For the benefit of RandyWhorewald and all the other pro and anti Al Gore people out there, lets see what the general consensis is.
Will Al Gore Run?
- Thread starter ThighMan
- Start date
He can afford to wait and pick the right time to jump into the race. The tv debate the other night looked like a high school debating club. There was not one impressive candidate on there.
THE HISTORICAL PRECEDENT: Normally, when a candidate loses a presidential election, if he runs again, he does even worse (Adlai Stevenson, William Jennings Bryan). However, in every example we have from history, whenever a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the electoral, when he comes back next time, he wins the election.
In the next presidential election, no one will have the advantage of incumbency. There will be nobody who is already president running for re-election. So this will be an election like the ones in 1988 and 2000, in which we look at the candidates and try to imagine one of them as President. This is a whole psychological process on the part of people choosing their leader. In 1988, Dukakis started out ahead in the polls, but not enough people looked at him and saw a president. Crossing that threshold of not just plausibility but imaginability is all important.
Along that line, Big Al has a leg up on all his Democratic rivals and any candidate the Republicans might offer. No, he has never been president, but it almost seems as if he has. He was Vice President for eight years, which helps, but he also won the popular vote in 2000. In the minds of many who'll be voting in the Democratic primary, he did get elected but was robbed.
ANOTHER WAY TO TELL IF GORE IS RUNNING: An Inconvenient Truth will probably be nominated for an Oscar. It's the third highest grossing documentary in history and the most successful documentary of 2006. It will probably win. If you see a chubby, happy Al Gore standing next to the producer and director, celebrating the win at the Oscars, forget it, he's not running. Nothing to do with Hollywood plays well in the heartland (except the movies themselves). The cultural resentment of Hollywood is almost pathological in certain sections of the country. However, if Gore chooses not to be there -- if he's at the spa that day -- then you can take it to the bank. Big Al's running.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlasalle/detail?blogid=38&entry_id=10967
Then there's Hilary:
"You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate populist resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1059000,00.html
THE HISTORICAL PRECEDENT: Normally, when a candidate loses a presidential election, if he runs again, he does even worse (Adlai Stevenson, William Jennings Bryan). However, in every example we have from history, whenever a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the electoral, when he comes back next time, he wins the election.
In the next presidential election, no one will have the advantage of incumbency. There will be nobody who is already president running for re-election. So this will be an election like the ones in 1988 and 2000, in which we look at the candidates and try to imagine one of them as President. This is a whole psychological process on the part of people choosing their leader. In 1988, Dukakis started out ahead in the polls, but not enough people looked at him and saw a president. Crossing that threshold of not just plausibility but imaginability is all important.
Along that line, Big Al has a leg up on all his Democratic rivals and any candidate the Republicans might offer. No, he has never been president, but it almost seems as if he has. He was Vice President for eight years, which helps, but he also won the popular vote in 2000. In the minds of many who'll be voting in the Democratic primary, he did get elected but was robbed.
ANOTHER WAY TO TELL IF GORE IS RUNNING: An Inconvenient Truth will probably be nominated for an Oscar. It's the third highest grossing documentary in history and the most successful documentary of 2006. It will probably win. If you see a chubby, happy Al Gore standing next to the producer and director, celebrating the win at the Oscars, forget it, he's not running. Nothing to do with Hollywood plays well in the heartland (except the movies themselves). The cultural resentment of Hollywood is almost pathological in certain sections of the country. However, if Gore chooses not to be there -- if he's at the spa that day -- then you can take it to the bank. Big Al's running.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlasalle/detail?blogid=38&entry_id=10967
Then there's Hilary:
"You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate populist resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1059000,00.html
Bill Clinton says Gore might run:
Two of the newsier things CNN says former president Bill Clinton tells Larry King tonight at 9 p.m. ET, during their prerecorded interview:
• The Democrats running for president "are gifted people and they deserve to be seriously listened to," and "you have got the prospect that vice president Gore might run."
• His wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, "would be the best president by a good long stretch, for all kinds of obvious reasons -- or at least they are obvious to me. ... But she also genuinely loves her job in the Senate. ... So for her personally, she is going to (be) fine regardless. "
link:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/bill_clinton_hi.html
Here is the full transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/19/lkl.01.html
Carville says Gore will run:
Gore will run again because, quoting George Will, running for president is like sex: "You don't do it once and forget about it."
Oh, and "Rudy Giuliani has been married more times than Mitt Romney's been hunting," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton needs more "spice" and Sen. Barack Obama needs more "seasoning."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/carville_gore_w.html
Two of the newsier things CNN says former president Bill Clinton tells Larry King tonight at 9 p.m. ET, during their prerecorded interview:
• The Democrats running for president "are gifted people and they deserve to be seriously listened to," and "you have got the prospect that vice president Gore might run."
• His wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, "would be the best president by a good long stretch, for all kinds of obvious reasons -- or at least they are obvious to me. ... But she also genuinely loves her job in the Senate. ... So for her personally, she is going to (be) fine regardless. "
link:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/bill_clinton_hi.html
Here is the full transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/19/lkl.01.html
Carville says Gore will run:
Gore will run again because, quoting George Will, running for president is like sex: "You don't do it once and forget about it."
Oh, and "Rudy Giuliani has been married more times than Mitt Romney's been hunting," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton needs more "spice" and Sen. Barack Obama needs more "seasoning."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/carville_gore_w.html
Then its Gingrich for the Republicans
Republican Newt Gingrich won't make a decision about running for president in 2008 until the end of September, the former Speaker of the House said on Face The Nation.
"I'm going to spend all summer developing a new generation of solutions that are different than the current dialogue in Washington," Gingrich, R-Ga., said. "If people adopt them and people campaign on them, I probably won't run. If, however, the ideas require an advocate and citizenship requires me to run, then in October, you know, starting on September 30th, we'll look very seriously at whether or not that's necessary."
While Gingrich did not have anything negative to say about the current Republican candidates, he bashed the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign, saying it has been like a reality show.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/06/ftn/main2765083.shtml
Republican Newt Gingrich won't make a decision about running for president in 2008 until the end of September, the former Speaker of the House said on Face The Nation.
"I'm going to spend all summer developing a new generation of solutions that are different than the current dialogue in Washington," Gingrich, R-Ga., said. "If people adopt them and people campaign on them, I probably won't run. If, however, the ideas require an advocate and citizenship requires me to run, then in October, you know, starting on September 30th, we'll look very seriously at whether or not that's necessary."
While Gingrich did not have anything negative to say about the current Republican candidates, he bashed the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign, saying it has been like a reality show.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/06/ftn/main2765083.shtml
Another way to tell if the bullshit is flying:
the villij idjit posts. Anything, anywhere.
What happened to your "sources" & your claim Gore would announce by now?
& that socialism would come w/ conservative gov'ts like Canada's concern over global warming?
& the flat earth?
Last edited:
Insiders Say Al Gore May Pounce
More Seen On CBS13
Speculation around the State Capitol these days is all about when and if Al Gore will jump into the Democratic primary.
Let’s say a cup of tea is Hillary Clinton’s favorable ratings. In January, her ratings were almost 60 percent positive. Now they’ve dropped into the 40 percentile. If they hit the low 30s, Al Gore will jump into the race – or so say political insiders.
The former vice president is well positioned to run. He’s fixed up his image as a statesman, and wouldn’t have any trouble raising money. And he has no love for the Clintons. Meantime, as we wait for Gore to make up his mind, how about another drink?
http://cbs13.com/seenon/local_story_129195640.html
More Seen On CBS13
Speculation around the State Capitol these days is all about when and if Al Gore will jump into the Democratic primary.
Let’s say a cup of tea is Hillary Clinton’s favorable ratings. In January, her ratings were almost 60 percent positive. Now they’ve dropped into the 40 percentile. If they hit the low 30s, Al Gore will jump into the race – or so say political insiders.
The former vice president is well positioned to run. He’s fixed up his image as a statesman, and wouldn’t have any trouble raising money. And he has no love for the Clintons. Meantime, as we wait for Gore to make up his mind, how about another drink?
http://cbs13.com/seenon/local_story_129195640.html
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/paul_ron_total_victory_yet_censorship_continues.htm
what about this poll????
what about this poll????
Interesting.
If the Democrats were going to sit down and construct the perfect candidate for 2008, they'd be hard-pressed to improve on Gore. Unlike Hillary Clinton, he has no controversial vote on Iraq to defend. Unlike Barack Obama and John Edwards, he has extensive experience in both the Senate and the White House. He has put aside his wooden, policy-wonk demeanor to emerge as the Bush administration's most eloquent critic.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13248532/why_gore_should_run__and_how_he_can_win
Colombia's Media Scorn Gore's Ridiculous Actions
'I was in Bogotá recently, where there were numerous articles in the newspapers and magazines decrying the ridiculous actions by former Vice President Al Gore. The conclusion reached by the Colombian media is that Mr. Gore is more concerned about his run for the presidency or a possible Nobel peace prize than he is about truly helping the environment and supporting the president of Colombia, who has done more for democracy in South America, and more for the environment via the fight against narco criminals than any other person. How sad that a former vice president would choose to turn his back on a leader who has transformed a country that a little over five years ago was so dangerous that one could not leave the capital without fear of kidnapping or death into a vibrant, thriving democracy.'
link
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117893440275200787.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Like it or not Mr. Gore is still very much involved in international politics:
Al Gore may not have known that he was taking the side of a former terrorist and ally of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez when he waded into Colombian politics 10 days ago. But that's not much consolation to 45 million Colombians who watched their country's already fragile international image suffer another unjust blow, this time at the hands of a former U.S. vice president.
The event was a climate-change conference in Miami, where Mr. Gore and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe were set to share the stage. At the last minute, Mr. Gore notified the conference organizers that he refused to appear with Mr. Uribe because of "deeply troubling" allegations of human-rights violations swirling around the Colombian government.
It is not clear whether the ex-veep knows that making unsubstantiated claims of human-rights violations has been a key guerrilla weapon for more than a decade, along with the more traditional practices of murdering, maiming and kidnapping civilians. Nor is it clear whether Mr. Gore knew that the recycled charges that caught his attention are being hyped by Colombian Sen.
Gustavo Petro, a close friend of Mr. Chavez and former member of the pro-Cuban M-19 terrorist group. What we do know is that Mr. Gore's line of reasoning -- that Colombia is not good enough to rub shoulders with the righteous gringos -- is also being peddled by some Democrats in Congress, the AFL-CIO and other forces of anti-globalization. The endgame is all about killing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
When Mr. Uribe got wind of Mr. Gore's decision to stand him up, he rightly interpreted its significance: Colombia is the victim of an international smear campaign that, if left unchecked, could undermine congressional support for the pending trade deal. Rather than let the whispering go on, Mr. Uribe elevated the matter, calling two press conferences over two days to refute the charges, which he says are damaging the country's interests.
more:
http://www.presidencia.gov.co/prensa_new/especial/washington/notas/nota01.htm
'I was in Bogotá recently, where there were numerous articles in the newspapers and magazines decrying the ridiculous actions by former Vice President Al Gore. The conclusion reached by the Colombian media is that Mr. Gore is more concerned about his run for the presidency or a possible Nobel peace prize than he is about truly helping the environment and supporting the president of Colombia, who has done more for democracy in South America, and more for the environment via the fight against narco criminals than any other person. How sad that a former vice president would choose to turn his back on a leader who has transformed a country that a little over five years ago was so dangerous that one could not leave the capital without fear of kidnapping or death into a vibrant, thriving democracy.'
link
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117893440275200787.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Like it or not Mr. Gore is still very much involved in international politics:
Al Gore may not have known that he was taking the side of a former terrorist and ally of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez when he waded into Colombian politics 10 days ago. But that's not much consolation to 45 million Colombians who watched their country's already fragile international image suffer another unjust blow, this time at the hands of a former U.S. vice president.
The event was a climate-change conference in Miami, where Mr. Gore and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe were set to share the stage. At the last minute, Mr. Gore notified the conference organizers that he refused to appear with Mr. Uribe because of "deeply troubling" allegations of human-rights violations swirling around the Colombian government.
It is not clear whether the ex-veep knows that making unsubstantiated claims of human-rights violations has been a key guerrilla weapon for more than a decade, along with the more traditional practices of murdering, maiming and kidnapping civilians. Nor is it clear whether Mr. Gore knew that the recycled charges that caught his attention are being hyped by Colombian Sen.
Gustavo Petro, a close friend of Mr. Chavez and former member of the pro-Cuban M-19 terrorist group. What we do know is that Mr. Gore's line of reasoning -- that Colombia is not good enough to rub shoulders with the righteous gringos -- is also being peddled by some Democrats in Congress, the AFL-CIO and other forces of anti-globalization. The endgame is all about killing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
When Mr. Uribe got wind of Mr. Gore's decision to stand him up, he rightly interpreted its significance: Colombia is the victim of an international smear campaign that, if left unchecked, could undermine congressional support for the pending trade deal. Rather than let the whispering go on, Mr. Uribe elevated the matter, calling two press conferences over two days to refute the charges, which he says are damaging the country's interests.
more:
http://www.presidencia.gov.co/prensa_new/especial/washington/notas/nota01.htm
Some people are born stupid, others have it thrust upon them, & then there are the UberStupid who continually fly in the face of reason & common sense
For which there really is no explanation for, except that Darwin must be wrong.
My apologies if you resemble this statement, & if you have to think about it, you do.
For which there really is no explanation for, except that Darwin must be wrong.
My apologies if you resemble this statement, & if you have to think about it, you do.
