environmental record, which gets good amount of credit for bridging the hole in the ozone layer, and has decent accomplishments against a hostile congress.

Mike Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Bill Bradley, and Ralph Nader

I am positive that each of these good folks would pick Al Gore for President over any of the currently talked about 2008 Democratic presidential prospects.

See what Nader said recently:


Dana Milbank, Washington Post Friday, June 16, 2006

   Next stop on the Turn-Back-Time tour: Olsson's book shop on 7th Street Northwest, where Gore was signing books at noon. "I'm not supposed to say anything, just sign books," he announced when he started. But when he got to number 214 in the line, he noticed the lanky figure and stood up. "Nice to see you! How you doing? . . . I'm really so grateful to you for coming by."

   After more pleasantries, Gore scribbled a line in the book: "For my friend, Ralph Nader. With respect, Al Gore."

   Nader was smitten. "He's liberated!" Nader said. "He's defining what progressive Democrats should be about."

I'll give you a few examples of how people are responding when they come to see Gore for who he is.

Poster "jiacinto" at Daily Kos is a conservative/moderat Democrat, and he said in PsiFi's diary:


I would support Gore (2+ / 0-)

After what has happened the last six years, as Nixon showed in 1968, he may be what the country needs. I would enthusasitically support him in the primaries. I think that he would be acceptable to everyone.

by jiacinto on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 04:25:53 PM PST


Then we have an account of a former Nader supporter.

Two words: HELL YES. (1+ / 0-)

I have a friend who voted for Nader in 2000, who still sort of tries to rationalize his decision by saying that the Al Gore of 2000 isn't the same Al Gore we see now.  He was a Green Party guy, but after I showed him several DailyKos diaries about how the Green Party was actively helping the GOP, he's opened his eyes to them.

When I suggested that if An Inconvenient Truth wins the Academy Award, Al Gore could possibly announce his candidacy on stage when accepting the award, my friend said he'd cream his pants if that were to happen.

Al Gore can get the Green vote now.  (I know, not that many people, but enough to have made a huge difference in 2000.)

How to debunk the Right's lies on global warming

by BruinKid on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 05:19:01 AM PST


Then, we have a Kucinich supporter.

Simple answers to simple questions: (2+ / 0-)

    Do you really want Al Gore to run?

yes.

I am to the left of Dennis Kucinich, but people don't seem to think he can win. My default after him would be Gore.

by Silent Lurker on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 05:24:08 PM PST

Even evangelicals are coming around to the global warming message:


Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative


Released: November 16, 2006

Zogby Post-Election Poll: Dems Gained From Global Warming Debate

There are also signs that global warming may be eroding support for Republicans among religious voters. Looking ahead, politicians in both parties ignore this issue at their peril."

Global warming may have contributed to the erosion of support for Republicans among religious voters - 50 percent of Catholics identified global warming as important in their 2006 vote.

Evidently, Al Gore is uniquely positioned to unite all of us.

I hope that you will change your mind too, craverguy, one of these days.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-01-01 05:01AM | 0 recs
mihan, cut out your ratings abuse.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-01-01 06:26AM | 0 recs
You deserve it.

Your comment is more appropriate for its own diary, and you're incapable of thinking clearly and objectively. I can mark posts as I please within the parameters given, thanks.

by mihan 2007-01-01 09:23AM | 0 recs
I would prefer that

you express your views about my posts.

you're incapable of thinking clearly and objectively

actually, people that know me say the exact opposite about me, but you're entitled to your opinion.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-01-01 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Long response

have a 3 'just cuz'.

by ATinNM 2007-01-01 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Hell, no.

We already have 2 DLC hacks.  Why add a third?

by hoose 2007-01-01 06:50AM | 0 recs
Gore has parted ways with the DLC

Gore's early involvement with the DLC was borne from trying to help the party recover from the severe beating it took in the 1984 election. Clinton took over the DLC (it's first chairman) and used it to launch his Pres. bid, which on the balance of things was a very good thing (compared to Bush-I or Bush-II, or any Republican, for that matter).

The DLC core didn't like Gore's populist 2000 campaign, and openly critiqued him before and after 2000. Gore refused to attend the 2002 DLC annual conference even after Al From personally invited him.

DLC pushed the war. Gore opposed it.

Clinton machine and the DLC (which significantly overlap) attacked and derailed Dean, Gore endorsed him over Lieberman and Edwards (and Dean got a solid boost from the endorsement).

I personally neither support nor hate the DLC. I critique some of their policies and politics (esp. of the recent kind).

I think that Gore should promote a unifying platform in he runs, and in that case, I'd like him to reach out to one an all, as I wrote in my diary.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-01-01 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Hell, no.

Nothing that Al Gore says now corresponds to DLC posturing.  His new book is about how controlled and sold out the media is.  If he's planning to run for president he's being pretty brave, or self-destructive, or brilliant.  If his books is popular the way the movie was, it could difuse the mind-numbing political press.

I have never seen the political courage in anyone that Al Gore is showing now.  You have to remember the difference between being vice president and president.  This is not to knock Clinton, but he determined the strategy.  And he survived a whole list of witch hunts.  Politics can be pretty hard scrabble.

The way I see it, anyone who thinks Global Warming is our most serious threat has to push for Al Gore, because if he is the next president, that is a mandate on this issue.  As far as diplomacy goes, there is no one we could elect who would immediately change the perception of America abroad.  I live in Europe and everyone seems excited by the idea that he would run.  If that holds beyond my circle, he could get people on board for real change all over the world.

I would be willing to do anything I could to support him, but I don't want to put money in until he's a candidate.  But I hereby promise $100 on the day he announce his candidacy.

by prince myshkin 2007-01-01 12:21PM | 0 recs
How Al Gore can unite all of us

Please see my Daily Kos diary:


How Al Gore can unite all of us
by NeuvoLiberal

Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 07:31:04 AM PST

by NuevoLiberal 2007-01-01 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: How Al Gore can unite all of us

I did check it out there.  I'm glad it was on the recommend list for a good long time.

What I don't get is how there are over 1000 people who've answered "yes" to the poll question in the diary ("Is Al Gore best positioned to unite people?"), and yet only 33 people have given to the Draft Gore fund at ActBlue.  

That just doesn't compute.  

by PeterB 2007-01-01 07:38PM | 0 recs
Already posted at BooTrib and dKos...

In response to your identical posts over there, but, what the heck, I'll do it here again.

In May, 2006, DraftGore2008 PAC was established, alongside a campaign website and growing community.  We wrote a campaign plan, raised over 1000 $5 contributions, and set out to gauge initial support in early primary and caucus states (I spent a month in Iowa alone.)  Dozens of blogs and even traditional media, e.g., Alterman, promoted our campaign, particularly during the summer (when it seems many in online communities were too involved with the Lamont campaign to notice.)

So what happened?  After the initial bang, support died out.  I couldn't even get the organizing committees filled.  Everyone suddenly wanted to focus on the 2006 Congressionals, and funding dried up.  Kind of hard to run even a draft campaign on hope alone.  

As you can see from your poll, people talk a lot about drafting Gore, but they don't want to actually do anything about it.  And frankly, it's an unbelievable amount of work.  Even the campaign filings alone are a nightmare (we're actually behind because we lost all of our first set of data, the one with those 1000+ $5 donations, when our campaign database crashed last summer, and are still reconstructing.  Finance reform, btw, sucks for small campaigns funded by lots of low dollar contributors.)  But a draft campaign cannot be organized online alone - you have to have staff in the field, and to do that, you need to raise money - we calculated at a minimum that we needed to raise $1.5 million, in order to compete in a mere 20 states.

I love Al Gore - I was a paid staffer (dep. field director in CT and ME) for him in both 1992 and 2000, and think global warming is the most important issue facing the world today.  But a handful of people cannot run this alone.  Personally, I'm greatly conflicted, as I was a very early Edwards supporter (2002) when it became clear Gore wasn't going to run in 2004.  I agreed to become the campaign manager for DG08PAC, believing that "if we built it, he would run".  Well, we ended up nearly losing everything, so much so, that I now have a newfound appreciation of John Edwards' emphasis on poverty (did you know that TANF recipients in California are fingerprinted before receiving benefits?  War on poverty?  Try war on the poor, and sadly, Al Gore was a major proponent of "welfare reform" back in the '90s.)

I haven't given up completely, but I want to work this silly season, not bang my head against a wall.  Not to be immodest, but I'm a damned good field director, and I don't want to see that ability squandered, as it was in 2006, when I could have been staffing a Congressional campaign, not flogging a nearly dead draft horse.  

Anyway, I now think Gore is getting his own campaign together, using MoveOn.org and AlGore.com as his springboards.  He's doing it nice and low-key, as he should.  Whether he actually needs a "draft" campaign, other than for "cover", is not exactly clear anymore, at least in my estimation.

by MBW 2007-01-01 09:57AM | 0 recs
I was one of those $5 contributors

Did you really lose my information (and everyone else's)?

I like what Edwards is saying, but the gap in experience -- and in experience doing the right thing -- is tremendous.

Most of what Edwards is running on beyond his "two Americas" signature -- e.g., ending the war in Iraq, halting global warming, restoring America's position in the world -- are themes Al Gore can run on far more credibly. I'm glad Edwards admits his Iraq vote was a mistake, but I'll take a guy who gets the most important issues of our time right when it counts (and doesn't feel the need to rhetorically backtrack like Obama):

Gore was right about global warming (when no one else in politics was talking about it)

Gore sponsored the legislation that led to the widespread use of the internet (and never claimed to have "invented" it).

Gore was right about preserving the surplus.

Gore was right about the Iraq war.

And Gore would not run the same kind of campaign that he did in 2000. His campaign, should he run, would be inspired by and responsive to the grassroots, not to triangulating idiots like Bob Shrum. Gore told friends he wished he had run the kind of people-powered campaign Howard Dean started, instead of listening to the DC consultants. 2008 will, I hope, be his chance.

by Jim in Chicago 2007-01-01 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I was one of those $5 contributors

Jim, with Click and Pledge's help, we were able to recover most of it.  Unfortunately, we have to reenter (by hand) all the data into the horrible software program the FEC requires you use.  Until recently, our electricity situation was problematic enough that it hindered the reconstruction as well.  But we're close to being finished, and all our filings will be up to date.

by MBW 2007-01-01 10:40AM | 0 recs
Agreed

I really agree with you.... After seeing him on An Inconvenient Truth... and seeing his new comfort with audiences - he seems to have really found his voice at last. He is representing hard truths and talking in a no-nonsense way to the American People.

I really love this about him now - its what I didn't see in 2000 = in 2000 when I voted half-heartedly for him, I saw him as a tool, as a triangulator and as a DLC hack. Now that he stepped out of the "normal" ways of running a campaign he seems more at ease and more REAL - something I think that voters will flock to.

If he deep inside plans to run in 08 - he is totally doing it the right way. Totally, and he has me heart and soul.

I'm all over:

Gore/Clark with Edwards as Sec'y of Labor (build up his experience base)
or
Gore/Edwards with Clark as Sec'y of state.

by daninvirginia 2007-01-01 12:44PM | 0 recs
pro-Gore T-shirt

You might want to pick up one of these then:

http://www.cafepress.com/gore4prez2008

My dream team would be Gore/Obama. I think Obama has the most potential of all the candidates, but I feel he has spent the last couple of years following the advice of the wrong people like Rahm Emanuel. 8 years of working with Gore and Obama could become a truly great leader and President.

by Jim in Chicago 2007-01-02 07:49AM | 0 recs
M.J. Rosenberg's post at TPM Cafe

Please visit this excellent post at TPM Cafe:


If Al Gore Is The Patriot I Know He Is, He MUST Run
M.J. Rosenberg
Jan 1, 2007

If he runs, I'll know that the grief I've felt over his loss (and continue to feel) is legitimate. If not, I'll still believe his loss was a disaster for America but not so much because we lost the possibility of a second FDR but because his loss brought us Bush.

There is a big difference.

He has to run. And I won't even mention that he should pick Obama as his VP. Or that I honestly believe that their sure ticket to victory is to run as a ticket in the primaries. Let primary voters know that a vote for Gore is a vote for Gore-Obama.

Unbeatable.

So the question is. Just how much of a patriot is Al Gore? America needs him. Now more than ever before.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-01-01 11:03AM | 0 recs
Why Al Gore Will Vanquish Hillary Clinton in 2008

In one word, Iraq. Also electability--plus he won already in the past but got SHAFTED and instead we got arguably the worst president in the history of the republic...Read more on why Al will defeat Hillary at www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

by MinorRipper 2007-01-02 04:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you really want Al Gore to run?

Hold on: You ask OTHERS if THEY want him to run, but then give an excuse that you can't put anything together? I really wonder if some of you are being paid as political operatives to keep posting this stuff on forums, because it is always the same people with the same soundbites. And again, using his conviction on this issue to imply that he is only using it for selfish aspirations is absolute BS.

by thinkforyourself 2007-01-02 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you really want Al Gore to run?

Evidently, you don't frequent the blogosphere enough to know that I'm not a paid political operative, just a college student who spends a little of his free time on politics. If you'd read anything I've written in the past, you'd know that. You'd also know that I'm as big a booster of Al Gore as it gets.

It'd be nice if you refrained from ad hominem attacks on me in the future. Thanks.

by PsiFighter37 2007-01-02 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you really want Al Gore to run?

Don't count on it. If is always you and your cohort posting this &&&&&. And if you don't like my view on that, then how about you actually GET OFF these blogs oncwe in a while and READ SOMETHING about what is REALLY happening to this planet. Now have your cohort troll rate me.

by thinkforyourself 2007-01-03 01:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you really want Al Gore to run?

And what will any money collected be used for when Mr. Gore already has millions of his own to use now should he actually want to to do anything regarding entering this toxic BS media/ poll driven political system again?

by thinkforyourself 2007-01-02 03:27PM | 0 recs
A $5 contribution is a way of showing support

It is more significant than simply adding one's name to a list for free. In fact, $5 contributions are the basis for some states' public financing laws: a candidate has to raise a certain number of contributions of at least $5 to be considered for public financing.

$5000 (1000 $5 contributions) is a drop in the bucket in Presidential politics, but I'm sure that the money can be put to good use -- hopefully for something particularly appropriate such as outreach to the grassroots....

by Jim in Chicago 2007-01-02 07:35PM | 0 recs
A $5 contribution is a way of showing support./BS

It is a way to put money in someone's pocket. You want to reach out to the grassroots? Then how about doing something WORTHWHILE and getting SERIOUS about the current condition of this planet instead of USING IT as a means to write another redundant boring blog entry? And they say these blogs are "reality based?" Have you actually been FOLLOWING the news lately? Locachara Island (Google Earth it) is now UNDER WATER after having been swallowed up by the rising warming seas that aren't concerned about your BS piddly 5 dollar contribution in the land of fantasy. A FORTY MILE stretch of the Ayles ice sheet in the Arctic has now FALLEN OFF because glaciers WORLDWIDE from the United States to the Himalayas to Greenland are meling at a faster rate than predicated, which means we are in a CRISIS on this planet weare not NEARLY READY FOR and all you people can think about on these blogs is a piddly BS five dollar contribution to continue your excursion in fantasyland.

WAKE UP already. We have FU** up this planet and we are now reaping the whirlwind, and no piddly BS five dollar contribution to a redundant Draft movemtent run by political operatives who have their heads buried so deep in the sand that reality is lost forever is going to stop it. I honestly believe the lot of you HAVE NO COMPREHENSION of the urgency we face on this planet right now, and thank God Mr. Gore does, and I believe he also see the total insignificance of all of this constant political "marketing". Another huge glacial earth quake AND THE GREENLAND SHEET GOES. Now , you tell me NOW what it most important to discuss NOW? Getting that information out to people in NOW, or talking about your piddly BS contribution? I swear politicians WILL be the death of us.

by thinkforyourself 2007-01-03 01:51AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads