Al Gore listed in Time Magazine with other Dem front-runners for nomination

[Bicoastal]

Clearly, it's not just the editors at Rolling Stone who believe Gore a) will probably run and b) will be tough competition for the nomination. In today's Time, nine Democratic presidential candidates were mentioned as "actual or assumed or wished-for candidates," but only four were profiled in detail as front-runners: Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Gore. That's the good news.

The bad news? According to Time, Gore's stats are currently not entirely impressive, percentage wise.

54% have a favorable view of Gore, compared to 58% for Hillary (!) and 82% for Giuliani; Edwards, Obama, and McCain are also all higher.
40% think it's likely he would win. John Edwards is slightly higher with 50%; the rest are all far ahead.
18% would definitely support him. Actually, Gore is higher than Edwards AND McCain, and only one percentage point lower than Rudy. But Obama and Clinton still lead the pack.

While way ahead of Richardson, Biden, and Kucinich (not to mention Huckabee, Romney, Brownback, etc.) when it comes to electibility, Gore in no way seems to be in command of the field--YET. But this is a guy who hasn't even mentioned he's running yet; surely, if he started to make motions in that direction, Americans would be more likely to say "Gore 2008! Hell Yeah!" instead of "Why should I show interest in this guy running for president again? He doesn't seem that interested himself."

[madfloridian]

1. Obama and Clinton are getting TV attention.

At least for now. They will lead the field until the TV media doesn't cover them as much.

[hippiechick]

3. Right. For now.

... why should Gore jump in now, approximately a year before the primaries, and burn face-time, money, energy, etc ... IMO it's better to wait until later in '07 when a couple of the lesser candidates will have flamed out and he can ride the mo' ?


:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

4. Bingo.

Can't expect too much at this point.

[Pirate Smile]

2. When Gore came out against the war in September 2002, he was savaged

by the media and RW'ers, plus, of course, Dems weren't exactly sticking up for any of their own. They just wanted to avoid the issue and get beyond it.

By Sam Parry
October 8, 2002

George W. Bush's doctrine of "preemptive war" -- the elimination of foreign governments he deems a threat to U.S. security interests -- is quickly developing a domestic corollary. Any politician who questions Bush’¡Çs strategy can expect to be confronted by a rapid-deployment force of pro-Bush operatives who counterattack using weapons of ridicule and distortion.

In a kind of test run, this army swung onto the offensive immediately after former Vice President Al Gore on Sept. 23 delivered a comprehensive critique of Bush's radical departure from decades of American support for international law. Rather than welcome a vigorous debate on the merits and shortcomings of the so-called "Bush Doctrine," conservative commentators treated Gore and others raising questions as dishonest, unpatriotic and even unhinged

~~~~~~~~~~

As a direct result of these attacks, Gore's favorables fell dramatically:

Before the speech (8/6-7/02): Gore 51% favorable, 38 unfavorable
After the speech (10/22-23/02): Gore 37% favorable, 51% unfavorable

i.e. Gore suffered a swing of 27 point in net favorables (fav-unfav).

Now, he has been vindicated thoroughly on the war. But, people do need to be reminded that he opposed the war as strongly as he did back before it began.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/1/26/183616/573/9#9

[AtomicKitten]

5. He was a pioneer of the anti Iraq war sentiment

that should pay off nicely for him now.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

6. Truth

But in all fairness, George Pataki is also still in their list of contenders, and he's fucking political roadkill at this point.