The GORE Solution - and how you can help

[rodbailey]

It's been mentioned by Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, Joe Klein of Time, Jack Cafferty on CNN and lots of other places lately. Also, the two most prominent national web sites devoted to drafting Gore (www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com) have recently become active with links to prominent articles about this, as well as increased discussions. IF, as appears likely, both Clinton and Obama go to the convention without the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, then one possible unifying solution for the Party is a Gore/Obama ticket, with Clinton perhaps becoming Senate majority leader, or get nominated for the first open slot on the Supreme Court. One reason for keeping Obama on the ticket (and I know a lot of folks like Edwards as a possible running mate) would be to keep (hopefully) all the new people who have turned out for the primaries this year especially because of Obama. The latest mention of this was http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20... The story in the Telegraph specifically mentions the strategy of having about 100 of the super delegates sit out the first ballot, which would ensure that neither Clinton or Obama would receive the nomination on the first ballot. Presumably, if this were to come about, there would have been discussions beforehand with all parties agreeing that this was the best strategy for the future of the Party as well as the best ticket for the November election.

There are a number of us at the DU:Al Gore '08 thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=260x3294 - this will get you there) who have been organizing in case we want to encourage super delegates to adopt this strategy. From our perspective, this will be done if, AND ONLY IF it appears that the convention is going to be deadlocked on the first ballot. If either Clinton or Obama have a clear path to the nomination, we will do nothing. However, in the meantime, we are actively gathering contact data on as many super delegates in each state as we can. We currently have people in more than a dozen different states gathering this information: names, addresses, phone numbers, leanings, web sites, etc. All the data is going into spreadsheets which will be available (if we move forward) on a web site so that people can easily access it. At that point, we will be encouraging people to write "real" letters (not e-mails) or personally contact their super delegates urging them to consider Gore as a compromise/unifying candidate for the good of the Party, and a sure-fire winner in November.

I would encourage anyone interested in helping us with this to 1/visit the DU: Al Gore'08 thread to get a sense of the discussion there and what we are doing in a little more detail than I've given above and/or 2/contact me directly at [email protected]. If you feel more comfortable going through the DU "switchboard" that will work also. As much as I personally would like to see Gore as the nominee no matter what, those of us organizing to do this will only move forward if conditions seem critical. We do not want to stand in the way of either Clinton or Obama if they have the delegate total to win the nomination on the first ballot.

[Bicoastal]

1. Okay, one last time:

HE....DOESN'T...WANT IT!!!

[rodbailey]

5. Actually,

he's never said that. Just the opposite. He has said if he got back into politics it would only be at the presidential level. Seems to me that's not saying he doesn't want it.

[lapfog_1]

16. Brand new Lesley Stahl interview

Gore: " I seriously doubt that I'll ever be a candidate again."

Stahl: "He (Gore) says that he has fallen out of love with politics... he says he is selling a cause now, no consultants telling him what to say, how to dress"

My conclusion is that he doesn't care about it anymore. He is beyond the Presidency thing now.

[bunnies]

7. What part of that confuses people?

I cant put my finger on it.

[Andrea]

39. Here is what he has actually said

This is from an interview he did with CNN when he was in Oslo in December:

"I haven't ruled out the idea of getting back into the political process at some point in the future. I don't expect to. But if I did get back, it would be as a candidate for president, not in any other position." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/10/sitroom.03.html)

[RestoreGore]

83. They don't care if he doesn't want it.They just want attention

[jakem]

2. AND, much as I wish it had been the reality- he did not earn it this time.

[Andrea]

It's not about earning it, it's not about them - it's about us

2025 delegates are required. No one has earned it. What this is about is ensuring that we don't split the party and that we win in November. This country cannot withstand another four years of fascism and war-mongering.

[cali]

44. There's time for one of them to get to 2025

well before the convention. And nothing would split the party more definatively than installing someone who didn't earn a single vote. The irony is that you want it to be Gore. Jeezus wept.

[Andrea]

46. Not without the super delegates getting involved.

Check out that CNN delegate tracker I posted and see for yourself. What is this Jesus wept comment supposed to be? This has nothing to do with religion.

[cali]

52. Yes, of course it involves the SDs.

and Jesus wept is a colloquialism. You do know what that is, right? Installing Gore or anyone else wouldn't just involve SDs but delegates pledged to either Obama or Clinton, people chosen for their unwavering support of their candidate.

This shit is totally delusional. The MSM feeds the hungry maws of the gorophiles and you folks swallow it whole.

[Andrea]

59. The fact they are pledged to their candidates

and very strong in their support and would only change their vote for very good reasons - probably the only reason is because their candidate asked or directed them to - is what makes this viable. If the pledged delegates would just willy nilly do anything, we'd be in even worse trouble.

I do know what a colloquialism is, but I have never heard that Bible verse used as a colloquialism, nor have I heard it used in this kind of context. It sounds like you are trying to claim Jesus would be on your side or something. I don't know. I have no idea what his opinions would be and I don't lay claim to his support. I know what my opinions are, I know what the process is and I know how to think.

[cali]

70. It's a total fantasy to believe that either Obama or Clinton

won't have enough delegates to get the nomination. If we come to a brokered convention, then we can deal with it contemperaneously. As Pema Chodron says: "Start where you are".

Oh,and Jesus wept is a very common slang term. From the dictionary of slang:

Jesus wept! Exclam. An exclamation of annoyance or surprise.

http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/j.htm

[Andrea]

81. I'm not really up on UK slang

We could let it be dealt with extemporaneously, and it would be dealt with in some manner. We prefer to express our opinions to the SDs, so that they can take them into consideration as they are working out what to do. Actually, that's all the whole primary process is.

I don't really understand how you can feel so confident that you know what the outcome of future events is going to be. You said, "It's a total fantasy to believe that either Obama or Clinton won't have enough delegates to get the nomination." What I believe is, it is possible that neither of them will have enough delegates. I actually think it is more and more probable that they won't every day. I don't claim to know for a fact what is going to happen. I'm simply in favor of preparing for the contingency that I see as likely. What I hear you saying is that you know it is impossible that neither of them will have enough delegates. That's where you lose me. How exactly do you know that?

[cali]

109. I didn't say it was impossible

it's highly unlikely. And it's bullshit to say that you're preparing for a contingency. You and the other gore cultists can't deal with reality. Take a look at this thread,genius. Voters will not accept your little plot to substitute Gore. Get real. Oh, and it's not just UK slang. It's in the American vernacular as well.

[Andrea]

111. To call something a "total fantasy"

sounds to me like you are saying it is impossible.

It's not "bullshit" to say we're preparing for a contingency, it's a fact. I think we know better what we are doing and what our state of mind is than you do.

When I take a look at this thread, what I see are some people discussing the realities of the situation and considering options to deal with it. I see other people using really rude and condescending terms to try to convince the first group not to have a discussion. Considering that the whole point of a message board is to facilitate discussion, I think you are fighting a losing battle.

Just because I don't resort to rudeness, baseless attacks and name-calling doesn't mean I'm oblivious to it when you do. I pay less and less attention to you the more you do it. It strikes me as unproductive and disruptive and makes me respect you less.

[merbex]

137. I had a similar "discussion" with the very same poster about the very same topic

on Sunday....

You are exactly correct, she seeks to shut down any discussion about this possibility.....

What frightens her and the others like her is that Gore even exists in the capacity as a "unifier" and "compromise nominee" should either Obama or Clinton not win it on the first ballot; partisans in both camps recognize that Gore does have stature to heal the Party beyond the 4000 or so rabid cheerleaders both sides engender and will have at the Convention and that will be on display if one of them does not win on the first ballot.

The whole country will see a bitterly divisive, nasty fight if Obama or Clinton fails to win it on the first ballot and with each succeeding ballot the divisiveness will be worse and the "digging in" the entrenchment by both sides' delegates will continue because no-one here can honestly say that a an Obama delegate would switch to Hillary or a Hillary delegate to Obama after a deadlocked first ballot.

We all know it will not happen.....there will be no movement from either side until both sides grow weary and come to the realization that they could sit there til Kingdom come unless they coalesce around a unifying candidate.....

That unifying candidate name is Al Gore and we all know it except for the rabid partisans.

These people in their efforts to shut down even a consideration of a Plan B are merely whistling past the graveyard... they fear defeat that much.

The answer for them lies in getting suppers to commit, not in shutting down this Plan B.

I asked the same poster you dealt with "How many ballots are you willing to watch at the Convention without a nominee emerging?"

My limit is 6

She didn't answer

[Andrea]

149. Your assessment seems correct

I was thinking about this last night, wondering why some seem so threatened by the idea of trying to have some influence in a situation that is increasingly likely to play out. I've had few, if any, interactions with this poster before this thread, but I have seen many people respond the same way. I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one that got tangled in such a frustrating discussion.

If we don't have a first ballot nominee, you're right, we could sit there until kingdom come without enough delegates budging to reach a conclusion. I'm sure the party leaders see that, too, and that's why they are trying to avoid that and planning for how to resolve it if/when it occurs. that's the right thing for them to do. It would damage the party if we were seen nationally to be so divided and so recalitrant that we couldn't even come up with a nominee, especially when everyone in the country knows we have a man of Al Gore's stature in our midst. I can hear Chris Matthews now, "What's wrong with the Democrats? Are they stupid? Don't they know Gore is the guy?" That's why I want those of us who support a Gore solution to this problem to make sure the super delegates who will be deciding this know we support it and we'll unify behind it. They will come up with a solution. I want the solution to take into consideration what regular people want.

It seems like a lot of the people who feel threatened think that something will be taken away from their candidate (in most cases these people support Obama). Nothing could be further from the truth. First, you can't take something away from him that he doesn't have. He knows that if he doesn't reach 2024 delegates on the first ballot, he doesn't have the nomination. He knows it's mathematically impossible for him to reach that number through pledged delegates. Hillary knows all this, too. They understand the process. They both know that if it goes this way, their delegates become their leverage when the leaders are hashing out the agreement. They will be active participants in building that agreement. Nothing will be taken from either one, they will both be in there bargaining for an agreement they find acceptable.

It seems to me that if people understood the nominating process and made unifying the party and winning in November their priorities, they would become less emotional and more willing to discuss this. But, so many people are involved that there is no way of educating them all, I fear.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Hutzpa]

60. We should call it as we see it,

its part of Republican game plan, keep them off balance. Now,
I'm beginning to see the detrimental damage DLC is causing
within the party. This long arm extension to the GOPers is
destabilizing the party.

[Waya]

3. Ehhhh, absolutely not......

Last year, the Nation begged Al Gore to step up and run. He couldn't be bothered. Now? No! Too late. Obama will do just fine.

[merbex]

138. Obama will do just fine if he can win it on the first ballot..... the fact that

partisans for both candidates refuse even to contemplate the impact and the ramifications of a multi balloted Convention is ridiculous.

You want Obama to win on the first ballot?

Get undeclared supers to start committing.

Recognize what will happen if neither one gets the nomination on the first ballot:

Do you honestly think that an Obama delegate will switch to Hillary, or an Clinton delegate will switch to Obama after the first ballot failed to produce a nominee???

No f**king way.

There will be a run on shovels in Denver because both sides will be digging in...

The question is "How many ballots are you willing to watch on tv from that Convention without seeing a nominee emerge?"

My stomach will be able to tolerate 6 ballots before I'll be screaming for Gore.

I'll be screaming for Gore at that point because I'll be watching a bitterly divided Party I love seeing the chances for victory in the Fall slip by.

If you want your candidate to win the undeclared supers must commit.

It is as simple as that.

[SoonerPride]

4. I personally wrote to Gore in 2007. He wrote back saying no thanks.

Obama is our nominee.

[depakid]

77. One of the reasons Gore didn't want to run was the length of the American campaigns

and the amount and types of money and fundraising required. He (like any rational person) sees that as dysfunctional and a source of many other problems that we face in the 21st Century.

A shorter campaign, focused on the issues, he may well feel differently about.

Take Australia for instance. Like most Western nations, campaign are short. While there's political jockeying in the months before an election's announced, once it's called, there's typically 6 weeks until people vote.

If one looks around at other nations, it's not hard to see why they're in such better shape- and much of it boils down to their electoral systems.

[Vinca]

6. Not only is Gore not interested, it would not be fair to all the people

who have worked hard and donated megamillions of dollars to the Clinton and Obama campaigns. If Gore wanted to be president, he would have run this time around. Personally, I think he would have been nuts to. From the outside looking in, his life looks pretty good right now.

[rodbailey]

8. But suppose,

the people running this time (Clinton and Obama) don't receive enough delegate votes to be nominated, and polling at the time looks like McCain is going to win in November. Don't we want to find someone who might take back the WH after 8 terrible years?

[Vinca]

14. Obama is going to get the nomination and he can beat McCain. nt

[Waya]

17. Exactly..............

[Andrea]

31. Maybe. Nothing is determined yet. n/t

[TBF]

47. Vinca, I also want that to happen -

but I fear that it won't. That is why I am for Gore/Obama or Gore/Edwards as a back-up plan. Personally I can't stand the thought of either Clinton or McCain in the White House.

I worked as a precinct captain for Obama, and have sent him significant monetary donations. He is my candidate. But Gore was my candidate once as well, and I felt strongly that he would be a good president. VP experience, military experience, plus the Nobel Peace Prize. He has more than earned the job - and he did indeed win the popular vote in 2000. I would imagine he'd win by a landslide now, especially with Obama as VP. I'd rather have that outcome than Hillary in the White House, while simultaneously destroying any chance of Obama ever being president.

We aren't close enough to do much on this yet, but I would like to see this as the solution if (and only if) the convention is deadlocked.

[Hutzpa]

20. Your premise is

completely off and I would advice you to drop this subject
because it sounds more like chaos than solutions.

You really think after people have spent all those money
on their candidate they are just gonna let big Al come
along and take it.

If anything, this has the hallmark of Republicans once
again showing signs of meddling within the party.

This is lala land....fantasy!

you remember Peter Pan don't you?

Well time to grow up son...its a mens
world now.

[Andrea]

34. I find it really sad

That someone posts a thoughtful rational OP and gets responses that are not serious, do not contribute to the conversation, don't reflect having even read the OP and are rude and attacking. This is why DU is going downhill.

[Hutzpa]

42. You call this thoughtful...

really! how so? take a second and use your head to think,

after all the investment, tireless campaigning from both

candidates and your thoughts are to let the candidates

who have done all the hard work step aside because of

party unity or because Al Gore said so and you call it

thoughtful!! Phurleeeeze!

[Andrea]

49. It's pretty self-evident that when someone

explains an idea, puts in references to back it up, and doesn't attack anyone, that's pretty thoughtful.

Beyond that, I've already refuted the comments you make in this post. I wonder why you find it necessary to be so condescending and rude to people who are not behaving that way.

If you'd like to bring this discussion to a higher level, that would be great.

[cali]

48. I find nothing thoughtful in the OP and you don't get to decide

what others find thoughtful or not. This is the umpteenth idiot post about throwing aside millions of votes and installing a candidate who did not run. It's bullshit, and toop bad for you, most people see it as the cultish bullshit it is.

[Andrea]

51. Clearly the idea bothers you

Since you can't determine what other people post, I'd suggest you don't read posts that upset you. That's what I do.

[cali]

56. And I'd suggest you mind your own business

and stop handing out distinctly unwanted advice. Yeah, stupid always pisses me off, and mega stupid really gets to me.

[Hutzpa]

63. I concur to that

:thumbsup:

[catgirl]

156. Andrea, DU has always been like this

It's to be expected. This is the point I was making previously. This is not a good place to
conduct projects. There are obviously some fake Obama supporters here. One even called
Gore supporters "cultists"... kind of like the fake Clinton supporters who called Obama
supporters "cultists". The picture's pretty clear.

[TBF]

50. It's a mens world now?

I hope you truly did not mean to say that. I have been supporting Obama and Gore with this as the result?

The only fantasy is the mindset that believes Hillary Clinton can win the GE. Her husband was impeached for god's sake. McCain will eat her for breakfast. I will not go into all the details here, because it upsets people so much, but there are a myriad of scandals attached to the Clintons. It doesn't matter if they are unfounded - the Republicans will bring them all up again anyway. The Clintons had their time in the White House. It is time for them to move on.

[Hutzpa]

67. Its a slang

can we stop being political conscious for a second, I'm sure you know
exactly what I meant which is, this is real and that includes
women....dang!

[cali]

26. it's a silly little fantasy

and you're insane if you think that Gore would win under those circumstances. Gorophiles make a huge mistake in thinking people would fall at Al's feet and immediately vote for him. I'm not a new voter. I've been a dem for 30 years. I support Obama, but I'll vote for Clinton if she's the nominee. I will not vote for Gore.

[Andrea]

36. Do you really think this is an

acceptable way to engage in conversation?

[cali]

41. Why yes,

if you have a problem with it, that's your problem, so save your chiding little message. I'm not interested.

[Andrea]

54. I'm just wondering

Clearly you aren't interested. You aren't responding to any actual points. The whole thing is upsetting you. Why are you engaging?

[cali]

61. I've explained ad nauseum why this is insane

and I know you know that. I do not believe that the situation extant is anywhere near to being the crisis you gore fantasist wish it to be. That's just for starters. I think it's disgustingly undemocratic and that the blowback from telling millions of voters that they don't count, will be fatal. I resent this delusional shit being pushed here in GD-P at least twice a day. Keep it in your loony little Gore forum. And yes, undemocratic moves like the one YOU and the OP propose make me angry.

[Life Long Dem]

62. The only thought from this post is Clinton lost, lets shove Obama aside.

[chimpymustgo]

53. Then you're an ass. Al Gore is actually capable of getting us out of this shithole we're in.

Make that STUPIDASS.

[merbex]

140. This Democrat does..... but for some around here, I'm not so sure

My attitude is: if someone - Obama or Clinton can win the nomination - great, Congratulations, job well done...... but if I see ballot after ballot with no nominee.... my limit is 6 and then I'll be screaming for Gore.

[Andrea]

30. Will it be fair to them to sit back and let McCain win?

People have worked hard and donated to both those campaigns, as well as six others. If we have a deadlocked convention and don't come up with a solution for peace and unity, we are going to lose in November. Obama and Clinton are smart people and politically saavy. They are fiercely opposed to a McCain presidency. If they work out a deal for a unity ticket, we should support it.

[Hutzpa]

37. Where are you people getting

these deadlock from?

I was bad at math but boy!

This is not hard to understand is it?

This is a divisive move and it will
only benefits the Republicans.

So...:think:

[rodbailey]

40. If you've been paying any attention

to the primary process, it is virtually impossible (in fact it may be impossible) for either candidate to get to the magic number based on pledged delegates alone. And, unless a lot of the super delegates swing behind one of the candidates before the convention, there will not be enough total delegates to nominate either Clinton or Obama on the first ballot. That's the math.

[Hutzpa]

45. SDs can go either way

besides, pledge delegates is what the party would be addressing before
they can even start looking at SDs.

By the way, what are the numbers as of now....O 1600+ and C 1400+

they have every chance of reaching there without SDs, do the math.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

125. RE: SDs can go either way

Lets clear up the math. This year with the sanctions on Florida and Michigan there are 3,253 pledged delegates that will be assigned through the primary and caucus process in the 48 states. Currently Clinton has 1,243 pledged delegates, Edwards has 18 pledged delegates, and Obama has 1,414 pledged delegates. If you add those up and subtract them from the total 3,253 pledged delegates you should arrive at the number 578. This means that if Obama's campaign rigged all of the voting machines so that he received 100% of all the delegates in every remaining state he would end up with 1,992 pledged delegates while Clinton would end up with 1,821 pledged delegates if she did the same. Neither can win the nomination through the primary and caucus process. It is numerically impossible to obtain the number 2,024 through pledged delegates alone for either candidate. They have both failed.

What this means is that the convention is relevant and and pledged delegates along with their supper delegate counterparts will represent their constituencies at the convention just as a congressman does in Washington. If one of the candidates wins on the first vote then they are as legitimate of a candidate as you can have when only votes from 48 states count. If however there is a split that leave neither candidate with a win, or the supper delegates chose to sit out the first vote so as to avoid the perception of a decision being made in a dark smoke filled room then a second vote will occur and more candidates will be introduced. Pledged delegates will be released from their honor code responsibility to vote for their pledged candidate and will be free like a supper delegate to make a decision as to what they believe is best for the country.

The reason Gore's name is tossed around so much is because he is the obvious choice for a compromise candidate and the current front runners have failed to run away with a victory. Its not beyond reason to consider the possibility that there will be more then one vote at the convention. Shit it took 103 votes to determine the victor at the 1924 Democratic Nation Convention. I for one look forward to a battle at the convention. At this point it looks like the only possible outcome where the voices of Florida and Michigan may be recognized.

[rodbailey]

128. You've spelled that all out very nicely;

yet some folks responding here keep claiming that either Obama or Clinton has it locked up. They don't and I really do think a second ballot will be the result. However, I (and lots of others) think that if it goes to a second ballot, the conclusion of that balloting may have been all or mostly worked out. I can see agreement (perhaps during late June/early July) where the folks involved (Dean, Clinton, Obama, Gore, Pelosi, and maybe others) will be moving toward this as a compromise. We would never hear about this, and it's not quite like the old pols sitting in the smoke filled rooms choosing who will be it. It would take the cooperation of, certainly Obama (since I expect he will have the most pledged delegates at that point) to agree to release his delegates after the first ballot and urge them to back Gore, with the understanding that Gore would then choose Obama as his VP. Sounds a bit devious, I suppose, but hopefully all involved at that point will have the best interest of the Party in mind, and winning in November as their goal.

[Andrea]

130. Thanks for spelling this out in black and white, very clearly.

Or should I say, subtracting it out? :)

It seems like there is a small pocket of people here who actually know how the system works and a great number of people making assumptions based solely on how things have been the last 20 or so years.

[Andrea]

43. You can check it out yourself

Here is a very handy delegate counter device where you can test out various scenarios and see for yourself that neither will earn the nomination without super delegates: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

You could also check out the references linked in the OP, or do a Google search to find other recent press mentions.

It isn't divisive - it's structured to make that impossible. It's not going to happen unless everone gets on board and agrees. The whole point is to unify and win.

[TBF]

64. How does this benefit the Republicans?

I fail to see how this is divisive and how it benefits the Republicans.

Al Gore is the only top-level democrat I can think of who has military experience. Do you honestly think Hillary Clinton has a chance against McCain during war time? (particularly if Iran is attacked also - which I believe will happen right before the election).

As far as the math, I was a nerdy math team kid. Hillary wins Pennsylvania and the gap will be closer. Bill Clinton gets this within 100 delegates & he pushes towards convention. Then he piles it on all his friends until they give in. There are 700+ superdelegates who can vote as they choose - they are not locked in. This could give the election to Hillary easily.

With another candidate I wouldn't be so sure of it - but with Bill Clinton handling things behind the scenes I know exactly how this could play out.

[Hutzpa]

69. See post 61 n/t

[cali]

80. Yes, of course Hillary Clinton has a chance against McCain

The economy is in the tank and almost all the experts agree that it will be far worse in November. Dems are much more favored by the electorate on that issue than pukes, and people absolutely vote their pocketbooks.

Furthermore all this speculation at this point is silly. Wait. Patience.

[Andrea]

84. Some people vote their pocketbooks, no doubt

But many people don't. Especially Republicans have been voting against their own best interests for the last eight years. Have you read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" It's a very interesting book explaining how the Republicans have been able to manipulate people into voting for them, against their own better interests. This is how the Republicans brought the evangelicals into their coalition. They play them, convince them they have been victimized by the Democrats and that Republicans will be the only ones that will put "morality" back into government. We know how absurd that is, but they fall for it. It's also why Republicans have never actually achieved anything as far as outlawing abortion. They don't want to. As long as abortion is around, they have their hook to manipulate the emotions of those voters.

[cali]

96. You're wrong. In a recession dems have a huge advantage

as most people vote their pocketbooks. Do you have any clue about how much people are effected by food and gas and oil prices right now? Yes, I've read Frank's book, but things change, and they've changed in the years since he wrote it. And the evangelical association with the pukes is frayed. Do some reading of your own. Start with the Pew Report issued late last year. You really don't seem to be au courant on why dems have an advantage this year. Oh, and Iraq is falling into even greater chaos. As long as this nomination process gets settled in June, the nominee will have an excellent chance.

[Andrea]

108. I'm wrong? There's that absolute confidence in your opinion again

I just don't understand that way of thinking. If someone disagrees with me, it means they have a different opinion. It seems if someone disagrees with you, they're wrong.

Obviously, I know how people are affected by the mess the economy is in, it affects me the same or worse as most people. Iraq is falling apart. None of that means the Republicans are going to change their tactics. The evangelical coalition is frayed, but it's still intact. It may be that running Gore is the best way to break that coalition apart, since many religious people believe they have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth.

We don't have the advantage we should have this year, and one of the reasons is that we are divided.

Could you please direct me to the Pew report you are referring to? I'd like to check it out. Thanks.

[TBF]

89. Not everyone -

I'm not voting my pocketbook. It would be far easier for me if I did - click, McCain, done. Perhaps I have too much time on my hands.

[cali]

97. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about people

who struggle to pay their bills in a collapsing economy. Frankly I could give a shit whether you're wealthy. I think it's tacky to announce it for no good reason.

[TBF]

99. Just disproving your theory -

since you seem to know it all.

Many republicans do not vote their pocketbooks either - that's why we're in this mess with Bush as it is, and why McCain is a threat. 1.5% of the people in this country make over $250K a year. That is the only group that Bush/McCain cater to (besides the corporations).

Still they win. It isn't from just the super-wealthy voting for them.

[cali]

107. that doesn't disprove the theory and it's not mine.

go do some research about who voters trust when it comes to the economy. It's hardly a state secret. What I'm saying, what experts say, is that during a serious economic downturn, more voters vote dem. And historically, repukes don't always win. In fact,they lost in the last election cycle, and dems controlled Congress for some 40 years until 1994.

And you're hardly alone, so you don't need to pat yourself on the back. Many folks with incomes in the upper percentiles vote dem.

[donheld]

9. He. Doesn't. Want. To. Run!

What part of that is so hard for people to grasp?
If we need a substitute can't we find anybody who
might really want to run?

[rodbailey]

11. Where

did you hear him say, or read that he had said, that he didn't want to run. I've heard him say he hated the primary process that we are going through, but never heard him say he was not interested in going for the presidency again.

[SoonerPride]

12. I wrote to him in a hand written letter BEGGING him to run in summer 2007.

He wrote back and said he was 100% not interested in running.

[bowens43]

10. Al Gore couldn't beat bush. McCain would destroy him.

[Andrea]

23. You know better than that, come on

Al Gore DID beat George Bush.

[Hutzpa]

29. Oh shoooot, we have actually had

Al Gore in the White House this past 7 years :wow: you have to excuse
us on the short memory, so many things have happened that folks have
just lost their memory......you know

Iraq War

Economy

Mortgage Crisis

folks have become fuzzy....:(

[Eurobabe]

13. Forget it, I want change. I voted for Obama. LastI heard, Al

doesn't want the job. He's going full speed ahead on climate change projects. We know where his passions lie.

:hi:

[Hutzpa]

15. Let me see if I understand this........

Al Gore refused to run at the heat of the primaries and now when its almost
over people are touting that Al Gore should set up camp.

Are you people really sane? This man has not spend a dime in this election
so far and he is expected to just walks in and take everything for something
he has not worked for, is this what America is all about?

You guys have completely lost your peanut brains....completely.

Either you're slow on the up-take of are just plain INCOHERENT

[rodbailey]

21. You need to read

the initial post above a little more clearly. This strategy ONLY gets going if it looks like the convention is deadlocked and, we would assume at that point that discussions among the principles would have taken place so this would be an acceptable solution for the Obama folks and presumably also the Clinton folks. Nobody is stealing anything in such a scenario.

[Hutzpa]

25. Assumption is the mother of

all failures. Suggesting something that is not possible is
plain stupid, it shows lack of logical thinking. Why oh why
would you be on this is beyond me, this is not the first
time you've posted this subject. DROP IT

[rodbailey]

28. At least

you've got a good memory. But, are you suggesting we don't have freedom of speech anymore?

[Hutzpa]

33. Not when you're forcing the issues....

you are entitled to freedom of speech but don't force people into
acknowledging something that is just not possible or plausible.

Then freedom of speech ends.

[Andrea]

65. Force people?

How could the OP or anyone else on this entire board force people to acknowledge something?

[Hutzpa]

72. Bringing this up every other

day is considered spamming and YES could be deemed forceful not thoughtful
as you so eloquently put it.

[Andrea]

76. Sorry, that just doesn't make sense to me

It's actually impossible for us to force you to acknowledge anything.

Spamming? Have you looked at the content of 90% of the posts in GD - P? Seriously?

[Andrea]

38. It's really not your place to tell people what discussions to drop.

Actually, if you familiarize yourself with the nominating process, you will learn that it is perfectly possible and completely within the rules.

The beauty of the plan is that if there is no need for it, it won't happen. It can only come to fruition with the blessing of Obama and probably Clinton.

Wikipedia has several entries related to the Democratic Party, the conventions and the nominating process. That's a fairly quick and painless way to get up to speed on how these things work. I recommend it to everyone that would like to know more about the rules of our party.

[TBF]

85. It's not almost over -

Spokane, honestly I have a feeling we're on the same team here. The problem is that Obama has not almost won it. He won't win PA. I wish he would.

If Hillary drops out tomorrow this all is moot. I am only in favor of draftGore if we have a deadlock.

The problem is that I don't see Hillary dropping out. The only thing that gives me any hope of that is she might not have enough money to get to PA. Does anyone have any intelligence on that?

[Andrea]

91. If she drops out, this is over

This is strictly a proposal of how to deal with a deadlock and make sure the SDs hear from some regular people before they make their decisions.

I don't see her dropping out either. Not only does she say she's in it until the end, I haven't seen anyone predicting she'll drop out. I personally don't think she would see any benefit for her in dropping out. Staying in increases her leverage.

Yesterday on Chris Matthews morning show he asked the four panel members if they thought she would drop out. All four said they didn't see that happening, period.

I wish I had some info about her financial picture, but I don't. I've never known the Clintons to have problems raising money, though.

[JTFrog]

134. Just like he wouldn't win Texas. But he did. Just like he wouldn't win

the majority of states, popular vote, most delegates... But he has.

And yeah she is over 8mil in debt. So she raised 3mil and is still 5mil in debt. Who the hell is gonna do business with her now without the cash up front. She has already earned a reputation as a dead beat candidate. That's why she wanted debates on Fox. That's why she's chumming up with Scaife. She'd sell her soul for a few minutes of free press or airtime. Fortunately there aren't many buyers left.

[MattBaggins]

18. For the eleventy billionth time

Gore is not going to come swooshing in with a cape and save everyone.

The vast right wing conspiracy will never ever ever in a million years allow Hillary Clinton to sit on the Supreme Court.

[Andrea]

73. Absolutely right

I mean it's technically possible, but has anyone here EVER seen Al Gore wear a cape?

[NeedleCast]

19. Nominating Gore at Convention would be a terrible idea

Just awful (which is why I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see it happen).

I like Al a lot, but nominating someone who has shown no desire to run? Are you kidding me? He'd get crushed. You don't half-ass run for President.

[Andrea]

86. You are right - you don't go into it half-heartedly

I'm sure that those that are involved in working out an agreement would need to ensure before going forward that everyone is truly on board with it.

[cali]

22. Fuck installing Gore as the nominee.

and Al Gore isn't some savior. I will vigorously work against any scheme to do this.

[KoKo]

101. How do you intend to vigorously work against this?

What could you do? :shrug:

[KoKo]

117. Mz Calli has disappeared......she isn't answering anymore?

Maybe she did her "dinner break." :shrug:

[book_worm]

24. I want the nominee to be someone who actually ran for it and wanted it

and fought for it.

[HuffleClaw]

27. and it could be made clear that he WAS the president

but that the presidency got STOLEN from him. i rather doubt the republicans are going to enjoy a factual rehashing of the theft of 2000.



this IS a great idea but one with a very real problem, that of WHO would be his vice-presidential running mate. obama would seem to be the proper choice to me but i doubt hillary would be much impressed by the plan and they'd have to buy her off with something pretty impressive to get her to go along with this quietly

[rodbailey]

32. I agree,

which is why I think (and I've seen this discussed by some of the national writers, also) Senate majority leader or Supreme Court might be attractive to her. Both are very powerful positions. Or she might come back to NY and fun for Governor. I don't think we'd have to worry about her going to the VIP Empire Club (or whatever it was).

[HuffleClaw]

106. i bet she'd go for the supreme court n/t

[Andrea]

110. Me too

That would be really hard to resist. And, she'd be good there.

[azmouse]

35. It's too late. No thanks.

[TBF]

58. AZ, what is your solution if the convention is deadlocked?

As an Obama supporter myself I fear how this is going to play out. Every time Bill says "relax" and "chill out" it worries me. He is holding together hope so she can continue to incite racism and win big in Pennsylvania (there are enough delegates in that state to close the mathematical divide Obama is now on the winning side of). If she gets within 100 it WILL go to convention. God knows what the superdelegates will do - alot of them are loyal party people (meaning they've been around awhile and Bill Clinton's word means alot to them).

I hope more people keep talking about Gore/Obama. Maybe it will give the party leaders the push they need to make sure Hillary doesn't get the chance to steal this at convention. She can't win via the primary process, but she can get closer and then seal it with superdelegates.

[azmouse]

71. I really, truely do not believe the convention will deadlocked.

The powers that be in the party know that would be the end of our hopes of regaining the WH in Nov.
I fully expect the nomination to be decided in June, at the latest.

[TBF]

75. I agree that a deadlocked convention will be a problem -

How do you think they will solve it by June? They are too close mathematically - why would one bow out?

[azmouse]

79. oh cheese and rice. This again? Do. The. Math.

[TBF]

87. The math is too close --

Yes, Obama is ahead (yay!), but he only gets this cleanly if she loses big or drops out. If she wins PA the gap closes. Do you think that will not happen?

[azmouse]

90. Hillary can not win the nomination.

Obama can win this cleanly. Hillary can not.
There. Does that say it clear enough for you? sheesh.

Buh-bye Hillary.

[rodbailey]

154. Well, no,

that doesn't say it clearly. Perhaps clearly enough for you, but the math just doesn't add up without a huge influx of super delegates to Obama as soon as the primary voting is over. And, we've seen stories that there has been discussions for at least 100 supers to withhold their votes on the first ballot, ensuring at least a second ballot. Then there are the Edwards delegates (still committed to him because he did not drop out of the race, he just suspended his candidacy) and, depending on what happens to FL and MI delegates (which bumps the total needed to win higher) there is a large block of "uncommitted" delegates from MI that would not necessarily go to Obama. Admittedly the math gets a bit complicated, but I have yet to see anyone suggesting that Obama has a clear path to the nomination without virtually all the uncommitted super delegates swinging behind him.

[Life Long Dem]

55. Screw your letter.

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

57. How is that fair? He was part of a Clinton Administration.

If you want it, you have to run.

[TBF]

66. If this goes to the Super Delegates anything can happen -

they will settle it without voter's input if they want to. They are not bound in any way.

[Hutzpa]

78. Do you realize your statement

do you understand the implications? You need a time out.

[Andrea]

95. He or she is stating fact

That's the way the rules are set up.

I think this whole primary and nominating process needs revamped. That's something we should all work together on after the election. In the meantime, I'm focusing on beating McCain.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

127. RE: If this goes to the Super Delegates anything can happen

It is already on the super delegates. Check my math in post 125. Neither can win by pledged delegates alone at this point. It's numerically impossible. The delegate numbers that float around on the networks include super delegates. Do the math and you will know it comes down to the vote at the convention. This is why Dean is scrambling to get super delegates to pledge long before the convention. He doesn't want a battle at the convention, especially with how he treated Florida and Michigan.

[Andrea]

131. I've said this many times. Thanks for the back up.

It is going to involve the super delegates no matter what. Neither can reach the required number of delegates without them.

Also, you make a very important point regarding FLand MI. Whether one agrees with the rules that put those two states out or not, everyone surely understands that it is not the fault of any individual FL or MI voters that things turned out this way. Not having their delegates seated is just one more example of how undemocratic the process has been this year, even more undemocratic than it usually is.

People are irate about the draftGore proposal and claiming it is undemocratic. They seem to think that the nominee is chosen by some sort of system that is similar to actual general election voting and it's not at all. The system is extremely complex, it varies from state to state, and it's anything but democratic. Look at some of the arcane rules in Texas that resulted in Clinton winning the popular vote there, yet not winning the delegates. Many of the same people that are now bragging that Obama won Texas - even though his win was only because of the convoluted rules - are raising a ruckus over this proposal because they say it's "not fair". The thing is, if everyone plays by the same rules (and they are), then it is fair.

If people are not happy about the rules of the nominating process, they need to get involved in the party and work to change the rules. I'm all for that. In the meantime, we have the system we have and we need to make the best of it. If there is no nominee after the first ballot, some kind of agreement will be made. I'm advocating we use free speech and some postage to make sure the super delegates know how we feel about it.

[rodbailey]

133. Well said, Andrea;

and as I tried to point out in my opening post above, we move to this strategy if, and only if, it appears that there will not a clear winner after the primaries are finished (including counting in as many of the super deletages who have declared at that point). To date, a majority of the super delegates are sitting on the sidelines. Many critical ones, such as Donna Brazile, former Pres. Carter, John Edwards, etc. have been silent. Why? Maybe they are trying to figure out a way to avoid the "final battle" at the convention. As exciting as it would be to see this play out totally unscripted at the convention (the networks would love it - highest viewership for a convention in decades) I'm sure the top folks in the Dem. party really don't want that and will have a game plan in place to avoid that. All we're trying to do is make sure some of the super delegates realize there is a real winner in their midst if they want to turn to him - Al Gore.

For those of you who seem to be threatened by this idea of writing letters to the super delegates simply suggesting that Gore would be a good unifying/winning candidate for Nov., it suggests to me that you realize that somehow your candidate might not be as good a candidate. It's not like we're holding a gun to anyone's head - just making a suggestion.

[Garbo 2004]

68. Have you tried to contact Gore about this? He put the cabosh on the "draft Gore" movement so have

you actually asked for his position on this? Wouldn't that be the (logical) first step?

My guess: 1. Gore won't/wouldn't support this even in theory, and 2. convention won't be "deadlocked." For a lot of reasons which you haven't appeared to have considered. But in the meantime why not ask the most important SD in your scenario what he thinks about it?

[TBF]

74. Which reasons?

With Hillary en route to winning Pennsylvania, and closing the gap with Barack, how does this avoid becoming deadlocked?

[Andrea]

104. No, and I'll explain why

I'm speaking for myself - others may have contacted him, I don't know.

First, I don't think it's our place to do this. The most likely way this will play out, if it plays out, is that party leaders, including Obama and Clinton, will be in discussions trying to figure out the best resolution for the party if there is no nominee on the first ballot. Our aim is to make sure they take this solution into consideration when they are working through this. My opinion, and many others' opinions, is that this is the best solution. If the leaders reach that conclusion, that is when THEY should reach out to Al Gore.

I don't think he would accept it based on anything we might do. I think the only way he would agree is if the leaders approach him and say we need you for the sake of party unity and to win in November. He will probably be involved in the discussions, anyway. After all, he has the highest stature of anyone in the party right now (especially since Bill Clinton is not neutral on this). If he's dead set against it, he will make that known to them as they discuss the options.

We need to focus on contacting super delegates that don't have any personal interest in this and whose interest would be primarily or exclusively what is best for the party - people like Howard Dean and Jimmy Carter. Really, any of the super delegates other than those that would be seen as having an obvious personal interest. Obama, Clinton and Gore would obviously be in that category.

It's really better for us as a party if the behind the scenes agreements are not publicly known. What we want the public to see is a scene at the convention where Obama and the Clintons and Gore and Carter and Pelosi and Dean and everyone else stand there and say we are all in agreement that our candidate should be: whoever it turns out to be.

[Garbo 2004]

115. Your idea of "party unity" is promoting a "deux ex machina" scenario that politically

in reality is a nonstarter and would, if it were more than a political fantasy, be more of a disruption to the party than the nomination of one of the remaining candidates actively campaigning for office.

Obviously you don't see that but don't be surprised if the response is not exactly overwhelming.

[Andrea]

116. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons

behind your opinions.

[rodbailey]

150. First of all,

I don't think Gore would take my phone call. So, no, I haven't asked what he thinks about this. I do know that more than a few super delegates are thinking about Gore as a unifying way out of the mess the Dems. seem to be heading for at the convention. I can't believe that this scenario hasn't also occurred to Gore and his staff. All they need to do at this point to stop all this "foolishness" is to say that even if drafted at the convention, Gore would not run as the Dem. nominee. Then our effort would stop as would many others. The earlier "stop order" (presumably from someone in the Gore inner circle was actually not stated quite that bluntly. There was a note that Gore's people wanted to "discourage" the various primary ballot efforts that were then going on the several states. I was working on that effort here in NY along with a lot of other people. We were told that such efforts might cause problems for Gore. We were never told what those problems were. But, here's a possibility, buttressed some by comments in the Telegraph article: if Gore's name had been successfully placed on the NY ballot (for instance) he would have had to actively take his name off the ballot. That would have sent a clear signal that he was not at all interested in getting into the race. But, being the relaxed person he is (or seemed to be on 60 Minutes) he decided to see how the whole primary process would play out and, if it got to the point it seems to be getting to, he might be the one the Dems. would turn to to solve their problem. He has stated he didn't like the way the primary process was playing out (it was pretty funny at the start with the debates), but he never said he was quitting politics. So, whether he foresaw how this would play out, or he was just guessing it might play out this way, he would be ready if the Party turned to him.

Just speculation on my part, but if the Dems. can't decide on either Clinton or Obama (a deadlocked convention) then why not Gore. He is a proven winner (popular vote) in a general election.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

82. no thanks.

[GarbagemanLB]

88. There will be no deadlock. Obama will win enough delegates by July 1, and there will be no conventio

n fight. No, Al Gore is not going to waltz in after both candidates have worked so hard and take the top of the ticket.

[TBF]

93. Convince me he can win by July. Please.

Without simply rhetoric, without slurs. Please tell me how you get to that mathematically? I am an Obama supporter. I don't see him getting this before convention without Hillary dropping out. She will win PA, which is nearly 200 delegates.

I want her to feel the pressure, I want her to drop out YESTERDAY, but I just don't see it happening.

[SoonerPride]

94. No more money = no more campaign.

She will drop out after Indiana.

[TBF]

98. OK, but Indiana is the same day as PA -

If she has enough money to get to April 22, she gets momentum with the PA win (and possible IN as well, though that state can't possibly have many delegates).

[SoonerPride]

100. Indian is the same sday as N Carolina. Not Pa.

sorry

[TBF]

103. ok --

I'll go back and check the map. I really do hope you're right.

[SoonerPride]

105. Here ya go

TUESDAY

May 6

Month View

EVENTS:EVENTS:
Indiana primaries
N Carolina primaries


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

[TBF]

112. thanks --

Yes, I re-checked Obama's website and realized what I was looking at incorrectly. I just hope she doesn't get enough money off winning PA on 4/22 to keep going. Now if she could be pressured to drop out before PA we are in business.

[high density]

92. This "Draft Gore" garbage is turning into spam

It's TOO LATE. Al Gore doesn't want the job. He just doesn't want it. His supporters endlessly posting this crap are not helping him or their cause.

[BklnDem75]

102. Thanks, but no

It's the same result if the SD's go against the will of the people. Republicans will unite as in 2000, and you'll have many pissed off Democrats who will sit this election out.

[Phred42]

113. Gore/Obama sounds better than Obama/Clinton

I am in Northern IL and an Edwards Supporter and an Independent for that past 25+ years. Note: I have never found a republican I would vote for President. McCain is insane and possibly senile.

Gore/Obama sounds better to me even than Obama/?

I would be very depressed if I had to vote against McCain and that vote had to go to Clinton.

Also, to me, Obama/ Clinton is a nightmare ticket and I think would also tear the party apart. Obama could NEVER trust Hillary to be a VP and never be able to keep her under control. She would pull more shit on Obama than Cheney has on Shit-For-Brains. Obama/Clinton would be the coup de grace for the Dem party once and for all. I think THIS is why the Reich-wing MSM promotes it.

Having said that, I think that if the Democratic Powered Elite installed Gore after all of this that it would make some happy but would not be a peace offering for most Clinton cult members by ANY stretch and also would phuck up the party.

At some point the DNC is going to have to face the fact that DLC and BuleDogs are actually Moderate Republicans and NOT Democrats, let alone PROGRESSIVE Democrats and kick them BOTH out of the party. DLC/BlueDogs should form their own Party. It would look more like the traditional Republican wing of the republican party than what exists today on the Right.

I've liked Dean in the past but Dean allowed this to happen or, was not competent enough to prevent it. This is a cluster-phuck.

I see three IL delegates on your list already. I'll see if I can find some more for you.

Good phucking luck! ;-)

[KoKo]

118. Gore/Obama...it could HEAL the Party...for those of us who don't like either

Obama or Clinton. It would be a great compromise. Although...I could go with "Clinton/Obama" in a hear beat! But, that option isn't one that folks here who are so Partisan can live with.

[Phred42]

152. Hillary has made her Faustian deals with Murdock and Mellon

that's enough for me. But wait - there's more!
Then there are the NAFTA lies including dragging Canada and Obama into to it - But wait there's more!
... etc etc etc I'm getting tired of this.....

[olkaz]

114. This is a distraction, NOT a solution

And when you use Joe Klein (Joke Line) in support of your argument, you've lost me.

[KoKo]

119. It's not a "distraction" when the future of AMERICA is at STAKE! n/t

[RememberWellstone]

120. I'd like to see it

I think he may not want it unless there is a ground swell of support.

[rodbailey]

126. And that's what we are trying to do;

if we decide to act, hopefully we will look like (at least) a little groundswell of support. Our hope is to have several folks (mostly Du'ers, but maybe some from AGO or draftgore) in each state, communicating with their circle of friends, asking them to write letters to try to help the Dems. from destroying their chances in November against McCain with a strong, unifying candidate such as Gore. Again, this is only if neither Clinton nor Obama have the delegate strength to get the nomination on the first ballot. As they say, if each one tells 2 more, etc., hopefully we could have several dozen letters raining in on each super delegate. And, as I mentioned at the start, we are talking real letters. When I first got active in politics at a local level (and this was well before there was any internet) I was told that politicians assumed each letter they received translated to about 100 other people who felt the same way the letter writer felt. Snail-mail letters, I'm sure, still make a much stronger impression on a political person than dozens of e-mails. So that would be the strategy - and hopefully it would be a groundswell.

[Texas Hill Country]

121. i find the lack of people mentioning hillary as vp ridiculous.

even more ridiculous than the entire theory itself.



GORE DOESNT WANT THE JOB!


why would he?

[TBF]

123. Probably because relations between Gore/Clintons --

didn't look so hot... he wouldn't even let Bill campaign for him in 2000 (which may have been a mistake - but on the heels of impeachment who knows??)

I don't see anyone asking Hillary to be VP. She has too strong of a personality - she will be president if she's in the oval office.

[mamalone]

122. It's called a convention

and not a coronation for a reason:eyes:

I think it would be patronizing and insulting for both candidates and their supporters for someone to waltz in at the end of the game and "save the day." And that includes even someone as wonderful as Al Gore. Believe me, he would have been my man if he had chosen to run... but he didn't.

Personally, I think we have an incredible candidate, who I think is the perfect choice for '08. I don't want Gore.

[Andrea]

132. It's great that you are happy with your candidate, but we need to

look beyond that. We need to look at whether we can win in November. Allowing the party to be split is not the way to do that.

No, it is not a coronation (BTW, are you sure you want to quote Mike Huckabee?), it's a convention.

From Merriam-Webster:

2 a: the summoning or convening of an assembly b: an assembly of persons met for a common purpose; especially : a meeting of the delegates of a political party for the purpose of formulating a platform and selecting candidates for office

This is an approach to selecting a candidate that we haven't had to use in recent years, but it legitimate and viable. The important considerations are unifying the party and winning in November.

[mamalone]

142. yeeps...

Didn't know I was quoting Huckabee..but I 'spose if I have to quote a republican, he'd be the least objectionable one:blush:

I do agree that the important objectives are unifying the party and winning in Nov... I just think that appointing Gore isn't an effective way to achieve either one of those. It would be patronizing to the other candidates and their supporters. I think most of us would consider such an action demoralizing and an insult to our judgment and intelligence. Not exactly a good first step on the road to reconciliation I don't think...

I hear what you are saying and I appreciate your creativity and thought.. I just don't think it is a viable answer to the situation we are now in. sorry.

[Andrea]

146. I'm glad we're on the same page about unifying the party

and beating McCain. I've had my doubts about some of the people in the conversation on those two important points.

I don't think the candidates would find it patronizing. They are politicians, they know how these things go. I'm sure they are both thinking about this already. They will want to avoid it, but they know it is a distinct possibility. If we don't have a first ballot nominee, they will be meeting with the other leaders trying to come up with a solution. I have no doubt that either of them will be able to contribute to the solution, and look out for their own interests in those discussions. When an agreement is reached, they will present it to their delegates and supporters, explain it and endorse it. At that point, their supporters and delegates should get on board with what the candidate asks them to do.

So, that's my take. You don't think this is a good way to unify, so I'd like to hear what you think would be a good idea. I'm glad you are giving some thought to the issue. Thanks.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

124. Delusions make the internets go 'round.

:radio:

[Neshanic]

129. Considering the mess our two babies have made in the rumpus room, I doubt that he woul take that on.

OOPS! Sorry! Babies reference....see Obama Dictionary and Study Guide, page 459.

[davidpdx]

135. This is far from the solution

While I have no problem with Gore and even admire him (I voted for him in 2000), this isn't the solution. What you and the people who are advocating this are doing (even by organizing this before hand) is essentially saying:

1) Throw away all the primary and caucus results thus far

2) Declare both candidates DOA (dead on arrival)before the convention

3) Hand the nomination over to Gore


As I've said before, if in late July or August this isn't settled, I'd ponder helping. By even implying that Gore should be given the nomination, you are going to undermine the eventual nominee.

[rodbailey]

139. Actually,

the only "organizing" we're doing at this point is basically data gathering. IF, and I admit it may be a big IF, it looks like the candidates are going to be deadlocked going into the convention (and I think we'll have a decent sense of that after the PA primary, although I know there are a number of primaries after that), THEN we may start writing letters to the super delegates suggesting they keep Gore in mind as a unifyier and a sure winner in November. Getting contact information on all the super delegates is taking time. Finding lists of who they are is easy. Finding addresses and phone numbers, etc., is a bit more difficult, especially for the ones who are not elected officials. So, if we only got started on this when it became critical to take action, we would spend a lot of time just trying to get the contact information we're looking for. No one I know of is proposing that we start lobbying super delegates until this thing plays itself out some more.

And, I have to assume, based on some media reports that at least some of the super delegates are already aware that Gore may be the solution. This is not an original thought with those of us trying to organize this data gathering effort. As I've said before, lots of times, if either Clinton or Obama have the delegate votes to get the nomination on the first ballot, we do nothing. I do think, however, waiting until July or August may be a bit late. We're going to know a lot more as soon as the PA primary is over.

[izzybeans]

136. It would pain me greatly to have to fight against an undemocratic Gore nomination.

[olkaz]

141. Me too, but I'd do it.

This is all a complete waste of time, never going to happen.

[Andrea]

147. The good news is, you don't need to

There is nothing undemocratic about it. It is completely within party rules to do this. If it weren't, it couldn't happen.

A lot of people are unfamiliar with the nominating process. It is nothing like a general election vote. It is a process decided by the party (that's why the Republican process is so different from ours), written into rules, and subject to change from time to time.

The process itself, as it now stands, is not democratic to start with. Some states hold primaries, some hold caucuses (which are extremely undemocratic), some do both. Every state that holds a caucus has it's own rules for the caucus. There are variations among the states that hold primaries, too. Some are open, some not, and they have different ways of determining who can vote.

It wasn't until the 60s that very many states had any involvement of the rank and file voters in the nominating process. Before that, the vast majority of states held caucuses that could only be attended by party insiders. When the states got "more democratic" we ended up with the mess in Chicago in 1968. Many people think that would have been a brokered convention if RFK had not been assassinated. Then in the '70s, the super delegates were added to the process to avoid nominating an unelectable candidate like McGovern again. (No offense to McGovern, he was a great man, he just didn't stand a chance of being elected.)

Another thing that many people are overlooking is that this agreement would not be reached without the participation of both Obama and Clinton. It would be possible for an agreement to be reached without the agreement of whichever one has fewer delegates (most likely Clinton), but that is unlikely. For the sake of peace and unity, the leaders will do everything they can to get both of them on board. That means they will each get things they want out of this process, including planks in the platform and positions. I think the most likely thing will be for Obama to get VP and Clinton to get either Majority Leader or Supreme Court Justice, depending on which she prefers. (Or she could get both - Majority Leader until an opening occurs on the Supreme Court.)

[Apollo11]

143. The irony is that getting a Gore Obama ticket depends on Hillary doing better

If Obama does well in the remaining contests, he will become the nominee on May 7th or soon after.

But if Hillary experiences a very strong comeback, you might see a deadlocked convention.

Still it is difficult to see Al Gore being drafted in to save the day at the 11th hour.

After the Convention there will only be around 9 weeks to go until election day.

[rodbailey]

144. Only if

a large enough number of super delegates announce their support for Obama. There is no way, unless he wins all the remaining primaries with a 60%+ vote will he get enough pledged delegates to win on the first ballot (including the supers who have come out in support of him at this point). That seems nigh unto impossible the way the primary season has gone so far. For Hillary, obviously, the hill (no pun intended) is even a little steeper. So, unless there is a mad rush of supers to one or the other, neither has enough delegates to win on the first ballot. And, at this point, it looks like a lot of the supers want to sit and wait to see how the primary season ends, and perhaps beyond.

[Apollo11]

145. Let's see where things stand on May 7th

We know that hundreds of delegates are up for grabs between now and then.

[Andrea]

148. Right, there are

but even if by some bizarre circumstance one of the candidates got 100% of the vote in all the remaining primaries, he or she still couldn't reach the "magic number" of 2024. It's just mathematically impossible.

So, at this point, we know for a fact that this going to be decided with super delegate involvement. That's why I think it's prudent to start gathering data now for the eventuality of no nominee after the first ballot - because there's a very good chance it could happen.

[RestoreGore]

151. Speculation About Al Gore More Important To Media Than His Mission

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/31/bill_oreilly_specul...

Bill O'Reilly would rather feed the idea of Democratic chaos with Al Gore speculation than focus on some real issues like, for instance, the global climate crisis. After an article by Joe Klein, 3/26/08, provocatively titled "Is Al Gore the Answer", the speculation got started. 3/31/08

O'Reilly's Top Story, 3/27/08, was tagged "The Gore Factor" even though Al Gore has said numerous times that he won't run because he's too busy raising global awareness of the climate crisis. Patricia Murphy, political blogger, joined John Kasich to add another component to the picture of Democratic chaos promoted by FOX News. Murphy opened with the perfect line."The last thing the Democrats need, is another candidate."Both acknowledged that Gore probably wouldn't run but it gave them another opportunity to discuss Democratic conflicts.

Then Kasich stoked the fire a bit speculating that Gore would have a lot of support."Gore was the first Democrat who really took on Bush on the war in Iraq, and there was tremendous enthusiasm for him to enter the race. Within the base of the Democratic Party, Al Gore could be met with real enthusiasm." ( Kasich didn't discuss the work that has taken Gore's focus away from politics)

Last night, 3/30/08, Al Gore in an interview ,by Leslie Stahl, on 60 Minutes announced a huge advertising campaign he's launching to try once again to get the attention needed to solve the escalating climate crisis. Each ad will have unlikely pairs like Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson and Nancy Pelosi with Newt Gingrich to show how this is a non partisan and non political problem that affects everyone. Gore also revealed that he had contributed his Nobel Prize money and matched it with personal funds to get the project going.
end of excerpt
~~~~~
And that is why that Telegraph UK POS article that got frontpage billing here as well as this should not even have been acknowledged. It is insulting to Mr. Gore to now place more emphasis on that BS that only gives the RW asses more fodder than to focus on his work which is what he believes in his heart and soul is truly important now, and it also feed the distraction so many hope for. Which leads me to wonder who is really behind the names pushing that unsubstantiated crap here and elsewhere all of sudden just as his campaign initiative through The Alliance for Climate Protection is being launched.

[rodbailey]

153. Well,

I'm one of the people "pushing that ... crap" but we actually started on this effort long before I think any of us (probably even you) knew Gore was going to unfurl his big advertising campaign. And, as we've stated over and over and over, if Gore doesn't want to be considered for a draft at the convention, all he has to say if if nominated, I won't run. I haven't heard him come even close to anything like that. But, no, I really don't know what might be in him mind; but if it's a question of a President McCain/Bush for another 4 years, or suggesting to the super delegates that there is an option of turning to Gore as a nominee if neither Clinton or Obama can get the requisite number of delegates to be the nominee, then I think in a democracy, where we still have freedom of speech, that anyone who wants to can lobby his/her super delegates and suggest this option. Why not?

[rodbailey]

155. For those interested,

some of us DU'ers have started a Yahoo group to focus on our efforts to lobby super delegates for Gore if it looks like there is going to be a brokered convention. Please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DraftGore08/ and join us in this effort.