The "Al Gore Savior Solution" is Unfair and Won't Work

[Mike03]

Gore was my #1, even before Biden, Edwards, and now Obama.

But the fact of the matter is that he does not want to be the President. Drafting a person to be the POTUS whose mind and preoccupations are far, far away from the matters that face us is doing a disservice not only to Gore but to the people of this country.

Gore has his own fish to fry. His obsessions are important, but they are not the obsessions of a potential POTUS.

This fantasy of a Messiah Gore coming to the rescue is just that: Fantasy.

It's also deeply unfair to the many Democrats who have run their asses off to earn our votes: Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Edwards, Clinton and Obama.

These people have made an effort for us.

Al Gore is a brilliant human being who has made his mark and will continue to make his mark.

We need to to focus on our Democratic candidates: they are running hard, they are mentally tough, they deserve our attention.

[Autumn]

1. Al Gore has gone beyond politics

and rightfully so.

[democrattotheend]

2. I agree with you, mostly

As you said, Clinton and Obama have been out there for a year working their asses off for this, and it would not be fair to let Gore waltz in without campaigning and earning our votes.

That said, Gore could probably do this with some degree of legitimacy since he has already been elected president.

If Obama is ahead and Gore comes in and gets the nomination, I'll be upset, but if he puts Obama on the ticket I'd be more okay with it. If things look the way they do at this point, a Gore/Obama ticket would simultaneously break my heart and be a big relief.

[JuniperLea]

4. Not to mention, the last time we heard something was not "fair" to a politician...

Is when the Supreme Court stopped counting the votes, and declared Bush the winner... and said a recount wouldn't be fair to GWB.

Whenever someone says no fair... I just want to scream. Life isn't fair! Nowhere is it written that life is fair! Never in history has life been fair!

Most people understand this upon their approach to adulthood.

[Mike03]

9. With all due respect, I respectfully disagree.

Have you ever been voted or nominated to do something you really didn't want to do?

If so, were you good at it?

If I don't want to do something, I don't want to be "appointed" by anyone. Gore is too smart, has too much self-respect, and is far, far too realistic about politics to ever accept a position that he doesn't want. For anyone to suggest otherwise is insulting to Al Gore.

Of course life is not fair. But you can't MAKE a person be the President of the Fucking United States!!!

[JuniperLea]

11. Yes, and yes...

I didn't want it, several times, because I was so busy doing other things that were important to me. I did it because I knew there was no one else available at the time that could do it as well as I could, and I did one hell of a job each and every time. It's the story of my life, actually, to have jobs thrust upon me that I initially didn't want to have anything to do with. It comes along with growing the fuck up.

A person can change their mind. Sometimes when you lead a horse to water, it actually drinks.

You don't speak for Gore. No one here speaks for Gore. And no one here has a reliable crystal ball either.

[JuniperLea]

3. If that is so, why do you care so much to post about this?

Seems to me many are protesting too much.

[Mike03]

7. Obviously because there are other posts on this subject expressing the opposite view. NT

[JuniperLea]

12. So instead of ignoring them, you chose to make things worse...

By creating yet another useless flame fest. Brilliant.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

5. Take Gore out of the equation for a moment...

What if it becomes clear at the convention that neither Obama or Clinton has the votes AND that there's serious concern, based on significant research, about either's ability at that point to win the GE because of all the infighting going on now.

What would people think of a brokered candidate besides Gore? Someone solid but less groundbreaking like a Dodd or a Biden?

[Mike03]

8. To be honest, my knowledge of that sort of politics is not good at all--lol

I would respect any decision arrived at by a consensus of Democrats, I suppose. Even if they "made" Gore President... I guess that would be fantastic for many of us, but I just don't know how effective a person can be if he/she doesn't want that job. But anyone selected by the methods you suggest at a convention: That would be exciting as hell.

And I respected every one of our candidates, so it would be doubly exciting to see how the convention decided.

[cali]

15. And when was the last time it was done?

It is not procedure and I'd bet just about anything that it ain't gonna happen.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

18. I don't know that it's _ever_ been done. But I'm pretty sure it's technically possible.

But as far as my question goes, I take it that no matter who a compromise candidate might be, you wouldn't think it's a good idea? Fair enough.

[KaptBunnyPants]

22. I still don't see how that would help.

Bill and Hill don't seem like the type to just roll over for the good of the Party. This is clearly more important to them than everything else; anyone else would have quit before (or after) the whole damn Party publicly begged them to. How is President Gore or Biden or anyone any better for them than President Obama?

[depakid]

6. It's not unfair at all

If the convention's deadlocked, a compromise candidate that's acceptable to the delegates will be the nominee.

That's how it's ALWAYS been done.

Just because we haven't seen it for a while, doesn't mean that it's not still the procedure.

[stillcool]

10. Wait a minute..

if the vote is split between the two candidates and they are both viable..you would bring in a third candidate?

[AlGore-08.com]

20. The rules are - - you become the nominee by winning 2025 delegates

IF neither Obama nor Clinton can manage to get 2,025 delegates to vote for them (over the course of a large number of votes) - - and IF neither Clinton nor Obama agree to take the VP slot on a "unity" ticket - - and IF both Obama and Clinton refuse to end their campaign in favor of the other - - THEN neither Obama nor Clinton win the nomination.

As I have said over and over in various threads, Obama and Clinton control all three of those variables. If we end up with a compromise candidate, it is because neither of them could convince a total of 2,025 rabid Democratic party activists to vote for them AND neither could admit defeat OR step aside for the good of the party and the good of the country.

It is ONLY if the voting remains deadlocked and the two candidates REFUSE to compromise does the convention begin to look for a compromise candidate.

And that compromise candidate will still have to convince 2,025 rabid Democratic party activists to vote for them before they can become the nominee.

Those are the rules.

[stillcool]

30. I understand that neither one...

can win the 2025. What I don't understand is why the "Super-Delgates" would have to bring in a third candidate. Isn't the purpose of the Super-Delegates to decide the nominee in exactly such a situation?

[JuniperLea]

13. Finally... someone gets it...

Good on you!

[OzarkDem]

14. "Obsessions"? "Messiah Gore"?

You reveal a great deal about yourself with those comments.

[AlGore-08.com]

16. I just don't get why folks just don't get the process. The only way Gore would be the nominee

Is if there were a complete and total deadlock at the convention - - that both the candidates still in the primary at this point would have to be completely incapable of getting 2025 delegates trapped in the convention to vote for them. (And quite frankly, if neither of them can get 2025 Democratic party activists trapped in Denver to vote for them, they also don't have the ability to get any of their proposed policies through Congress.) AND both candidates would have to refuse to join a unity ticket AND both candidates would have to refuse to drop their campaigns.

This is possible but not likely.

If all that happened, it would be the two candidates who invalidated all the work and votes and money they got from the grassroots. Clinton and Obama would both have to be equally pigheaded and egotistical and have the same career death wish.

This is possible but not likely.

And if all that happened, the only choice the delegates have is to find a compromise candidate. This is not being "disenfranchised". These are the rules that all candidates agreed to before they started their run. These are the rules we all accept when we join the Democratic Party.

In the unlikely event that we end up with a compromise candidate, that candidate would have a Hell of a time uniting the party and mounting a successful presidential campaign. For that reason, Gore is most often mentioned as a potential compromise candidate. He has the best chance of being able to step in at that last minute, receive support from the majority of the party and from independents, have a large enough fund raising organization with little work, know how to organize a national campaign, have enough name recognition that he wouldn't have to spend a couple months introducing himself to the country, etc., etc., etc.

I also don't understand why Dodd or Biden running campaigns that went absolutely nowhere fast make them better candidates than Gore (or Kerry or Hell, Dukakis or Carter) who have at least won the nomination and went on to run national campaigns and have, as I said, much more name recognition than folks who only ran a contest or two in the primary.

Also, why wouldn't it be equally disenfranchising to have somebody who only ran in Iowa or got .00001% of the popular vote become the nominee? I live in Cali - - my only choices in the primary were Clinton, Obama or Gravel; even Edwards had dropped out before we voted. Why would drafting Richardson or Kucinich "disenfranchise" me less than drafting somebody who didn't run at all?

[JuniperLea]

25. "This is possible but not likely. "

It's called "hope" and it's in short supply now that we've narrowed the pack down and disenfranchised so many voters.

I'll vote for whomever gets the Dem nomination. I'm hoping for someone better than the choices we have right now.

[IDemo]

17. Of course you're correct.

I'd like to see the mods move the torrential flood of Gore posts we have seen this week (and no doubt will continue to) to the DU group that's all Al, all the time -> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=260

He is not conducting a primary campaign, nor will he be. If and when he endorses anyone, he will become relevant to GD-P.

[DrFunkenstein]

19. Beyond Unfair - It Would Be Fascistic

I really wanted Gore to run. I held out on Obama for a long time until I was sure that Gore wasn't going to jump in. But Obama has taken his case to the voters and they have made their choice. Honestly, I now believe much more in Obama than I do Gore.

But my preference isn't the problem. The problem is that bringing in Gore after everyone earned their badges of honor is fundamentally dishonest and goes against our whole principle of democracy.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

21. Not to mention that Al Gore is not the icon to the general public that he is to us.

In polls a while back that included Gore, he never did that well. Something that the Draft Gore fanclub doesn't seem to acknowledge.

[pathansen]

23. Gore has also earned our vote - remember the 2000 election?

[msallied]

28. The world from 8 years ago is not the world we are in now.

Granted, Gore would be well-equipped to handle the challenges we face in areas of climate control and such, but he's been out of politics for almost a decade.

[MNDemNY]

24. For crissake Re-Elect Al Gore.

Gore/Obama '08

[msallied]

26. This won't happen. Seriously.

A brokered convention that doesn't result in either candidate getting the nomination would create a maelstrom of anger, doubt, and downright fury among not only Democrats but Americans and it would guarantee a loss to McCain in November. The media would have a field day spinning this and making it look as undemocratic as possible. I shudder to think about it, really. Sure, I'd vote for Gore and so would a lot of people here, but most people who don't pay attention to this process like we do on here will be alienated and probably won't even vote.

[Whisp]

27. I can't see that happening, as you said it would be very unfair.

Best he can do is speak up for one of them, sooner than later.

[enigmatic]

29. I'll be honest w/ you

I'm "bleh" about both Obama and Hillary, but will vote for the nominee w/o question. But if Gore got into the race, I'd be an enthusiastic supporter in a second.