Anyone wringing their hands because Al Gore hasn't tossed his hat in the ring yet...

[Seabiscuit]

should remember that in 1968, Robert F. Kennedy clearly ruled out a Presidential bid in January, then declared his candidacy on March 16, 1968 stating, "I do not run for the Presidency merely to oppose any man, but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I'm obliged to do all I can."

Johnson bowed out on March 31, 1968, and Humbert Humphrey, who would go on to win the nomination at the convention, didn't declare until April, 1968. By June 4, Kennedy became the front-runner just two months prior to the Democratic Convention by winning the California and South Dakota primaries (South Dakota was Humphrey's birth state), before the CIA (they clearly saw the writing on the wall and didn't like what they were seeiing) assassinated him in the early morning hours of June 5, 1968.

Al Gore hasn't ruled out a Presidential bid.

He could declare next spring and still win it all.

[crim son]

1. I simply haven't expected him to.

And since he won the Prize, it's even less likely. He has nothing to prove and much to lose, if one believes in fixed elections. I think he's playing it smart and we are all the losers because of it.

[Seabiscuit]

3. The pukes can only "fix" about 5% of the vote.

Al Gore IMHO would win in such a landslide that a 5% fix wouldn't accomplish a thing.

Sure, Al has nothing to prove. But if he ran, I doubt it would be to prove anything to himself. He'd do it for the good of the country.

[JuniperLea]

2. I've always thought this was so

Think of the money he'll save too:)

Have you ever seen anyone do so well in the polls without even having tossed said hat?

[Seabiscuit]

5. Indeed - imagine what his poll numbers would be if he actually entered the race!

[Adsos Letter]

4. No...he has made plain his lack of desire to run...

and I believe him...it's the other candidates we must choose from which has me wringing my hands.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

8. He has NOT made it plain!! How difficult would it be

for him to make a definitive 'end-of-speculation' declaration that he will NOT be a Democratic contender in the '08 Presidential race? He could even qualify it by adding unless something catastrophic, or potentially catastrophic, takes place. He KNOWS what trouble we're in, as a nation and a planet, and I believe that the odds are that he WILL step in, eventually, because he clearly recognizes the peril this country and planet face. We need a REAL leader ... someone who has moved beyond party and special interests ... that man IS Al Gore.

[Adsos Letter]

9. I agree that it is he...

...but I think he has made it quite obvious that he will not run...(no need to shout, by the way).

[Kurovski]

14. Actually, you would have to subscribe to the notion that Gore is a rude asshole

if he would not thank, and then stop the thousands working for his run and who are contributing money toward the goal of a Gore candidacy.

It is plainly inconceivable that he would not, say, politely request that Draft Gore stop their activities in his name.

It is inconceivable that the man would not pay hard working human beings that courtesy. The idea that Gore has "said no" is still as of this date a lie.

[Adsos Letter]

27. whatever you wanna' cling to. n/t

[Kurovski]

28. Likewise, I'm sure.

:-)

[Adsos Letter]

30. I apologize for sounding snarky.

:hi:

[Kurovski]

31. That's cool.

The whole Gore run thing is winding-down in my head as well. I'm just holding out for the official "thanks, but no thanks". :hi:

I'm thinking more about Edwards and Kucinich these days.

[JuniperLea]

22. He's been very, very vague on the issue and has never, ever...

Said "No, I'm NOT GOING TO RUN." He is a brilliant man. He knows hopes are still high and his vagueness is fueling the fire. He knows this as well as we all know this. The only logical thought is that, knowing what we all know, he is allowing this momentum to remain, and to build, for only one reason... when he comes forward and says, you all win, I'm going to run.

[Adsos Letter]

29. I don't believe he will do it. And I'm not convinced I would

want to back someone who had to be begged to run...

[JuniperLea]

39. What if...

He does run, is selected as the Dem candidate. Would you vote for him then?

[slick8790]

6. No, he really couldn't declare next spring and win.

With the front loading of primaries, especially super duper tuesday, the race'll be over by march.

[CK_John]

11. He could declare as an IND up until the end of Sept 08 and get on the ballot. n/t

[slick8790]

24. But Gore is a democrat.

If anyone would understand the dangers of splitting the democratic vote, it would be gore. The idea that he could win as an independent is ludicrous.

[nickinSTL]

26. thank you for pointing this out

I like Gore, I'd vote for him if he ran, but realistically...

The primaries are starting in January, with 6 scheduled.

21 states are holding primaries on Feb.5, including Illinois, New York, and California. The chances are very good that at the end of that day, the nomination will be essentially won.

There are 9 more primaries in February, 11 in March, and the last 9 in April through June.

Practically speaking, it's virtually impossible for Gore to enter any later than January, and even then getting sufficient votes would be unlikely at best.

[Seabiscuit]

33. Well, pick a month that suits you, then. Remember, RFK clearly ruled it out in January, 1968 before

declarinig his candidacy just 2 months later. Yes, the primary schedule was different back then, and California's primary didn't happen until June. But Iowa and New Hampshire had already happened. When RFK saw that the relatively obscure Senator Eugene McCarthy was very narrowly bested by Johnson in New Hampshire, he reconsidered his decision, because that made it clear that Johnson was quite vulnerable. Less than two weeks after RFK declared his candidacy, Johnson saw the writing on the wall and bowed out. RFK's only challenge by then was McCarthy, and over the next two months RFK became the front runner, winning several more primaries (and losing one) before beating both McCarthy and Humphrey in California.

All I'm saying is: (1) Gore hasn't even clearly ruled out a Presidential bid yet, whereas RFK had done so two months before entering the race; (2) Several primaries had already come and gone before RFK declared his candidacy, while the start of the primary season for 2008 is still over 2 months away; and (3) Gore keeps beating declared Dem candidates in straw polls, even though he's not running (yet). The recent DFA straw poll is a recent example - he edged out Kucinich, and both were miles ahead of the rest of the pack.

Personally, I'd like to see him enter the race ASAP, and certainly by the end of 2007, before the primaries begin, but even if he misses some early primaries, both RFK and Humphrey showed in 1968 that's not an insurmountable obstacle.

[ruggerson]

7. The system for pickinig delegates was entirely different back then

so your comparison is not accurate.

In 1968, the primary season stretched out far longer, into June, and the party bosses still controlled a sizable number of delegates.

Today, almost all the delegates, save the "super-delegates" are chosen in front loaded primaries. So, the primaries are far more influential today than in 1968.

And because of the frontloading, the nominee will probably be decided well before March, 2008.

It is arguable that the time has already passed for Gore to mount a credible challenge. The rules of the game have changed drastically, and a candidate needs to have an infrastructure and monies in place, to say nothing of making the necessary deadlines to have your name on the ballot to begin with.

[Seabiscuit]

35. Are you trying to say that the rules now bar delegates from making their final

choices at the convention? Historically, delegates have always proven to be capable of being fickle - they can back candidate (A) right up to the convention, then switch to candidate (B) at the convention.

[Mike03]

10. Not sure RFK's method would work in 2008

Aren't delegates obligated nowadays by the time summer rolls around? Or is there someway that could be subverted?

[calteacherguy]

There is 0% chance of Gore entering the race and he isn't electable. Get over it. nt

[JuniperLea]

23. LOL!!!

Your denial is so very entertaining.


:rofl:

[calteacherguy]

12. There is 0% chance of Gore entering the race and he isn't electable. Get over it. nt

[Greyskye]

13. 0%? Unelectable?

Time to go back to school. I'm sorry that you somehow feel threatened by the possibility of Gore running. Why else would you throw out such unsupportable flamebait? :shrug:

On edit: Don't you think that the 'get over it' meme has been done to death enough by the repubs? I hear that phrase now, and go into instant bristle mode.

[calteacherguy]

17. No, I like Gore, but he would lose the general election.

No more nail-biters, please.

[Kurovski]

19. No, I like Gore, and he would win the general election in a historic landslide.

Wow! that was easy! :D

[Greyskye]

20. Thank you Nostradamus.

:eyes:

[Kurovski]

15. All the sensitivity of a Right-Wing mob storming Gore's original presidential recount,

and shutting it down.

It's pretty much been your message since the day you signed on, calteacherguy.

[Catchawave]

16. Love Al, but this isn't 1968 ....

However, if Hillary and Giuliani are the annointed noms after the primary season, I will welcome and support ANY other choices next spring :toast:

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Spring would be tough...

He needs to be IN by the filing deadlines of the majority of the states for February 5th, 2005. I havent' done that analysis yet, but I have the link in another post from the other day.

If he gets his name on the ballot for 2/5/08, then we will probaby end up with an open convention and Gore being the winner.

Once the date for those primaries have passed, sadly, I must abandon the democratic party for President and start working on other options.

[tritsofme]

21. Its a good thing the presidential selection process works exactly the same way now

as it did 40 years ago.

[Seabiscuit]

36. See my post #33 above. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

25. I am sad to say that I truly think it's too late.

[windbreeze]

32. and the primaries are taking place, starting WHEN??

January...right....? I don't think Gore will run...period...I could be wrong...but, I don't think so...he is NOT Robert Kennedy, he does not have the Kennedy pull...nor did he have a brother that was a beloved prez., who was assassinated while in office(yes, I do believe it mattered)...Gore himself has said he doesn't see himself running for political office again...soooo, if that is not saying he isn't interested in running...maybe he should speak in a foreign language, we might understand it better? wb

[William769]

34. If he waits till March, he's an idiot.

And he's no idiot.

[peace frog]

37. That was then, this is now

The USA of today is so very far removed from what the country was in '68 that it's ludicrous to attempt to equate the two. Gore is my first, last and only choice for president but if he waits until late winter or early spring to enter the race he will be at too severe a disadvantage to take the lead. I would love to be proved wrong, however.

[murbley40]

38. NOPE!!