Why only Gore can stop Hillary

[UnityDem]

With the obligatory statement of "yes, it's still very early and a lot can happen...yada yada"....
Here are my observations so far of the Prez race.
1. Hillary commands the stage during the debates. (well spoken/good delivery/command of topics).
2. Hillary has been approved by msm (even those who "profess' not to like or agree with her). The Murdoch contribution/fundraiser and the cover story on "Fortune" magazine labeling her as corporate America's/big biz candidate only seems to help her appear more moderate and acceptable rather than capitulative.
3. There is nothing that Edwards can say or do to win favor with msm. They have successfully labeled him as a hyprocritical shyster pretty boy. He's either criticized or ignored and his pro-labor and populists positions are often overshadowed by Kucinich's more forceful statements/stands.
4. There is nothing that Obama can say or do now (especially after Pakistan comments) to change the msm's characterization of him as a naive lightweight who's not ready yet.
5. Kucinich is "too far left, too short, funny looking".
6. Biden flys off the handle too often and that "splitting Iraq into 3 parts is crazy".
7. Dodd is lost in the shuffle and they never ask Richardson any questions.
8. Gravel must be out throwing rocks into some pond.

So, for those of you who don't want Hillary as Prez (and I do think that a Dem will win in 2008 - barring another 911 or California going to district electoral votes or Rovian Dieboldian mischief) then Gore is the only one who stands a chance of stopping her.
He's been through it. He could raise a lot of money quickly. He has a "hook" issue (environment).
Not saying that even he could beat her.
Only saying that he is the only one who might beat her.
And, no, I still don't think he'll run.
I think Hillary Clinton will be our next President. And, if she is, I hope that she will govern more to the left than she now appears. She'll appoint good judges, I think. She'll scale back in the Middle East, at least somewhat, and will not invade Iran. She'll also tweak health care, although I don't think she'll push too hard again for universal coverage. The best thing about her winning would be to break the gender barrier and maybe (with a Dem House/Senate), she'll make some real needed changes. just my .02....but, then again, it's still just August and I could be wrong about everything I just said....

[saltpoint]

1. The media is as unenamored with Al Gore as they are with Kucinich and Edwards.

Our candidates' message and media-friendliness is impacted by the GOP field and their message and media-friendliness.

Not all the GOP candidates in their nomination race right now will be in it after the straw poll in Ames this Saturday. I look for Tommy Thompson to drop out almost immediately, and maybe Tancredo and Huckabee, Huckabee especially if Sam Brownback whomps him good in Iowa.

Romney's people have dumped time and dollars into South Carolina with nothing to show for it.

Giuliani must be haunted by polls showing him losing to Senator Clinton. He was spared defeat at her hands in New York's Senate race owing to his operation. She would have beat him like a rented mule.

Gore's star has risen generally and there is a luster about him of "Wronged Messiah," as many of us believe the 2000 election was stolen. Even so, the popular vote was very close. Gore is intelligent and perceptive and intends meaningful reform; therefore significant chunks of the electorate and media are fearful of him. If Gore jumps in he gambles for the nomination. I don't see Clinton/Obama/Edwards stepping aside if Gore gets in. I think they'll redouble their efforts.

And does he get in in October, or later? Have his people been very quietly contacting donors to line up a competitive kitty? How will he handle the media smears this time?

I think he's plenty interested in the job he rightly won 7 years back. But the way in is uncertain and frought with mines.

I think it's 51-49 in favor of his getting in right now, but that's one of those real narrow margins yet again.

[OHdem10]

2. I agree with a lot you have to say and am a Gore

supporter at heart.

After watching the Media select our candidate for us and
set up the stage for a GOP win, my respect for Media
and our so-called sytem is in the dumper.


At this time, I really do not know what I think. If their
aim was to lower Democratic enthusiasm--it is working.

[saltpoint]

8. Well, we're pretty fired up at our house. I like the Democratic field

this time, and Gore, Hart, and Clark are down in the bullpen warming up.

The Repukes should be shaking in their shoes.

I think there's call for more hard work but also for celebration.

Hang the blue balloons and break out the Sam Addams.

[Tellurian]

3. Then again, if Hillary picks Gore as her VP...

All the naysayers here will be in one heck of a tizzy!

Just thinking about the reaction of the VRW to ANOTHER Clinton/Gore ticket sets my heart aflutter. Definately, a democratic presidential ticket having more than a few RW heads exploding.

[saltpoint]

7. Agree that the Right's heads would go kapow but I don't see Gore

taking a number to to anybody named Clinton ever again.

[Tellurian]

12. Objectively speaking, Gore is an unfinished symphony...

I believe he is much smarter than people give him credit for... His mind doesn't support pettiness. He's had time enough to contemplate the error of his ways. His biggest mistake-listening to Lieberman's malevolently inspired advise.

When his good friend and running mate, Bill Clinton extended him his hand when embroiled in the SC fiasco; he rebuked him. One can only wonder the outcome, having the tenacity of Bill and Hillary Clinton at his side, once again rising up to fight the philistines daring to usurp the flow of democratic power.

Ah, well, to dream is to Live!

[saltpoint]

17. I'm not seeing it. I am not putting down one nickel on any HClinton/Gore

alliance.

I think the odds are astronomically against it.

[Tellurian]

27. I'm primarily interested

in Hillary getting the nomination. She is the most qualified candidate for the Presidency at this particular point in time due to the damage done to our Constitution and our country by the Bush Administration. Hillary's presidential ability and experience is demonstrated daily by her knowledge and the forethought she's shown in providing alternatives for improvement and solutions to issues important to the American people that have been lingering for far too long.

While watching the GLTB forum last night, her depth of involvement and understanding of domestic issues as well as foreign policy issues is quite impressive compared to the rest of the field.

Personally, I don't think Al Gore has any intention of running. My former post was wistful thinking.. (out loud).

[UnityDem]

4. I think that Gore would be

better prepared this time to handle the smears.
I think he would go with a message of "this is too important" to get mired into mindless trivia.
I think he would go onto Hardball and brink a mug of beer and hand it to Tweety and say - "ok, now we've had a beer together, can we talk about real issues from now on".
Also, I'm not so sure that people like Kucinich and Edwards (and maybe even Obama) might not decide that there can only be 1 "not Hillary" candidate. I think if Gore decides to get into the race that a big part of his decision may come from discussions with those candidates and some possible deal making about roles that they could play in his administration. By mid-October (when Nobel Peace Prize is announced), if Hillary still has commanding national and state leads in New Hampshire, S.C., Florida, California, Illinois that this might happen.
But, I still think this is too many MIGHTS. I want Gore to run but I am much less pessimistic about the chances of that happening than you, I'd say 25% right now.

[saltpoint]

9. Yes -- our field will shift and so will the Pukes. It's very volatile right

now which makes it iffy for a Gore entrance but in my opinion also more likely.

What a moment it would be if we had a deadlocked convention, no first ballot victory for anyone, and the party turns to Gore as a consensus candidate.

That's a bit of theater, of course. But it isn't out of the question, and it would spare Al from the media shitstorm he's likely to face if he announces prior to January 08.

And even then, if he gets in this fall, does he compete in Iowa or go straight to New Hampshire?

It's going to be a wild one.

[Dawgs]

5. So, either draft Gore or support Hillary.

Are you really saying those are the only two options? :crazy:

Is anyone tired of these kinds of posts?

[UnityDem]

10. Absolutely not

Just giving my opinion on what I see happening (crystal ball stuff at this point in time).
Everyone should support whomever they are most passionate about and best reflects their interests, positions, and concerns.

[mrgorth]

13. I don't think

he's saying that at all. Just making an observation.

[IndyOp]

6. K&R so I can find this later... (n/t)

[beastieboy]

11. We should be concerned with stopping the republican, not the Dem frontrunner.

IMHO

[w4rma]

14. Hillary cannot stop the Republican as the nominee. (nt)

[Apollo11]

15. Don't assume the Dem nominee will be the next President

It is way too early to predict which side will win the November 2008 Presidential election.

I think the Democrats will win if we nominate the strongest possible ticket.

For me it means Gore-Obama or Clark-Obama. From the current field, maybe Edwards-Richardson?

I have tried to imagine Obama and Edwards on the same ticket - but I just don't see it.

Maybe because both of them are lacking any executive experience.

Hillary looks strong now, but everything will depend on Iowa and New Hampshire.

But right now I would say it is too early to make these kind of predictions.

[Apollo11]

16. Having said that - I agree that Gore would be great!

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF AL GORE
By Eric Pooley
TIME Magazine -- May 17, 2007
Let's say you were dreaming up the perfect stealth candidate for 2008, a Democrat who could step into the presidential race when the party confronts its inevitable doubts about the front runners. You would want a candidate with the grass-roots appeal of Barack Obama -- someone with a message that transcends politics, someone who spoke out loud and clear and early against the war in Iraq. But you would also want a candidate with the operational toughness of Hillary Clinton -- someone with experience and credibility on the world stage.
In other words, you would want someone like Al Gore -- the improbably charismatic, Academy Award-winning, Nobel Prize-nominated environmental prophet with an army of followers and huge reserves of political and cultural capital at his command.
...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1622597,00.html

I think that Gore is keeping his options open. Hasn't made up his mind yet what he will do.

If you ask me - I think Gore-Obama would be the strongest ticket in 2008.

The best thing we can do right now is sign the Live Earth pledge (see link below).

Then convince your friends, neighbors, family and co-workers to sign it also.

By getting behind Al's current work, we can make it more likely that he will decide to run.

And even if he doesn't run - we can help him shape the debate leading up to 2008.


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

Sign the Live Earth Pledge: www.liveearthpledge.org

Then ask all your friends and family to sign it too! :-)

Visit Al's site www.algore.com and read his blog http://blog.algore.com

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

:kick:

[DesertRat]

18. k&r n/t

[BenDavid]

19. I would be willing to bet, if Gore

got into this campaign that HRC would still come out on top. Gore is not the fighter as HRC is. He proved that to us in 2000 when he fell for the right wing line that caused Gore not to use Bill Clinton in some of the battle ground states. That was the biggest mistake. Plus, he did not fight back when attacked by the right. He did not keep on hammering bush for all the crap bush was lacking in Texas.....No, he had Bob Strum a man that cannot ever win a presidential election....HRC has her team in place and when needed she has the best relief pitcher in the game today...uh huh WJC.
When you say only Gore can stop HRC is that to say you believe that HRC cannot win the presidency? If that is the case then you are way out there and soon be by yourself. Watch the polls and see the uptick in her favorable ratings....She is being listened too more and more and people see in her a person that can be president from day one....The problem with Obama is people see someone that can give on hell of a speech but not ready for prime time....
So, HRC is still the one to beat....

I do thank you
Ben David

[UnityDem]

22. My original post clearly states

that I think that Hillary will be our next President. Check the final paragraph. Also, I didn't say that would be a terrible thing. I'm just predicting (still very early on in the process) that one of two people will be President (Hillary or Gore). Also, I agree with you that even if Gore does enter the race that Hillary will still be the favorite. She is a formidable candidate and is running a flawless campaign so far.

[tbyg52]

20. barring another 911 or California going to district electoral votes or Rovian Dieboldian mischief

That *is* the question, isn't it? Personally, I'm expecting all three.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. I think you're wrong about Edwards.

And I think Obama still has a chance.

I don't understand why Biden is struggling. I wish someone can explain that to me.

[Alexander]

28. Biden is struggling because...

-He shoots his mouth off and is a "gaffe machine" (to quote Brian Williams)

-He plagiarized speeches in the 80s.

-He supported MBNA.

-He wears very obvious hair plugs.

-He comes across as a loudmouth asshole on TV.

-Hillary and Richardson are sucking up all the "centrist" support.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. Thank you for the explanation.

[mdelaguna2000]

23. Interesting - Hill seems to have the eye of the tiger

I hadn't thought about Gore not being as much of a fighter. I imagine he's capable of it (fighting well), but he is focused on so much more than the presidential race right now. He is so smart, and so deep, and knows so much, it seems almost a waste of time for him to scrabble in these silly media games of the campaigns.

Hillary is quite the phenomenon, though not ideologically my favored candidate I find myself smiling anyway during the debates because deep down, it's so heartening to see a woman handling herself so well and making history in the process. That said, if Gore runs, I'm in the streets helping his campaign.

[Virginia Dare]

24. It's not going to happen IMO, so no sense even contemplating it..n/t

[bvar22]

25. I agree with most of your points, but

Hillary will only be the nominee, not the next president.

If a conservative Warhawk (Hillary) is the Dem nominee, there WILL be a 3rd Party challenge from an Anti-War, Pro-LABOR Populist. Hillary has HIGH disapproval numbers inside the Democratic Party and many will defect to an Anti-War/LABOR 3rd Party.

The Non-Democratic Party Anti-War Left who lined up behind Kerry in 2004 are furious with the Democratic Party because they feel betrayed (rightly so). The old DLC rhetoric of better than bush* will not work again in 2008.

The polls that show Hillary in dead heats or slightly ahead of Ghouliani are worthless because they don't consider the inevitable splitting of the Party if Hillary is the nominee.

[paulk]

26. I very much doubt

that there are that many people around who think that Hillary is a "conservative warhawk" (outside of the evirons of DU and the rest of la-la lefty land), or at least that many people who will vote third party because of that perception.

I also doubt that there are enough people around stupid enough to vote third party for any reason, in light of the last seven years, period.

[bvar22]

30. Conservative Democrats who call the AntiWar Movement....

"la-la lefty land" are driving voters from the Democratic Party and alienating a large group of Independents.
Most of the Anti-War movement is aware that Hillary has assured AIPAC/MIC that she intends to keep the Iraq Occupation rolling along for many years while romancing the lobbyists of the War Profiteers.

If you discount the possibility of a significant challenge to Hillary from the Anti-War/Pro Labor Left, you haven't been paying attention. The Democratic Party leaderships' "don't rock the boat" strategy since 2006 hasn't helped.

[paulk]

31. only in your dreams

and only on DU am I a "conservative Democrat". Out in the real world my views are to the left of the overwhelming majority of Americans. This website, as a whole, is completely out of touch with the real politics of America.

I have to laugh at your anti-war/pro labor left characterization. Do you think your version of the "left" somehow has a corner on the market? That's the great failing of the la la lefty's - thinking that they somehow speak for the Democratic polity, or are even representative of the "left".

I protested this war. I was a union member for over 20 years. I don't need you to tell me what the anti-war/pro labor left stands for.

[bvar22]

32. I am not claiming a "corner on the market".

I don't care what dismissive label you choose to hang on this group. They are REAL and won't support another War Enabling, Lobbyist supported candidate.

The percentages are rather small 5-10%.
The polls show Hillary in a "Dead Heat" with Ghouliani without considering a 3rd Party challenge.

You seem willing to casually dismiss this 5-10%.

Do the math, or do the crying in the aftermath.

I would prefer a Democratic WIN in 2008.