Thom Hartmann says we need a "Draft Gore" Committee.

[benburch]

I think it might not be a bad idea.

Comments?

[blm]

1. How about getting Gore to submit a withdrawal plan for Iraq -

foreign policy was usually a good playing field for him.

[LisaM]

3. First? Why? He didn't get us in there.

He should demand that Bush submit one, however.

I'm really getting tired of people demanding a solution from Democrats. At this point, we are just going to be cleaning up a mess that is not of our own making.

[politicaholic]

7. Hear hear!

:toast:

[blm]

8. I was talking about offering it for the good of the country, not as a

challenge. I am serious about this. I think all great Dems should get behind a strong withdrawal plan, whether they submitted it or not.

I think the wonks with strong military backgrounds SHOULD put their heads together on this for the good of this country and the world. And then they should get on every broadcast show they can to speak in a unified voice in presenting that plan.

Bush is the one who should be challenged by the competent Dems among us.

[MadisonProgressive]

30. Look what happened to Murtha!

[Vincardog]

2. Get the campaign machinery in place. Let Gore announce when the time

is right. Remember he beat aWoL in 2000. He can do it again. He has my support if and only if he STANDS UP FOR VOTING RIGHTS.

[Mend]

4. Gore acted as though the stolen election happened only to him...

and he went away to lick his wounds. Well, it happened to all of us and he wasn't there for us at the worst of times. Also, I would want to know why he chose Lieberman and why he ran from Clinton. And what's with cleaning up Hollywood? Is that the over-riding issue in America?

[Adelante]

10. Oh, yes

Between 2000 and 2004 he had all the time in the world to advocate election reform. I want to know why he didn't insist that EVERY vote be counted. I want to know why he abandoned Florida's African-Americans who were deprived of their votes. I want to know why he talked Barbara Boxer out of standing up in the Senate with the Black Congressional Caucus. I want to know how he lives with that scene in Farenheidt 911 as he slams down the gavel on our country's future. Maybe then and only then would I give two minutes to even considering Al Gore in 2008.

[LisaM]

20. That is NOT true

If you read the books on Selection 2000, he did put forth the notion of machines being tampered with, and not only in that election. He was roundly ridiculed. The book I am thinking of was either the Jake Tapper or Jeffery Toobin book written in early 2001 (I'm sorry, I can't remember which it was) and the author mocked Gore for even suggesting that computers tampered with results.

[radio4progressives]

39. You are correct - Gore was brutally attacked for even so much as "hinting"

that it was a stolen election, and over the years i've read a lot of material, when pieced together, strongly suggests that the party "leaders" laid down heavy pressure, vis a vis various tactics and with the help of the media to just shut Gore up.

Other materials I've read suggest that Gore did not choose Lieberman, Lieberman was chosen and thrust on to Gore by Clinton as a nod to the Jewish community that the Israeli and Middle East agenda will continue to be on the front burners in a Gore Administration.

Now that Gore is liberated from the party apparatus, i would be very interested in a "draft Gore" campaign, but I fear that he would not be free to openly speak out and do the things he's doing today regarding media matters he's been involved in - which is really important too.

[truebrit71]

5. Why?

.

[ticapnews]

6. I prefer a "Draft Bush" committee...

a couple of Navy SEALs, some members of Delta Force and a handful of guys from the 101st. They could infiltrate the White House, "rescue" the president from his bed and he'd wake up on a transport headed for Baghdad.

Now that's a committee I'd be proud to support.

[acmavm]

9. No we don't. I don't want Gore to be our candidate. He may have 'won'

the first time, but he didn't fight for it. What we need is a fighter, not a runner.

Plus, as has been pointed out, he picked Leiberman as a running mate.

[melody]

12. He did fight it. He took it all the way to the Supreme Court.

If there was a runner, it was John Kerry.

That said, I'd take ANY Democrat any day over His Royal Minus.

[second edition]

15. I 'm not for Gore running again,but he did fight for the Presidency.

This is where his reputation was scorched and he was ridiculed. I do agree with you on Leiberman though, what was he thinking at the time?

[NYCGirl]

18. The DLC (a part of which Gore is no longer) wanted Lieberman. NT

[NYCGirl]

17. He fought for SIX WEEKS, right up to the Supreme Court. How much more

could he have done? The Democratic Party told him to give up, his running mate told him to give up, but he went on. He was ridiculed by everyone, but he went on.

You are so very mistaken.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. I understand your point.

I wish he had advised Barbara Boxer to act as her own conscience dictated in the Senate when the election was being contested and she asked for his advice, but speaking for myself I can forgive him for that. At least Gore had the courage to stand there in the Senate and face people who wanted him to fight on further when he thought it was not in America's interests to do so, painful as it is for me to look at that now.

But then Al Gore mostly dropped out of sight for two years. He could have been a real leader for Election Reform. Had he been that then, 2004 might have turned out very differently. Al Gore earned the right to drop out of the public debate after Bush was sworn in, but that doesn't make me want to draft him now, nor does his current silence on issues of War and Peace dispose me toward doing so. I like Gore OK, better than most I would say. If my choices get narrowed to him Clinton or Biden, for example, I would strongly support Gore.

[NYCGirl]

31. Current silence? He's been speaking out consistently.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/5/14301/6133

http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=84

http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=67&Itemid=84

http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=84

http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=84

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

http://www.moveonpac.org/gore5/

There's a whole lot more where that comes from.

And how could he have been a leader for election reform? He didn't have a job in Washington to go back to. He became a private citizen and lost his "soapbox."

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. I specifically meant on what the United States should do now in Iraq

Look, I am net positive Gore, and I don't say that about all Democrats, not even most of them. Gore has not been mute for 5 years, obviously. Had he refused to comment on any of the problems facing our country over that time period I would not now be willing to even remotely consider him. Gore is potentially very news worthy, even today. He was more so in the four years between the stolen 2000 Election and the stolen 2004 Election, when he was the last Democrat to have run for President.

Right now John Edwards and Wes Clark,(and soon Marc Warner) are private citizens. Where there's a will there's a way. Anyway, Good Luck (sincerely). If Al Gore speaks for you then I certainly respect your wanting to have his voice more widely heard.

[acmavm]

42. We need someone who, if he KNEW he was right, would still be fighting

to this day. Unless you can tell me what the time limit is? Is there one?

And the same goes for Kerry. In fact, I have less respect for him than I do Gore.

[second edition]

11. No thank you, IMO, Gore is past his time!!!

Why doesn't Hartmann consider Kerry? He makes references to Nixon running a couple of times, Kerry strikes me as being more up on things at this point.

[Larkspur]

19. Kerry running again? Ha ha ha ha

Gore fought for 36 days after the election and was screwed by a kangaroo Supreme Court. Clinton was little help to Gore with Independent voters. Polls proved that. Clinton was sent to campaign with African American voters, who were not bothered by Clinton's sexual faux pas.

Kerry underestimated Bush and Rove and lost to the worse president in US History. Kerry, not Bush or Rove, neutralized the most important issue of the 2004 election -- Iraq. By neutralizing it, Kerry sealed his electoral doom.

[Peace Patriot]

37. I disagree. All the evidence--except for that provided by Diebold's and

ES&S's "trade secret," proprietary programming code, and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies' DOCTORED exit polls (--doctored to FIT Diebold's and ES&S's 'results'), points to a Kerry win. The real exit polls, all other polls--not just some, all (issue polls, approval polls, going back several years)--new voter registration figures (a Dem blowout, nearly 60/40), reports on big majorities for Kerry from new voters, independent voters and former Nader voters, unprecedented turnout (always favors Dems), strong evidence of tampering with the new electronic voting systems, evidence of massive suppression of Dem votes and purges of minority voters in certain areas, and non-transparent, insecure and extremely hackable new voting systems, with no or inadequate audit/recount procedures.

I think Kerry won by 4% to 5%, but I do think that if he'd been against the Iraq war, and had taken a principled stance on other matters, such as torture (63% of Americans opposed to torture "under any circumstances," May '04), he may have gotten enough votes to overcome the electronic fraud and the vote suppression in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere. He needed more like a 10% margin. They were scrambling to overcome his win, as it was. I think that's why they used such blatant, egregious tactics in Ohio--they were desperate. I suspect that they were desperate because the electronic voting systems had to be pre-programmed to certain percentages (they couldn't be hacked on election day), but I'm not sure of this yet.

Also, I think they had contingency plans for a Kerry blowout (a phony "terrorist" alert shutdown of the vote in certain places, which they had well prepped in the "news" prior to the election). I don't think Kerry would be in the White House, no matter how many votes he really got. Too much at stake for the Cartel. Too many crimes committed, that they needed time to cover up.


What to do now?

I think we should avoid basing our strategy in '08 just on our feelings about the stolen elections. Feelings are important, but we are in a very dire situation, with Bushite corporations controlling election results. We have to think strategically how best we can restore our right to vote, and who best could help us do it.

In that sense, I think a Gore/Kerry ticket would be stunning--and what "poetic justice"! The two men who were criminally deprived of the presidency running together!

I think the country would love it.


Kerry and 2004

I can't make a judgment of Kerry yet, as to 11/3/04. I don't know what he went through that night. It was such an abrupt concession, I'm sure he was going through something, and it was not good. Maybe just the realization that the Dem Party leaders--the corrupt and the cowardly--wouldn't support a challenge, and with a very hostile Congress, a very hostile press, and a very hostile Supreme Court (if they got into it), he didn't have a prayer. With not even Dem Party backing, they would have cooked him for dinner; they would have finished him off. Or maybe it was something even worse. (Threats? The pending assault on Falluja--immediately after the election?) I also picked up recently that he got disinformation on the electronic voting from Christopher Dodd (yikes!). I really do not think he is a coward. I think he is a decent, intelligent man, and would make a fine president (even though I despised his war stance--I think he misread the people, and was being political, trying to get Bush out. I don't think he ever would have done that war, or torture, himself; ). I think he may now more fully realize that it was stolen--I think he wasn't convinced on election night--and I think that it is a shock to him. He did not believe they would do it again.


Gore--wow!

As for Gore, if you were following his speeches last year, you know he is a changed man. I have never heard anything so inspiring. He's hot. He knows what he's talking about. He is uncompromising about it. (--on torture, for instance--his speech would make you weep; it did me). He's done a lot of hard thinking. He understands all the fundamental principles of our democracy that have been violated. He's passionate about them. He knows about electronic voting. I don't know that he's re-thought NAFTA, but I fully expect he has. I want that man in the White House.


A savvy, winning ticket

The important things to me are: Who (among the viable candidates, and the best people) can win--that is, who can get enough votes to overcome the Diebold/ES&S programming? And--very important--do they KNOW what they're up against, with Diebold and ES&S (and the media exit poll collusion)?

Gore and Kerry know. And I think they can win. And I would absolutely love to see them do it.

[longship]

32. Because unlike Gore in Florida,

Kerry did not fight the election debacle in Ohio. Gore took plenty of heat for his fight for fair accounting in FL. This may explain why Kerry was so reticent to take up the battle in OH. But Gore seems to have grown a considerable spine recently while Kerry is still caving on the 2004 OH results.

If he runs, and speaks like he has been the past two years, he's my number one candidate. Others may come into the race after the midterms which might change my mind, but right now I cannot think of a single person who would inspire me more.

[Doctor_J]

13. Excuse me

Thom goes out of his way to say, often, that he is NOT a Democrat. So what does he mean by this?

[benburch]

21. That Gore could win and would be a good President.

Thats what he means (as I read it.)

[Doctor_J]

23. Read what?

I didn't see a link. And I still don't understand what a self-proclaimed indy like thom is doing proposing Dem candidates

[benburch]

29. How I read what he said.

Today's show, listen to the archive or the repeat stream.

And he has every right to talk about who he wants as President. Why shouldn't he?

[melody]

14. I agree 300%

The only thing is, I'm not at all sure Al would be open to it.

[benburch]

22. That's why we would have to draft him. nt

[melody]

25. lol - yeah, good point

We may need his old Harvard roommate to drag him to the convention, though.

[benburch]

28. That could be done...

I'm not above playing dirty. ;)

[melody]

33. "Your Fugitive's name is President Albert Gore, Jr" n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I would be more likely to draft Bill Bradley

if we hadn't already drafted Wes Clark. I would support Gore over Clinton, for example, if Gore decides to run, but he is not my first choice. Good luck if you want to try though. There are things I like and don't like about him.

[On the Road]

34. Look -- I Love Bill Bradley

I went to some early organizational meetings for his 2000 campaign. I think he would make a good president.

But Bradley ran a terrible campaign. For all the criticism of Gore's campaigning skills, Gore trounced him.

I have similar concerns about Clark. He is smart, a good speaker, and would make a good president. But there's an intangible that IMO Clark doesn't have. Gore didn't used to have it either, but he acquired it after Labor Day 2000 and has it now.

That, plus Gore's experience, make me think Al would be an excellent candidate for 2008.

[Neil Lisst]

45. the more you know him ...

... the less impressive Bill Bradley is.

He's a bright guy who is terrible at pressing the flesh. He's less capable of mixing in with the regular guy than Kerry or Gore. He's stiff and uncomfortable. He would be a great assistant to a president, because he's smart, thorough, and thoughtful.

But OMG, he'll never be president! He's not a politician, at least not a good one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. I'll take both your word for it, especially since he shows no interest

in running himself and most especially since I am already very pleased with my first choice. Maybe Bradley would fit in well in the next Democratic Administration. I always did get a good feeling about Bradley, but then again I always look past glitz anyway and many people don't.

[Neil Lisst]

50. Bill Bradley is a great guy, a wonderful person, and right on issues.

But not electable nationwide.

And if you think THK has an accent, wait until you hear Bradley's wife. She makes Henry Kissinger sound like he's from the Bronx.

I admire and respect Bradley, but he can't be president.

If I had to choose one person to pick to win, right now I'd go with Al Gore, warts and all. You know he's up to it.

And, let's not forget, he did win!

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. Well you already know I'm supporting Clark, but...

...there certainly are plausible scenarios under which I would throw my support, for what it's worth, behind Gore. I have some issues with Gore being our nominee in 2008, but not ones that would stop me from actively supporting him if it came to that, or if some of the other names mentioned were my only other realistic choices. I have no desire to pick him apart now, Gore is a good man. If you manage to get him into the race we can discuss all the pros and cons when primary time comes around again. Until then I'll just say that I am glad to have Gore on our side.

[Neil Lisst]

53. I like Clark very well, but I wonder if he's enough of a politician ...

... to get elected. He's a great guy, I'm just not sure he can RUN for office the way a person has to run. He doesn't seem like he enjoys it to me, and that's a problem. Good politicians love being politicians, love feeling the crowd roar approval. They're addicted to it. They do it because they need to, like a stand-up comic or a preacher.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Let's talk about this some time on a Clark thread, it's more appropriate

But thanks for your positive comments. I think Clark has evolved a lot since he started to run last time. So did Gore actually. The nation could do far far worse than either one of them, that's for sure.

[eppur_se_muova]

61. The nation could do far far worse than either one of them

and HAS!!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. i agree

[longship]

27. I think this is a good plan.

First, Gore has come out of the woods in the past couple of years. He's speaking out like he hasn't done before. His arguments are intelligent, coherent, and contain a certain level of fire and brimstone. IMHO, Gore has yet again remade himself, and in a very positive way. If he stayed in this mode he'd make an absolutely formidable opponent for the Repugs.

Second, he is a wonderful speaker. He works without notes. His speeches have been lucid. No more stiffness.

Third, he is close to being the most capable of any of the putative candidates. He's as smart as any. He can communicate as well as any. There's no doubt that he could do the job. He also has the advantage that he is currently not a DC insider.

Those who are dwelling on the 2000 campaign with Joementum and Gore's formally stiff and spineless performance should snag one or more of his recent speeches and see if I'm not correct. Also, there's no way that Gore would select Leiberman again. Gore/Edwards? Gore/Clark? I can see a lot of combinations that would work well and almost none that do not.

My conclusion is that Gore could very well be the leader for which we have all been praying. After the midterms I would support some gentle pressure to get him back into the political fold. This man has been saying all the right things. He has a detailed plan. In spite of the fact that he claims he's never going to run for office again, he is certainly acting like a candidate, albeit a dark horse one.

We need a *leader*. Gore very well might be that person. If he can be persuaded to run again, I would be behind him all the way.

[Uncle Joe]

36. I think it would be a great idea!

He is hands down, head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd as far as being qualified for the job. His expertise on national security, environmental (which is also national security), and technological issues is unmatched.

He has done more for the American People and democracy than anybody, only to be trashed for his good deeds by the corpwhorate owned MSM. He empowered us with the ability to communicate with each other across the planet and to create a human synergy much smarter than any individual or group of individuals. If anything saves our experiment with democracy or the planet's environment, it will not be the military or the press, it will be the internet.

For this threat to the corpwhorate owned monopoly on the truth, power and influence, he was ridiculed as the exaggerator or liar, while Bush was said to bring "dignity and honor back to the White House". Everything Al said that Bush and the neocons would do to screw the American People and the planet in 2000 has come to pass. Meanwhile the same corpwhorate owned MSM that branded Al Gore as the liar are the biggest liars of all. They would go on to cheer lead our merry way to a war based on lies, all for the sake of empire, and today you cannot tell a difference between the "corpwhorate owned MSM" and any GOP propaganda outlet.

Regarding Al's credibility, character, compassion, honor and integrity, ask the stranded doctors and patients from New Orleans, or the American Airlines personnel that allowed him to charter two flights at $50,000 each to rescue them based on his word.

[Apollo11]

38. Gore is a Fighter

I think someone already pointed out that back in 2000 Gore fought for 36 days to get some kind of justice not only for his campaign and for the Democratic Party, but justice for the voters of Florida and for the people of America. He fully explored every option that was open to him, based on the best evidence that was available at the time (without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight).

But when the GOP-packed SCOTUS voted 5-4 to stop the Florida recount, Gore had nowhere left to turn. Like it or not most Democrats in Congress were not in favour of delaying or preventing the Bu$h2 inauguration by any means necessary. Most leading Democrats (the professional politicians) were scared of the media hype, the accusations of "Sore Loserman". They felt it was necessary to respond to polls showing the public wanted "closure".

I don't understand the argument put forward by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit101 and repeated by some people here. OK so the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of Bush, and the GOP had all the votes they needed to push ahead with the inauguration, but still Gore should have grasped any straw, no matter how thin, to show his discomfort with the outcome.

Gore's position on the SCOTUS ruling is so clear, how can anyone not get it: "While I STRONGLY DISAGREE with the Supreme Court's ruling, I accept it". What part don't some people understand?

So maybe 1 or 2 Democratic Senators would have been willing to contest the Florida delegates. Would that have helped Gore? Would that have made him look good, as the sitting VP Presiding over a Congress where only 2 or 3 out of 100 Senators is saying that the Florida delegates were not lawfully elected? Most of the Democrats would have stayed silent and then the GOP would have won the vote.

Maybe if all the Democrats in Congress were willing to protest the Florida delegation, and stand together, then Maybe ... just maybe ... it might have been worthy of consideration. But then again .. the GOP had the votes in the bag so it would have changed nothing.

I think a lot of Democratic Senators were then and still are in denial about the GOP capacity to rig election results in key states by any means necessary. The Democratic so-called "leadership" figured: "OK, so we had the Whitehouse for 8 years since 1992, we failed to achieve a decisive victory this time around, so now we should let the other guys' have a turn. Let's show America that we are mature, moderate, mainstream Americans who play by the rules and accept the results in a spirit of good sportsmanship. Then hopefully we can find us a candidate who will win back the Whitehouse in 2004 or 2008."

The other side do not think like that. They are ready to do whatever it takes to win power. Whether it means disenfrachising voters, tampering with vote counting, hacking voting machines, installing partisan judges in the Supreme Court, sending congressional aides down to Florida to protest the recount as loudly and violently as possible, controlling the corporate media (everyone knows it was Bush's cousin at FOX NEWS who "called" Florida for Bush).

Gore took things as far as he possibly could have back in 2000. More than that, he came out of that unparalleled (literally) ordeal with his dignity and his credibility intact.

Luckily for us, Gore survived to fight another day.

That day is drawing closer ...

www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net
:)

[melody]

41. excellent post. couldn't agree more. n/t

[leanin_green]

57. Well said and I agree. n/t

[leanin_green]

58. Gore's voice is the only voice I have even heard over the last 6 yrs.

The first to call the * people "brownshirts."
The most consistent voice for environmental concerns since the '00 election. I watched numerous speeches, conferences and the like that he was a part of since '00.
Every speech he has given since the election has grown progressively more firery and from his gut as he has seen how BushCo was operating. To top it off. He wasn't always trying to grab the limelight(like someone who was still running or couldn't give up the stage). I feel better about him now than I did during the '00 election. He's grown and has learned a great deal from the mistakes he made. It's not the same ole Al.

[muryan]

40. good idea

[robbedvoter]

43. Been there, done that. His ship has sailed.

In 2004 he had a great chance to restore the theft, he bailed out. Buh-bye,

[NYCGirl]

44. Did you know the Democratic Party & DLC asked him not to run in 2004?

That's one of the reasons he backed Dean (of whom the DLC was not a big fan).

[radio4progressives]

49. This is the first time I've heard this, but I am not surprised.

thinking about the very idea of the DLC interferring and discouraging Gore to run again infuriates me.

this is another reason the DLC needs to be whacked, figuratively speaking of course.

[robbedvoter]

54. I knew - he said it in his declining speech. Tried to draft him then

and got mixed messages - his people were saying "keep it up" while he was saying: "I have no intention". I can only be jerked around so much.
So, I went and drafter me a more consistent candidate: Wes Clark.

[ArkDem]

46. Why don't we draft someone who hasn't lost?

[benburch]

47. Like Gore! nt

[robbedvoter]

52. Gore didn't lose - W stole it - but you knew that, Ark Project

didn't ya?

[ArkDem]

59. I mean the kind of win where you actually become president.

:shrug:

[benburch]

60. You mean where the Supreme Court isn't corrupt? nt

[sandyd921]

56. It's starting to sound good to me

If he can keep that passion going he may be the real deal! Thom's endorsement of this idea has really got me thinking seriously about Al.:thumbsup:

[mopinko]

62. i'm there. put up the bat. np

[milkyway]

63. Gore/Clark in '08 would kick repug ass and then do a great job getting

us out of the many bush disasters. I liked Gore in 2000, and he's changed A LOT (for the better) since then, both politically and personally.