Would Gore/Obama Be Too Progressive?

[Bullet1987]

Al Gore and Barack Obama are probably two of the most Progressive big name Democratic politicians in America today (that are in talks of running for President). Even though Gore has sort of backed away from the world of Washington and is now doing global warming tours around the world...IF he does decide to run it'll really ignite the debate and re-draw the lines. But Gore is VERY big on the global warming issue. I think that's by far the thing he cares about more than any other issue out there. Barack Obama, from what he's said...written, and by looking at his voting record in the Senate is also very Progressive.

My question is...would a Gore/Obama ticket be too Progressive for the DNC to swallow? I know a lot of people on here say it's their dream ticket...but is it realistic? One of the above names may not even run! BOTH may not run! But if they do decide to give it a shot, how realistic is it that they'll be paired up? I've said this before, Barack Obama is the wildcard if he runs. If during the campaign, he decides to drop his name out of the Presidential race and into the VP race...he'll be like a trump card for ANY Dem candidate. Period! The experience argument is somewhat invalid when it comes to Presidential candidates because realistically...there's nothing to really prepare you for what you MIGHT face. Whether it's a natural disaster or a war, there are very few government jobs even that can properly prepare you for something like that. That's why there's so many Presidential advisors. And you base your decision off of THEIR opinion and expertise. So realistically, how strong is the experience argument? Bush was Govenor before he became President and look how that turned out. Experience doesn't make you a better leader. So like I said, if Obama runs the only thing stopping him will be his own will.

As far as Gore goes...in my opinion he won the 2000 election! But shady Florida politics and Diebold got in the way of that! Gore/Obama is my dream ticket as well. But I'm not getting my hopes up that it'll come into fruition. Gore has shown no sign that he even WANTS to run (he seems pretty content with what he's doing)...and Obama seems more like he's just testing the waters and has alluded to the idea that he may want to stay in the Senate.

So what say you?

[NYCGirl]

1. The DNC has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in the choice of candidates or running mates.

The DNC does not get involved in those matters.

[Bucky]

5. No, but the members are influential Democrats and a certain groupthink can emerge.

They were generally antiDean in 2004 and tended to line up with Gephardt and Kerry. I think they may have flipped both biases in the past 2 years, but such is the weather of politics.

[NYCGirl]

7. The "members" can do anything they want, personally, but the organization is

specifically PROHIBITED to take a position for or against any candidate.

[Kelly Rupert]

2. Hell no.

And fuck the DLC if anything is "too progressive" for them.

[jefferson_dem]

3. Bring em on. It's would be tought to conjure up a more suitable ticket in terms of

premium qualities and electability.

Do you mean DLC rather than DNC?

Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. TOO progressive? Is there really such a thing?

[Lautremont]

6. No such thing as too progrssive.

I know what you mean - too progressive for the DLC and perhaps by extension the American people. But you know, after several years on DU and thousands of threads about it, I'm still not even sure what the DLC is or why they should have any say about anything.

[Donkeykick]

8. I do so hope...

that this is NOT the only thing that Gore would pursue.

But Gore is VERY big on the global warming issue. I think that's by far the thing he cares about more than any other issue out there.

We need HEALTH CARE in this country--badly! :shrug:

[onehandle]

9. Too soon for Obama. nt

[Bullet1987]

10. C'mon

It has been historically shown that groupthink plays a VERY big role in who Presidential hopefuls decide to choose as their running mate. Even in America after Lincoln was assisinated and during another one of those Reconstruction Presidents campaigns. The leaders who don't run try to persuade the nominees to vote for certain people...and this is not so far-fetched either. Will they be turned off because they think Gore/Obama is too liberal and may turn off some Conservative voters? That's what this is about...the other voters.

[ripple]

14. I think the 'other' voters would prefer Obama over Gore for pres

mainly because they will consider Gore a has-been who lost. WE know he didn't lose and isn't a has-been, but I think the average voter will take a different view, even if subconsciously.

I like Obama because a)I think he will win if nominated and b)he's the one person who can unite our nation's populace. He's far more progressive than Clinton was, but he's certainly no more progressive than several sitting senators. I think he has the right message for this time.

I also like Gore and I would love to see him on the ticket again. I'm just not so sure he would garner more votes than he did in 2000. America wants a fresh face and a new vision. They proved that in the mid-terms. Unfortunately for all of us, I just don't think America is interested enough in global warming to vote on that issue alone. And that has been Al's almost singular issue for several years now, for good reason. If he runs, that is the issue that will be driving him. I love and support that, but as you said, I'm worried about the "other" voters.

Long story short: I'd love to see Al Gore in executive office, but I'm not sure how to get him there. The electorate is far too fickle.

With that said, I think Obama has more universal promise (likability, impressive background, progressive ideas, ideological and pragmatic vision, etc.) than any candidate we've seen in decades, including Al Gore. In other words, I think Obama stands a better chance of actually being elected than any other progressive in the field. He's that good.

[Pirate Smile]

12. Certainly not for VP.

[mzmolly]

11. Is there such a thing as too much progress?

What say you?

Also, the DNC is not the DLC, and I might remind you that Gore was our nominee in 2000. He had the support of the DLC,the DNC and he now has MORE support on the left.

[Bullet1987]

13. It's like this...

What say you?

Also, the DNC is not the DLC, and I might remind you that Gore was our nominee in 2000. He had the support of the DLC,the DNC and he now has MORE support on the left.

I'm a Progressive myself...but let's be honest. Ned Lamont was also a Progressive and was wrongly labeled as far left in the media because of it. Progressives are HEAVILY trashed in the MSM...this is FACT! Which is why I'm,

1. Surprised by all the positive publicity Obama is receiving in the media and,
2. Highly skeptical of it. Because it smells of contradictory hype and the media WILL show how full of BS they are IF Obama runs. They will slander him BECAUSE of his Progressive, anti-war values. And don't think this won't effect voters and the people who mock every catch phrase the media comes up with.

[mzmolly]

17. I don't know what you're talking about frankly.

"Progressives" are not maligned in the media. "Liberals" perhaps? But Lamont lost only because Lieberman got Republican votes by kissing Bush ass.

As for "slandering" people, the Republicans and their media minions will "slander" anyone who runs. Obama is least likely to be maligned, he's a media darling. Even Oprah endorsed him. Also being against the war is "practical" now, you're not keeping up man.

I honestly find your premise absurd, sorry.

[fujiyama]

15. I could get behind such a ticket!

I think both candidates are great...and Obama would bring a lot to the ticket.

If Gore doesn't run, I think I'm thinking I'll support Obama. He's young, charismatic and very intelligent.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. No, forced labour is fundamentally unprogressive.

I don't support conscription in any other sphere of life, and nor do I support it in politics. Al Gore has said he is not going to run again, and I have no reason to suppose he's lying, so as far as I'm concerned he's out of the running.