Reality check: Democrats outside of DU and the liberal blogosphere are not feeling all the Gore love

[ecstatic]

Poll question: Reality check: Democrats outside of DU and the liberal blogosphere are not feeling all the Gore love

With a heavy heart I make this post, only because it seems that many DUers are extremely blind when it comes to Gore. It seems that some of you view him as some sort of Messiah for the Dems.

Here are the cold hard facts:

1) Sadly, even though a lot of Democrats are concerned about global warming, they are not interested in making any lifestyle changes to the extent that Al Gore advocates.

2) Many Black voters still feel the sting of betrayal from what happened in Florida 2000. I know it's not all Gore's fault, but his name is heavily associated with that pain (See F911 clip).

3) He has the taint of Lieberman on him

4) The taint of NAFTA and DLC

5) The "no personality" meme still rings true in many corners AND he will be attacked for picking up so much weight.

6) He's run and lost already, several times and that leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths


Could Al Gore win in 2008?

[PhilipShore]

1. Gore, General Clark, Edwards, Kucinich I could vote for-- n/t

[ClintonTyree]

2. Your "cold hard facts" about Gore....

read like a page from the Republican party's talking points. Did you copy and paste from Newsmax?

You obviously have an agenda posting this. Why don't you just come right out and tell us all what it is? :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

7. some do as you say. Others read like a page from CounterPunch.

[ecstatic]

12. I don't read Newsmax, Counterpunch, Free republic, or any other political site

besides DU. So I guess you could say I'm very uninformed when it comes to the full scope of the liberal and conservative blogosphere. I'm a half and half--half trying to stay informed, half mainstream/uninvolved. My points are based on talking to real people and the way I personally felt about the Gore debacle.

[ClintonTyree]

55. That, I'll except.

"My points are based on talking to real people and the way I personally felt about the Gore debacle." Fine. I don't know how many people you've canvassed about Gore's popularity but you're entirely within your rights to have a personal opinion about it. But DON'T portray them as "cold, hard facts". They're your opinions and should be stated as such.

I doubt you'll get much agreement with stating them as, "cold, hard facts", just as anyone else would with saying the same things about Clinton, Obama, Biden et al. We're still in the infancy of a Presidential campaign here and anything can, and probably will, happen. Democrats eating their own in very unbecoming. People have their favorites but let's refrain from bashing other's. Maybe when we get down to the short strokes, but now? :shrug:

[ecstatic]

8. Oh please. So what is the agenda with all the Hillary hate?

I'm not feeling all the Gore love. It is my right.

[William769]

11. Shes a cold hearted woman.

And thats what we need!

[PATRICK]

3. Another point

that is part and parcel of all the above is the lingering success of the anti-Gore injustices that succeeded in the past to brand him in the hearts and minds even of party members. The rabid anti-Gore MSM does not even have to try but many of his enemies are still there and those that might even like Gore now can't undo the damage and won't responsibly accept their own past sins.

An unspoken, maybe even unimagined hope is that the redemption of Gore, like Carter, will redeem and revise the false history along with the calumny. In reality, for Carter, for example, no one revisits the
slander of the past to renounce it. The damage runs parallel with public acclaim. Given a reason to attack, the tradition of slime quickly revives even when allied to rational critique. No one even says the whole past should or would be revisited and purged. This "overlooking" speaks for itself what will happen and what will not happen.

We call for a lot of awakenings and redemptions here at DU. But realistically what concerns us and all voters most is winning back the present and future with the best and most. In that single-minded passion we would leave things unresolved and barrel over injustice but that does not mean the bad stuff and its terrible debilitating effects on democracy will vanish with the dawn of a single candidate.

But in conclusion, we should not give in too much to the pragmatism of conceding to the negative. It speaks of fear and doubt. It tempts every candidate to be viewed sourly from the dark side until a GOP victory becomes more and more possible. Grimly tempering our enthusiasm for admittedly good people with positive agendas is a skill to claw our way yto the biggest victory possible- which we hope to make a beginning not just of true civil government facing terrible crisis but a searchlight into the truth.

The "could Al Gore win?" frame passes all too naturally toward "can ANYONE win against the GOP ham sandwiches?" Or still negative is the notion of settling for a primary contest winner out of the assumption "any Dem ham sandwich could win". Something is unhealthily warped in American politics and we are all victims. We must at least have a candidate to help progress and look forward. Then comes the
choice of who does it best with the most. If we fall into the trap of having impossible perfection walking on MSM banana peels fantasy and fear will be manipulated by GOP experts who do nothing else but exploit our humanity. Gore can very possibly be the one. Possibly too Obama and Edwards and perhaps others not yet running. There are more dragging negatives and substantially regressive ones that beset Hillary's gambit. To eliminate Gore rather than Hillary at this point does not serve the nation's welfare. The same type of points applied against Hillary, fundamentally the public tagging of the past, are far more detrimental to her consideration. Even better chances in 2008 are not going to soothe nervous Dem voters or cathartically wash over her detractors. We need a candidate whose tar will be easier to lighten and remove, but we'll not get a godly superhuman nor a press that is friendly to real democracy. If we did the enemy would call them inhuman, a dangerous cult of personality or a boy(girl) scout.

[ecstatic]

19. Good points. I love the optimism on this site

Remember how, despite the election being stolen, people here held out hope that somehow * would not get inaugurated in January 00/04? Some of the optimism was encouraging but I knew there was no way in hell we would get what we wanted. I try to stay rooted in reality.

[left is right]

4. I like Gore, I would vote for Gore, BUT

the only way Gore can win is if there is a widespread backlash against all things Repuke--the general population voting against Bushco and Gore being the only alternative.
Gore was unfairly branded a liar during 00 and in the back of most people's memories, this thought still lives (to varying degrees). He feels like a loser to many people, he lack charisma, and for some unknown reason, he bears the taint of the Clinton scandals-in a way that Clinton himself does not. Besides, the press will continue to lie and spin against Gore--they have to! Any endorsement, however slight, would be an admission of the guilt of what they did to him in 00.
Gore carries way too much baggage to run effectively--at least in the minds of most of people who claim to be uninterested in politics.

[MasonJar]

5. That could be true, but some pug friends of mine volunteered that

they think they would vote for Al Gore.

[wyldwolf]

6. Let me modify your cold hard facts

4) The taint of NAFTA and DLC

Most Democrats outside the blogosphere view NAFTA as a good idea that went wrong. To most Democrats outside the blogosphere, the DLC is a non-issue. Bill Clinton, who currently enjoys an approval rating among Democrats close to 90%, is more associated with the group. There simply is no taint.

[Clark2008]

9. Are you saying most Dems outside the blogosphere are pretty uninformed?

Because I would think most Dems wouldn't like the DLC or NAFTA if they knew more about it - many of their goals are not in keeping with what average working men and woman want and need.

[William769]

13. I would say it's the other way around.

[wyldwolf]

17. I'm saying they don't see the boogyman behind every tree.

it is doubtful most Democrats pay attention to intraparty squabbles. But they sure know names attached to the DLC. So let’s imagine you go to any Democratic party meeting and spout the trash “fascist DLC type Democrats” are our enemy. THEN you start rattling off the list of those who have been associated with that organization that we are supposed to deplore.

Naturally, you start with Bill and Hillary Clinton. You might move on to Al Gore and John Kerry. You could mention former senators Max Cleland, John Edwards, and Sam Nunn. The Salazars. Spitzer. In my state, you'd mention Cathy Cox and Mark Taylor.

By now, the crowd at the meeting is staring at you like you have a few screws loose. So you continue.

You rattle off all 16 new House members just elected. All new DLC members. All the enemy.

And you suddenly realize the room is laughing at you hysterically. You thrust your fist in the air and say something revolutionary. They laugh harder. You unzip your jacket, revealing your black Che shirt, as though that will bolster your “progressive” credentials. Then you see the party chair approaching to usher you off the stage, all the while explaining to the crowd that he did not mean to hire a comedian as a speaker.

So off you go, back to your blog, where you immediately declare the Democrats at that meeting the enemy, also.

[ecstatic]

20. LOL

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

24. LOL!

:rofl:

[Clark2008]

57. Not so funny when you've made a fool of yourself.

I'm a moderate Democrat. I'm just smart enough to realize that DLC=corporate, not moderate.

[wyldwolf]

58. Explain to me how I've done that?

[Clark2008]

56. I don't have a blog.

But, most people don't like the DLC and NAFTA when they learn about them, particularly after they have time to learn about them when they're laid off.

I've never thrust my fist in the air and screamed about revolution. I don't have a Che shirt. In fact, I'm a moderate Democrat and was an Independent until Bush. I just don't like politicians who give more credence to corporations than the working man and woman. I'm for campaign finance reform as a result.

I just come from Southern blue-collar union stock. I couldn't care less about all that other shit you mentioned and know that corporations are taking over our country and stiffing the working man and woman. That's not an indication of some mythical boogeyman - it's very real. I also worked in media for 12 years. I believe I know how to research something and fully understand it.

So, off you go, to make wild assumptions about people you don't know fuck all about.

P.S. Al Gore is about as DLC as I am at this point. It started as something necessary and has morphed into another elitist organization. I'm a Tennessee girl. I've loved Al longer than you've known who he was. Now, I don't like John Edwards because I think he's sleazy and wasn't a very effective senator, but I couldn't care less about the other folks you named. I don't have any opportunities to vote for them - oh - and HRC won't win a national election because she's a female and nothing more. Sorry, but this country is sexist AND racist. And I defy you to find anyplace on this blog where I've bitched about Bill Clinton, because I haven't. I liked Bill (but I'm smart enough to know Hillary isn't Bill).

Your assumptions just made an ass out of you.

[wyldwolf]

59. So?

most people don't like the DLC and NAFTA when they learn about them, particularly after they have time to learn about them when they're laid off.

We're not counting your drinking buddies.

I've never thrust my fist in the air and screamed about revolution. I don't have a Che shirt.

Has anyone said you did?

In fact, I'm a moderate Democrat and was an Independent until Bush.

Ah, the great "progressive rebranding project." LOL!

Your assumptions just made an ass out of you.

And yours just made an ass out of you.

Now, would you like to debate Al Gore's New Democrat credentials?

[Forkboy]

60. "We're not counting your drinking buddies."

I think that says all anyone needs to know about you.

No wonder you only got 23%.

[wyldwolf]

61. We're not counting her drinking buddies

The area I live in is why I got 22%. Now, would you like to debate that?

[Forkboy]

63. I'm sure it was just the area and had nothing to do with you

No wonder you support Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

64. then perhaps you'd like to explain...

...why DFA-backed candidates pulled similar numbers in the same district last year? Why did Democrats fall like flies in neighboring Sandy Springs City Council races? And while you're at it, why did Jeff Seemann (the darling at that other message forum) fair so poorly in Ohio?

Then tell us how many votes you got the last time you ran for office?

Either you haven't a clue of red state politics or it's just willfull ignorance.

[Psephos]

96. Well and perceptively said, but all it will get you is abuse

Success in politics comes from building coalitions and finding common ground. That's something those at the extremes in both parties keep forgetting.

Peace.

[PhilipShore]

18. Your probably correct about the statistics but...

can't the Democrats be more "friendly" to the liberal Democrats. That is all we ask - rant and rave - all you want in some filled closed rooms about the liberals this and that -- but when in public say perhaps a no comment or something like that to the MSM, when asked for your opinion about liberals.

[scarletwoman]

10. You make alot of assertions with absolutely no citations to back them up.

Have there been polls conducted around these questions with results that back up your assertions? Do you have even so much as an anecdote that demonstrates any of your assertions?

Your "cold hard facts" appear to me to be nothing more than your personal opinions. Honest commenters understand the difference between "facts" and opinions, and do not try to pass off the latter as the former.

This is not to say that none of your assertions could be true, but attempting to pass them off as "cold hard facts" is really quite arrogant.

[ecstatic]

14. You're right. My OP title is arrogant

And for that I apologize. But I'm almost certain about point 2--that Gore won't get the black vote, at least not during the primaries. I speak to real people about these things. Smug DUers have forgotten 2000 but we haven't. For Gore it was about figuring out what votes he needed to win, and when he figured he didn't have the votes, he quit and didn't bother to do anything about all the FRAUD that occured in FL.

[scarletwoman]

21. From "cold hard facts" to "almost certain" -- at least that's more honest, thanks.

I'm not on anyone's bandwagon, so pointing out negatives about ANY candidate doesn't bother me. I just dislike sweeping statements with nothing of substance to back them up.

Peace,
sw

[Kahuna]

25. To be fair, 2 black men did call cspan yesterday to complain about

Gore not fighting back in 2000. :eyes: Doubtless, that is where TIA cites his anecdotes about black voters. :eyes:

[ecstatic]

29. Well, there is one more thing

I am black, and female, by the way. I don't need to watch C-SPAN to get an idea of what the sentiment is around here.

[Kahuna]

44. So am I. That doesn't mean that I KNOW what all black people think.

And neither do you.

[w4rma]

15. Those are not "facts". Those are your "cold hard" opinions. (nt)

[ecstatic]

16. Have you ever asked your Democratic friends who don't visit online forums how they feel

about Gore?

[catgirl]

68. I have. Every one of them wants Gore.

[Mister Ed]

22. My take on your take:

1) Sadly, even though a lot of Democrats are concerned about global warming, they are not interested in making any lifestyle changes to the extent that Al Gore advocates.
No voter will be required to provide proof of drastic lifestyle changes before casting a vote for Gore.

2) Many Black voters still feel the sting of betrayal from what happened in Florida 2000. I know it's not all Gore's fault, but his name is heavily associated with that pain (See F911 clip).
I think many Black voters feel the sting of our party's failure to effectively fight GOP efforts to disenfranchise them, and not just in Florida or just in 2000. If this party wants the votes of Blacks, it had better start fighting - fiercely - for their right to vote.


3) He has the taint of Lieberman on him
I only wish this was as big a negative with the general public as it is among bloggers.

4) The taint of NAFTA and DLC
See #3

5) The "no personality" meme still rings true in many corners AND he will be attacked for picking up so much weight.
If I thought we were once again going to see a Gore who's prepackaged and market-researched to the point of total blandness and irrelevance, I wouldn't want him to run either. But I think we'd see the real guy this time around.
As for the weight - hey, it speaks to the common man. You know, what with America's obesity epidemic and all.

6) He's run and lost already, several times and that leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths
He lost?

[ecstatic]

27. good points, but

No voter will be required to provide proof of drastic lifestyle changes before casting a vote for Gore.


True, but what I'm getting at is that a lot of the DU/Blog love comes from the fact that Al Gore is so pro-environment, whereas, the average american is not. In other words, all of Gore's work in that arena will fall on deaf ears and it won't necessarily get him any new votes.

See #3


I agree with you about the general public not caring much about the Lieberman thing, but as far as the NAFTA/DLC thing goes---welcome to the Lou Dobbs age. A lot of Democrats are watching his show, daily!

He lost?

Back in the 1980s he lost. He won in 2000 of course but... we all know what happened there!

[JNelson6563]

23. That's not been my experience

There are some who are treated as messiahs here who I NEVER hear mention of in the real world. Not so with Gore. Everyone I talk to thinks he's great and would love him to run. In MI there seems to be a new Draft Gore meet-up group every week. No one had more representation at my recent state convention than the Gore folks.

I don't know where you are but Michigan seems to like Gore a whole lot.

Julie

[Le Taz Hot]

26. Wha JNelson said

but in California.

LTH

[ecstatic]

28. Interesting. Well I'm in a red state so maybe that has an affect

on how people feel. We Democratic voters don't have the luxury of being represented statewide, and maybe we are a bit more angry with what has happened over the past 7 years. Maybe we can't afford to take any more chances? :shrug:

[JNelson6563]

33. Hmm, don't know about that....

No state has suffered economically like Michigan thanks to national policies.

Just sayin'....

Julie

[John Q. Citizen]

90. It's interesting. Gore was one of the few National Democrats who supported your avitar.

If your state votes Repo statewide, then it won't matter (as far as your state goes) who the Democratic candidate is.
They can't win in your state, by your own admission.

So who can win Nationwide? Well we know Gore can. He already did. And he's much more popular now than he was in 2000.

[JNelson6563]

98. Funny, that

Let's see, the poster is in an unwinnable red state and folks around them aren't crazy about Gore....gosh, the Rethugs still don't like Gore. Colour me shocked.

*sigh*

Julie

[mainer]

30. Same here. But not so with Hillary.

All my Dem friends are either wildly enthusiastic or, at the least, warmly positive about a Gore candidacy. Not so with a Hillary candidacy. Not a SINGLE ONE of my longterm Dem friends is pleased with that prospect, and one of them asked me to please restrain her from voting for Giuliani if it came down to a contest between him and Hillary.

[ms liberty]

31. In 2004, everyone I talked to about the elections...

said they wished Gore had run. This is in a very rural town in the south. They were all Democrats and/or Independents, but none of them were up to our DU political junkie status. They were just people I worked with. One of them was an American of African descent who told me that his family had been talking about it the previous Sunday afternoon, and they all wished Gore had run. I remember it because I was a little surprised.

People I talk to right now in the real world are upset because it's all Hilary and Obama all the time. One woman said that 'they' had decided Hilary was going to be our nominee and it didn't matter what we thought; she wasn't happy about it at all. I haven't had anyone tell me as yet that they didn't want Gore to run, most of the people I've talked to think he'd be better than any of the alternatives we've been offered. I will admit, though, that I haven't talked to a whole lot of people about this as yet - but I will say that EVERYONE I talk to believes global warming is a huge problem, and this not by political party. I'm talking about people in line at the grocery store, the unemployment office, etc.

[greenman3610]

32. Gore's "lifestyle changes" include

moving into a more prosperous and
dynamic economy, based on the technologies of the
21st century, instead of stumbling into
environmental and economic disaster
pursuing 19th century technology.

[SaveElmer]

34. I agree...except...

I do not believe reasons 1,2,3,4 in your list are significant reasons...

5 and 6 however are...the fact that he has "lost" once, and the media will pick up the no personality thing again....I don't think his weight will weigh heavily...no pun intended...

[Senator]

35. # 2 is not "Black Voters" and it was/is Gore's fault

Gore failed the entire nation when he refused to object to the BushvGore edict and the unlawful FL electors.

He still trivializes it with jokes every time he speaks publicly. Like you're "ghettoizing" it here.

----

[Mister Ed]

39. Two Separate, But Related, Issues

It's just as you say. Gore's eventual capitulation to the election theft of 2000 had tragic consequences for all people, not just Blacks. But I think Truth Hurts is referring specifically to the mass purging of African-Americans from voter rolls in Florida prior to the 2000 elections. Responsibility for that crime lies with the Republicans who committed it, but responsibility for fighting the disenfranchisement of Black voters lies with all of us.

[Senator]

67. But that minimizes the reality ... and Gore's real failure.

Sure, blacks were targetted -- but for voting Dem. Senior Jews were targetting and fooled into voting for Buchanan. Absentee ballots were dumped in Dem areas but allowed (even faxed-in) and "rehabbed" by operatives for Repubs. Students were targetted and not added to the rolls. Haitians were targetted and denied translators.

Like with 2004, it was a broad operation and very little of it "secret."

This was Anti-American election theft, not racism. Ironically, it was the racist aspect that allowed the US Commission on Civil Rights to formally find the results unlawful and racist (yes, the official position of the US Gov't is that bushcheney were not elected lawfully in 2000). Sadly, it was the Commission and the Congressional Black Caucus who were fighting the disenfranchisement of all of us.

But the bottom line is that Gore and Kerry had reason to act and failed. The simple extrapolation of "uncounted" ballots by the Miami Herald made it clear -- days after the election -- that the People refused bushcheney by tens of thousands. In the same way, hours-long poll-tax-lines for Dems and none for Repubs in Ohio -- and the impossible deviance from exit polls in other states -- were plain to see and simply invalidated those electors.

All Gore and Kerry needed to do was say "No, this is not right." It was not "their" election to concede. They (and nearly all DC Dems) refuse to acknowledge this reality. They ask us to go forward with them in willful ignorance and/or dishonesty.

We cannot continue to allow it. We're supposed to be the "reality-based community." Otherwise, we become complicit with all that has resulted from their failure.

This is why Only Impeachment ... can even begin to undo any of the damage.

---

[Mister Ed]

70. Well said. If replies could be recommended for the Greatest page, I'd recommend this one. n/t

[Apollo11]

76. Al Gore fought for 36 days

to ensure that the intent of Florida's voters would be respected.

He exhausted all the options that were available to him under the law.

He continued fighting for as long as there was a chance of changing the outcome.

But once the US Supreme Court had ruled (5-4) in favour of Bu$h-Cheney, there was nothing more that Gore could have done that would have prevented Bu$h from being inaugurated.

Maybe with a Dem majority in both houses of Congress - things might have been different.

But as it was -- continuing the fight after the Supreme Court ruling would have been futile.

DECEMBER 13, 2000

SPEAKER: ALBERT GORE JR., DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.

(...)

I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.

(...)

Some have asked whether I have any regrets and I do have one regret: that I didn't get the chance to stay and fight for the American people over the next four years, especially for those who need burdens lifted and barriers removed, especially for those who feel their voices have not been heard. I heard you and I will not forget.

I've seen America in this campaign and I like what I see. It's worth fighting for and that's a fight I'll never stop.

As for the battle that ends tonight, I do believe as my father once said, that no matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shape the soul and let the glory out.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/t651213.html

[NYCGirl]

36. And a "reality check" for you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/23/huffpos-melinda-henneber_n_39362.html

Even here in solidly Republican Idaho, Gore not only packed the 10,000-seat Taco Bell Arena, but sold out the joint "faster than Elton John," in about five hours, said Garry Wenske, executive director of the Frank Church Institute, who helped organize the event. "We all know how he did as a political candidate, but this is something else."

[RestoreGore]

41. Yes, it is something else

He is more popular now because he isn't in politics, and he is discussing a crisis that affects all of us regardless of politics. People don't trust "politicians" to tell them these things because they believe there is a hidden agenda, and in many cases they are correct. Al Gore can now speak of this as a free man and as one of US and reach them on that level, and that is why I believe he is now getting the response he is at these events. That wasn't a political campaign whistle stop, that was a presentation showing what the affects of climate change are doing to our planet and maybe, JUST maybe some people actually packed that theatre because they care about this planet. But those who are obsessed with pushing the 08 meme simply cannot see that.

[NYCGirl]

43. And you think if he declared he WOULDN'T be able to fill a venue?

Your reasoning is specious.

[RestoreGore]

45. Maybe not if he is then seen as a political player who only used this issue

Especially considering that the climate crisis is not a political issue. And you tell me he would have filled that venue had he NOT done the movie and the slideshow. And that is not a reflection on him, but on people in this country. And sure baseless political speculation I am sure helped with him filling those venues too, but now I hope it is not hurting this effort in light of ths crap about his utility bill which was an obvious POLITICAL attack on him. But you and others just keep pumping out the political speculation in lieu of supporting his current endeavors.

[NYCGirl]

46. Here in GD: Political, we like political speculation. That's why this forum exists.

And we Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time — we can support his current endeavors as well as looking to the future. Many of us, even Al Gore, do not see things as compartmentalized.

Sure, the movie helped fill the venue — would it have gotten as large a response if James Hansen was giving a talk?

Edited to add:

And you know those speeches Gore makes that are NOT about global warming? He gets massive audiences there — although they are not held at big venues — they always have to turn people away.

[RestoreGore]

47. Speculation is BS

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0703030139mar03,0,4204419.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed

I really don't care to be given a history lesson of why this forum exists. As Mr. Gore also stated, my ally is REALITY.

[NYCGirl]

48. Nice opinion article. What part of GD: Politics don't you understand? NT

[RestoreGore]

49. I understand that I can discuss POLITICS here even if I don't happen to LIKE IT

Got that?

[NYCGirl]

51. Except that you're disparaging anyone who wants to talk about politics.

You scream at them and belittle them. It's like being invited into someone's house (in this case Skinner, Elad and EarlG's) and telling them how to decorate.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-guttman/warming-up-to-al-gore_b_42407.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/thank-you-al-gore_b_42071.html

Now, excuse me, I have things to do.

[RestoreGore]

53. Translation: You make good points that I can't refute

So I'll just say anything to not have to discuss them...I'm not disparaging anyone here. I responded to your one post here and then you responded, and so on because see, that's how a forum works. Just because you don't like the responses doesn't mean I'm disparaging anyone. Discussing that I believe Mr. Gore is more popular now because he is not a "politician" is political in case you didn't know it. And it also looks as though this thread is going smoothly with you being the only one telling someone what they can or cannot post. Now please do go do those "things" you have to do.

[catgirl]

69. You don't talk politics.

The only BS is coming from you. You speculate all the time.
Hypocrite.

[Milo_Bloom]

66. LMAO

To suggest that Al Gore isn't is politics is about the most outrageous claim I have heard yet.

Al Gore is speaking out on all topics political. He is releasing a book all about the thinking in WA... yep, politics.

Al Gore learned many lessons from not "winning" in 2000, including that he needed to speak his mind and not hold back for fear of reaction.

It is because he has done THAT that he is popular, not because people don't view him as a politician.


It is also why he is running in 2008, he figured out the secret and he is using it quite well.

[RestoreGore]

71. He called politics his "former occupation"

Are you calling him a liar again?

[Milo_Bloom]

74. LMAO

Just because someone doesn't currently practice their craft doesn't mean they aren't skilled in that craft or considered a part of it.

Non practicing doctors and lawyers are STILL doctors and lawyers.

Al Gore is STILL A POLITICIAN, whether currently in office or just seeking office as he is now.

[RestoreGore]

75. He is not now perceived as such by more by not currently being a part of the beltway

THAT was my point. And I think the only thing he is seeking is to concentrate on this crisis without being painted as a liar by those who claim to support him.

[Milo_Bloom]

79. Lie much?

If the only thing he is interested in focusing on is the climate crisis, why is he writing a book about changing the thinking in WA? Why is he constantly speaking on ALL topics??

The only lies I see are those being put forth by you, as you desperately try to hide your eyes from the truth.

He IS a politician.

He IS running for President

Those are some facts you need to get used to.

[RestoreGore]

80. Because he cares about this country

Too bad you have such a myopic view of things and suspect people of only having political motives. But who knows, maybe he did it to play with your head like he did at the Oscars in his own way to tell those with nothing else on their minds that there are more important things to focus on now in this world than their political obsessions. Good to know that the substance of what he writes about means nothing to you either unless you can use it to put out baseless speculation.

[Milo_Bloom]

83. Nope, wrong again.

That river of denial keeps getting deeper, doesn't it? Getting tough to not see reality.

I love the way you change your tune. In one message he is only interested in the Climate, in the next you admit that he is talking on all subjects, but have another excuse.

No one with a brain thought he was announcing at the Oscars.. I told you he wouldn't. However, the fact that he made the joke is just more evidence of how serious he is about running.

He IS a politician.

He IS running for President.

The mountain of facts supporting those facts grows higher every single day.

[Tellurian]

37. The ground shook, the sky opened up and rays of light shone over the mountainside..

My family saw Al Gore on tv at the Oscars. They couldn't wait to tell me, they think he's gonna run.
They are the "I Like Ike" republicans who thought, Nixon and Bush are holy men. Shocking, absolutely, Shocking!

[catgirl]

38. Right, I guess you haven't seen the poll resulys "outside of DU"

flame baiting here at DU?

[ecstatic]

40. as a matter of fact, I do!

Clinton leads all Democrats in polling for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Gore, who has not indicated whether he will run, is currently tied for third with former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D). Polling for the Democratic nomination is updated each Monday.

...

For Gore, the numbers are 50% favorable and 47% unfavorable.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/Romneyvs.ClintonGore20070208.htm

[PresidentObama]

42. I live in an conservative section of Missouri.

I think Bush won my county 60% to 40%, probably even higher. And I know a lot of Democrats who not only want Al Gore to run, but are begging for it. Oh, and by the way....Al Gore didn't lose and America knows it ;)

[mtnsnake]

50. As much as I like Al Gore, I don't think he holds any magic wand either

I don't think he'd have the same chance of winning in a general election as what so many people here on DU think he has. In fact, I think he would stand less of a chance than someone like say, Obama.

The way I see it, Al Gore is everyone's best hope of knocking Hillary out of the equation, and in that respect he's a Messiah around here. Come time for the big general election, the reality would set in that Al Gore would be in for just as rough a ride, maybe even more so, than anyone else. He's been out of politics for a long time, and he does carry some baggage, contrary to public opinion here.

Glad to be your first recommendation.

[LWolf]

52. What an interesting question.

Could Al Gore win in 2008? Sure. Easily.

He won in 2000. I think he'd win with a larger margin in '08, which might help to offset the problem with fraudulent vote counts and corrupt election systems.

Could elected Democrats do something about election fraud? Sure. Will they, in time for it to make a difference in '08? :shrug: It hasn't exactly been at the top of the "front runners'" priority lists.

If Al Gore decides to run, I'm sure he is aware of all the rw talking points you just presented. I think he could address those easily.

[sce56]

54. The Fact is Al Gore got more votes than Shrub! Not all over the country but also in Florida!

If we had a real honest election system he would be in the oval office right now not the Crusader N Thief!

http://web.archive.org/web/20030602211200/

October 17, 2006,Will be remembered as the Enabling day of the 21st Century!
"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures..."
~Adolf Hitler, March 23, 1933, before the German Parliament (Reichstag) as he urged them to pass his "Enabling Act"

Got Fascism Yet?


http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bush-nazilinkconfirmed.htm



Fascism Accomplished!

[Forkboy]

62. Not really a supporter but I think he'd win easily.

I don't see any of the things really even mattering anymore.

[Jack Sprat]

65. You are 0 for 6 in hard, cold facts

[mtnsnake]

72. How so?

If you're going to make such an assertion, at least explain why she's 0 for 6.

[Jack Sprat]

73. I didn't make the assertion. I disagree

with the assertion. Not worth my time. I'm not working on anyone's campaign yet.

[Apollo11]

77. Gore Obama 2008

There is no hurry for Al Gore to enter the race for 2008.

I think Gore is keeping his options open right now, watching how the "pre-season" goes. I don't think he yet knows what he will do.

He is doing a great job raising public awareness about the climate crisis. Winning an Oscar means that even more people will hopefully see An Inconvenient Truth. Gore will testify at a Congressional Hearing on March 21st.

Gore is getting ready to publish his next book The Assault on Reason - to be published in May. The theme of this book - why we need better decision-making in government - is very timely (whether he runs or not).

Gore is also leading Live Earth with concerts in 7 cities across the globe on 7/7/07 -- all with the aim of raising awareness and pushing for action to address the climate crisis.

Depending on how things pan out, and the reaction to his book, Gore can consider his situation over the summer and announce his decision (or if you prefer - "change his mind") sometime in the fall.

Don't forget that Bill Clinton did not kick-off his campaign until October 1991. But Al Gore already has nationwide respect and name recognition that other wannabees can only wish for!

A lot depends on the next few months, and how the polls are looking in September. For example - if Giuliani or McCain is riding high and Hillary is in trouble, I could see Gore jumping in. Personally I think Gore could wait until Sunday November 4th - one year out from the general election.


Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Read Al's blog: http://blog.algore.com/2007/02/our_next_step.html

Help Al Gore lobby Congress: www.algore.com/cards.html

Get ready for Live Earth on 7/7/07: www.liveearth.org

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:

[AtomicKitten]

78. I believe Al Gore has a great chance to win in 2008.

Both the primary and general election.

You've been spanked pretty good for your "cold hard facts," so I won't reiterate except to say that most Americans believe Al Gore took it as far as he could in 2000, all the way to the Supreme Court, where the only thing he lost was a 5:4 vote that culminated in a veritable judicial coup d'etat.

His evolution from a moderate Democrat to a fearless populist has been witnessed by America since then. The Oscar win was amazing, the Nobel Peace Prize would be the piece de resistance. He is on fire now.

Understanding that DU is only a tiny microcosm of the political world out there, it is noteworthy that Gore bridges the ideological schism at DU like no other candidate can.

[madfloridian]

81. Florida Dem party getting a lot of support for Al Gore to run.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1129

A lot of people here would be happy if he did.

[catgirl]

82. A Time Magazine poll shows Gore favorable ratings shot up

10 points in one month!! He passed Hillary Clinton
(who dropped 4 points).

[joshcryer]

84. Got a link for that?

[catgirl]

88. Sorry I can't find a link now

It showed Gore has gained 10 pts. in favorable ratings.
I don't put a lot of faith in polls, but that's a huge jump.

[Apollo11]

89. Full poll results are here

"Al Gore's net favorability score has seen an increase from +11 in late January to +21 today. Perhaps Gore's recent public appearances supporting his global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth" have increased his favorability with voters."

Here's the link: http://www.srbi.com/time_poll.html

I found it on www.draftgore.com :)

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Read Al's blog: http://blog.algore.com

Help Al Gore lobby Congress: www.algore.com/cards.html

Get ready for Live Earth on 7/7/07: www.liveearth.org

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:

[AshevilleGuy]

85. Gore might be the only one who could beat Giuliani

The Selection of 2000 is over with in most voters' minds. Lieberman, NATA, DLC are 'inside baseball' issues to most voters. He is an elder statesman type now, with some gravitas. Certainly he could win!

Hilary, maybe, Edwards, maybe, Richardson maybe. The others? Not a chance!

[Tiggeroshii]

86. other

if he could win the nomination, he'd probably win the GE

[bamacrat]

87. Nothing nastier than Lieberman taint.

[NYCGirl]

92. Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries washed that all away.

[Greyhound]

91. Other, it all depends on whether citizen Gore runs or politician Gore runs.

Frankly I don't expect to see him go for it at all. He has had a belly-full of the sausage factory and has wallowed in the mire for half his lifetime and accomplished little for his troubles, he obviously has no delusions about the reality of DC.

He is rich, famous, powerful, has the ears of the leaders of nations and industry, and a following of millions all over the world, where's the upside?

However, this post is about what if he does run, so here's my take. If he rejects the political professionals that have ruined him in the past and runs as the man we now know him to be, he could well take the big brass ring. OTOH, if he reverts to the politics-as-usual, "conventional wisdom" strategy he followed throughout his political career, he won't even get the nomination.

[NYCGirl]

93. Here's the answer to your question:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/06/29/gore-retreat.htm

[Greyhound]

94. Well, should he decide to go for it, I hope he remembers what he said

five years ago (when this article was written). I like citizen Gore much better than I ever liked politician Gore, but I am still waiting to hear, from his lips, an explanation and current assessment of his decision to, single handedly, impose NAFTA and, to a lesser degree, GATT, on us.

Until that time comes, I'll stick with the only candidate that a.) is running b.) has firmly stated positions and plans to implement them, and c.) is the only candidate that is firmly on the side of The People.

[bigwillq]

95. Gore could win

He at least should give it another shot.

[goodhue]

97. your cold hard facts are absurd antigore assertions

and not facts at all