About Gore not running

[renie408]

If this has already been said, sorry, but I have been wondering if saying he is NOT going to run is a tactic to keep the Rove/GOP attack machine off his back. As long as he is not running,he can make public appearances, make observations about what is going on in the country, massage the voter's minds and is pretty much free from being overtly attacked by the other side. Then he can wait until he is getting begged by a grassroots Dem effort to run and step in. And he WILL get begged. He is the perfect candidate because he can say, "Hey, I already won once. Just think if that whole Florida thing had gone differently where we might be right now."

I plan to beg him if it gets down to it.

[bowens43]

1. And if he changes his mind he's pegged as a liar again......

He had his chance, he blew it. I am just amazed that so many want to bring him back. He couldn't beat Bush. If he couldn't beat bush, he can't beat anyone. He was not a good campaigner in 2000 and it's doubtful that he's improved with age.

[drummo]

2. He didn't blew it. He won against all odds.

Clinton was losing to Bush in 2000 in every poll except in one in Oct, and even that was within the margin of error, just like the Gore-Bush polls which were wrong we now know, since Gore had more voters supporting him than Bush had.
If Clinton, an incumbent president during peace and prosperity was losing to Bush in 2000 how can you think that Gore who was JUST vice president should have won by a landslide?

And Reagan, Nixon, Bush Sr all had their chance and ran again and won.
McCain had his chance, lost and still he is considered today a Rep front-runner. Clark had his chance lost, and still he wants to run again.

Gore never said he would not run. So he cannot be accused of being a liar because of that.

[RethugAssKicker]

3. I think he has improved... He lost

last time because he distanced himself from Clinton. I hated him for that.... and I think he regrets it... He also has improved on his personality and public image... I think he'd make a great candidate... sure as hell better than Kerry!

[drummo]

7. He won last time because he distanced himself from Clinton.

Clinton was a loser in 2000. Most people were fed up with him and Karl Rove knew that. That's why he wanted to re-link Gore to Clinton so desperately after the convetion when Gore was leading Bush in the polls by as much as 10% presicely because for the first time people didn't see him as Clinton's henchman.

This Clinton would have won by a landslide myth cannot be supported by actual data. Clinton was losing to Bush, yes losing in 2000. In Jan 2000 according to an ABC poll Bush would have defeated him by 11%. In Aug 2000 Bush would have defeated him by 6%.
The best Clinton could do against Bush was a 44-41 poll among registered voters, (ABC) in Oct, which was within the margin of error
therefore was not better than the Gore-Bush polls at the time, which by the way were wrong, since Gore won more votes than Bush.

Stop delude yourself about Clinton's supposed popularity in 2000.
He had high job approval number but very low personal approval numbers -- particularly in red states like Tennessee, Arkansas, West-Virginia New Hampshire even in Iowa.
In Jan 2001 a CNN/Gallup poll asked the question "Are you glad that Clinton is leaving office or you will miss him"?
51% -- glad that he is leaving
45% -- will miss him

So any evidence that Gore would have benefited from "using" Clinton in 2000?

[RethugAssKicker]

11. No evidence... just my opinion

And I stick with it. Quote me all the 6 year old polls you want.

Clinton/Gore mad many accomplishments in their 8 years.... Gore did not use those accomplishments, because of his flawed strategy of 'distancing' himself from Clinton.

[renie408]

15. Nothing to do with the topic at hand..

But isn't it weird to say, "I think this and refuse to change my mind, no matter how much evidence to the contrary you give me."?

And the six year old polls are the pertinent ones because they are the polls that were taken at the time, right?

Not sure who is right or wrong, just thought that was an odd thing to say.

[drummo]

19. I do think it's weird -- and it's the neocon thinking

I don't care about evidence -- Saddam has a nuke program.

I don't care about evidence -- Clinton would have been a great asset for Gore in 2000.

:wtf:

[drummo]

18. Clinton/Gore had zero accomplishment

There's no such thing as Clinton/Gore record.

There is Clinton record and there is Gore record and the two are not one and the same. Gore did his own thing for 24 years.

And polls can show what most people actually think. And they vote the way they think. So for you to ignore them and say I don't care what most people thought about Clinton in 2000 still Gore blew it by not using him because if had "used" him he would have got more votes than he did anyway is illogical and stupid.

Of course you can believe that the Earth is flat, if you want, that will not make it so.

Gore was talking about the future in 2000 which is what campaigns should be all about -- even according to Clinton himself.
We do not elect a president for the last 8 years but for the next four.
And when Gore did talk about job creation, surplus etc. who cared?
He didn't get credit because he was just vice president. What makes you think that if people had seen him with Clinton in 2000 -- as they saw him for 7 years -- that would have made them change their mind and say well Gore was responsible for the boom?

Clinton was a loser in 2000. Get over it. Most people didn't want more adultery, more lies and more impeachments. No amount of accomplishment could eliminate that sentiment in 2000.

[AlGore-08.com]

5. Again, the facts: Gore began the 2000 race 20 points behind

If he had truly ran a bad campaign, he would have stayed 20 points behind, Smirk would have won by a Reagan-sized landslide, and Florida wouldn't have needed to be fixed.

If he had truly run a lousy campaign, he would have ended up more than 20 points behind, and Smirk would have won by a historic landslide.

Again, the facts:

Gore started out 20 points behind, he was outspent nearly 2 to 1, he had almost no support from the party machine (who were more concerned about who would run the party than who would win the 2000 election) and possibly the most hostile press in American history.

Despite all of that, he got over 1/2 million more votes than Bush. Gore's margin of victory in 2000 was larger than Kennedy's in 1960 and Nixon's in 1968. (And we all know he won Florida - - it was not Gore's campaigning that kept him out of the White House, it was Kat Harris and the SCOTUS.)

And as far as Gore being branded a "liar" or "flip flopper" if he says he's changed his mind and will run... that dog won't hunt. Sure, the far right press, like Limbaugh and NewsMax, will try to spin it that way, but it won't hold any water with the mainstream press. Why? Because every politician on the planet denies running before they do run. Right now, the only folks who have admitted to wanting to run in 2008 are Joe Biden (who always leaks way too early and never even makes a single primary) and Rudy Guiliani. Everybody else is giving the usual excuses.

All Gore would have to do is say that things have changed enough, he was persuaded to run for the good of the nation, blah blah woof woof excuses that have been trotted out since the dawn of time.

If "Gore is thinking about a run so that proves he's a big, fat liar" were going to gain any traction, we would have already seen at least a week or two of OpEds to that effect, based on the latest speculation from Orrin and Tweety that Gore might run.

Instead, the American Prospect is promoting Gore as the standard to which Dems should aspire:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10376

[mtnsnake]

4. I like Gore, but I doubt he'd be as vocal as he is now if he were running

for pres.

[drummo]

8. The invasion of Iraq would have made him vocal, you can be sure about that

Gore has always been very outspoken on national security matters.
In 1988 when he was running for president he not only skipped Iowa because of the peace movement over there but basically told them to go to hell. I'm sure that cost him the nomination but he didn't seem to care because the issue (Cold War arms race) was far more serious than just an election.

[renie408]

16. Not sure I follow your logic

Why wouldn't he be vocal? He is in the perfect position to criticize the current administration without becoming cannon fodder himself. Why not take advantage of it?

[Rowdyboy]

6. Yep, and they'll call him a lying flip-flopper....

Far too many other candidates think they're the perfect candidate and they will be running. If Gore wants to run, he needs to get out there and run-screw the Republican attack machine. I agree that he would be a great candidate but the days of waiting until the public comes begging you to run are over.

[drummo]

9. Over?? For goodness sake it's 2005!

He has a bunch of time.

[Rowdyboy]

12. Certainly, I don't mean he needs to do anything differently right now....

But when 2007 rolls around, with likely candidates like Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and Clark among others, waiting for a draft is not a sensible move. If he wants it, he would need to ramp things up again next year and hit 2007 at full stride.

One reason Wes Clark did so poorly in 2004 is reluctance to commit. He never overcame his late start and decision to stay out of Iowa.

[renie408]

14. Ok

I thought your first post was a little weird cause it is three years out. I understand what you are saying now. I don't think he will wait as long as Clark did, especially if the idea is laying in the back of his mind right now.

I agree that he should not hang out too long. But I also think that there will be a BIG grass roots ground swell begging him to run again as we get closer to 2007.

[Apollo11]

10. Strongly agree with drummo and AlGore-08.com

Gore had to distance himself from Clinton in 2000. A large number of swing voters were disgusted by Clinton's behavior with an intern in the oval office. Not just swing voters - Hillary was disgusted with her husband's behavior and most of us had much more sympathy for Hillary - and for Monica (who was manipulated and abused by a celebrity who she had a huge crush on) than we did for Slick Willy himself. But I know there are some hardcore Clinton fans (also here on DU) who believe the sun shines out from Bill's behind.

Gore in 2000 got 50 million votes - and those are just the ones they counted !!!

Clinton was never popular or respected enough to get 50 million votes. The fact is he was helped into office twice over by Ross Perot - who took votes away from the GOP candidates.

Gore was searching for ways to distance himself from Clinton without publicly condemning his boss. So he ended up picking Joe Lieberman as his running mate - for one reason only - that is because Lieberman had spoken out against Clinton's behavior. But as it turns out - Lieberman was not the best running mate Gore could have picked. I think everyone now recognises that - including Al Gore himself (who, don't forget, endorsed Dean in 2004).

The fact is that Gore had to swim against the tide. The tide of public opinion that had lost respect for Clinton, and was looking to restore integrity to the office of POTUS. We might not like it but character issues helped Bu$h to stay competitive in 2000. And still in spite of that - Gore won the popular vote, and would have won the Presidency were it not for the shenanigans of Kat Harris and Jeb Bush down in Florida, the partisan action of the SCOTUS, supported by FOX news, Jim Baker, big oil and all the rest ...

In Gore We Trust
www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net/
:)

[nvliberal]

13. Gore won the election, "distancing" himself from Clinton or not.

This constant bashing of Gore's "tactics" lets the fascists off the hook for outright stealing the presidency using the USSC to do it.

We need to focus on the TRUTH, not on some MSM-type spin.

[renie408]

17. And wouldn't it be harder to do it again?

I mean, wouldn't there be a great deal of scrutiny on the part of...everybody if Gore were running? All Americans know that Bush has been accused of stealing the election from Gore the first time around. And many people on both sides know that the truth was that Gore would have won Florida if the count had gone on.

If Gore won the Dem nomination (which I honestly think he could) and picked from the pool of really attractive Dems out there for running mate (Clark, Edwards...is Obama old enough??), then he could come out swinging and say, "All righty then, last time I got fucked over, but this time I ain't gonna bend over. This is going to get done and its going to get done right!" Naturally he would say that in a more Al Gorian fashion, but you get the idea.

[drummo]

Great idea.

[drummo]

24. Great idea.

[drummo]

22. Agree.

But the Clinton maniacs themselves spread this lie that Gore should have been Clinton's darling in 2000 and that would have given him a landslide victory.

Total bullshit in light of the actual evidence. Clinton hurt the Dems more than anyone else in 2000. Not just Gore the entire party started to be portrayed as immoral, anything-goes liberals. In fact the Dems continued to pay the price for that image in 2002 and 2004.

Clinton did campaign for Kerry in 2004. That helped a lot, indeed.
So we have every reason to believe he would have delivered a lot of votes for Gore, too.
Maybe in another universe but not in this one.

[tritsofme]

36. Clinton had an approval rating in 60% range all of 2000

Gore could have latched on to him and his record and skated with ease into the White House just as Bush's father had done in 1988.

Americans saw through the BS RW lies about Clinton, and Gore didn't utilize him to his full potential on the campaign trail to his own detriment.

And Clinton had a few problems campaigning for Kerry last year, namely massive heart surgery.

[drummo]

37. Yeah job approval but that's not the same as his personal

approval numbers which were horrible especially in red states.

Job approval was meaningless because people had problems with Clinton himself not with his policies. They wanted someone who would continue to pursue his policies but who was very different from Clinton in terms of morality and trustworthyness.

Clinton was losing to Bush in every poll in 2000 except in one taken by ABC among registered voters in Oct, and even that was within the margin of error, just like the Gore-Bush polls at the time.
Why did people want change in 2000 if Clinton himself was so damn popular? How could he be losing in the polls to Bush, an imbecile, if high job approval rating automatically means popularity?

Gore's overall favorable numbers were better in Aug 2000 than Clinton's. Why should he have used an unpopular president in his own campaign? He would have been a fool to do that.


The heart surgery is irrelevant. Clinton was campaigning with Kerry and the national media covered it. They were seen together all over the country. And it did nothing good for Kerry. It wouldn't have done anything for Gore, either. Except that he would have lost by a landslide.

There was an extensive debate on Kos about his issue.
Read the whole stuff between stardate and lando.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/25/19349/8314

The facts are the facts. Clinton hurt not helped Gore in 2000. Even if
for many Dems it's hard to digest.

As for Bush Sr, he did NOT run with Reagan. He, too, just like every veep who runs for president, wanted to establish his own identity during the campaign and get out of Reagan's shadow.
And he was losing big to Dukakis at the beginning of the campaign, despite Reagan's high job numbers.
He turned that around by portraying Dukakis as an out-of-the-maintstream far-left liberal, mostly with the Willie Horton stuff.
That's why he won and not because people saw him as the extension of Reagan.

[drummo]

21. Lieberman didn't promote the invasion of Iraq in 2000

He flip-flopped.

The one thing that alienated Lieberman from Gore was him kissing up to Bush on Iraq.

Not coincidentally Iraq was the very reason why he endorsed Dean. He said that in a New Yorker interview.

It was all about Iraq, not much else. But Joementum didn't want to invade Iraq in 2000. So back then he seemed to be a pretty reasonable person.

[incapsulated]

20. Did he say "I'm not going to run"?

I haven't really been closely following this.

[J-Hen]

23. No he never said that

After the 2004 election Chris Matthews said a source told him Gore would not run in 2008, but since then there has been wide speculation that perhaps Gore would seek the White House.

[drummo]

25. And Chris Matthews is a proven liar, anyway.

Especially when he talks about Gore.
He admitted that he can't stand the guy. Enough said.

[incapsulated]

27. Well, you said in your OP

"about him saying he won't run". I thought there was something I missed.

Anyway, I've felt that he wouldn't run all along, but that's all it is, a feeling. He hasn't closed any doors with a denial, though.

[drummo]

33. And remember that many felt he would run again in 2004

And they were wrong

[Uncle Joe]

29. The only statement, I have heard from him, when asked is

"that he feels like a recovering politician on step nine of a ten step program". This statement tells me that he will be a politician for life and it will be extremely difficult for him to stay out of politics. If we can find him a good enough bottle,I believe he may fall off the wagon.

Considering; that the planet is overheating due to our continuous pumping of poison in to the atmosphere which could threaten all life as we know it,the drowning of New Orleans and incompetent response after Katrina, the War in Iraq based on lies, the treason committed by the highest members of the current administration in exposing classified information all to punish a war critic, the isolation the U.S. now suffers from it's long time allies for walking away from Kyoto and the Iraq War, the exploding national deficit while the top 1% get their tax cuts, the various attempts at depriving people their inherent right to have their vote counted and general pervasive corrupt incompetence exhibited by the naked emperor, I believe Al Gore is getting thirsty.

[jfern]

26. It sounds like he's not planning on running

Perhaps his mind could be changed.

Al Gore has never lost an election.

[jackthesprat]

28. Just think if he actually fought back.

Sorry, I don't intend that as a "flame." I wish candidates like Gore would find their courage when it really matters.

[drummo]

34. What do you think he did for 36 days while Rep thugs were shouting

and screaming in front of his house "Get out of Cheney's house"?

He got the Noirega treatment for weeks.

Could you have fought for that long under those circumstances?

I think most people would have gone crazy but he never lost his dignity.

[Samantha]

30. Gore is not going to tell anyone three years out he is or is not running

That is NOT how the game is played, and he knows very well how to play.

While we have heard the negatives about his not running, here are two positives:

Al Gore is above everything else a statesman. If he convinced he is the ONLY candidate that can run against the GOP and win, he is the ONLY candidate that can possibly mend this country, he will run. And he will be begged. Many of the commentators are now currently saying all the potential Democratic candidates supported the Iraq war. Gore did not. He has this advantage over everyone in the field, except perhaps Dean (who would make a great Vice President or cabinet member).

Gore reportedly told a confident early this year he felt he had the political winds at his back. Was he ever right about that! Against the war. Pro-environment. Break our dependency from oil. Gore has been saying these things, saying these things, saying these things FOR YEARS. And here's a key word from his 2000 campaign that is now more than timely: "Lockbox." He does in fact have the political winds at his back. Who can dispute it?

The biggest problem is the anti-corporate support for Gore and the inevitable bashing. Think GE, Chris Matthews, Gore is a liar. I think the American public is slowly wising up to the fact the corporations are running this country to its detriment. Dean illustrated how a candidate can be funded without corporate support, and if things continue the way they are now, the little guy will be emptying out what is left in his pockets to support Al Gore.

Gore can take it, but we will not know anything definitive until 2006.

Of course

[confludemocrat]

31. Stand him next to Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Bayh, Lieberman: he's a giant

among a bunch of pygmies. A moderate Democrat (that should satisfy most Duers, from what I gather here), who's antiwar(which should but seems would not satisfy a lot of Duers-but screw them). And he distanced himself from Clinton and won, and in so doing pioneered something the rest of us should follow suit on.

[J-Hen]

32. I think Gore would be great

Not only because of the war, but because he is in favor of universal health care.

[ladylibertee]

35. I agree that he should publicly make appearances

[drummo]

38. He has done quite a few

The media did not cover them but they happened