Al Gore could unite business & progressive Democrats in 2020.

[yurbud]

I just watched the trailer for the sequel to AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

Al Gore was part of the DLC team, but has progressive credibility because of his work on climate change.

Bernie or someone like him could win, but the business wing of the party would fight tooth and nail to keep them from reaching the nomination.

Hillary would have the unqualified support of the business wing, but her ties to Wall Street and the neocons and their cruel, destructive foreign policy would mean progressives might vote for her, but not have an infectious enthusiasm that gets people to the polls who otherwise wouldn't go.

Al Gore is the only candidate with credibility in both wings of the party.

Of course whether someone like him or further left gets the nomination depends of the Democratic Party leadership realizing they ain't going to win over the Republican base, or to the extent that they do, it won't be by aping Republican policies.

[randome]

1. NO! NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!

No more retreads!

It's unfair that Gore lost! It's unfair that Clinton lost! MOVE ON!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[Freddie]

2. Totally agree

A fresh face, someone younger. Or Al Franken, who isn't "young" but wonderful anyway.

[randome]

17. I keep discounting the septuagenarians but yes, there are exceptions to that 'rule'.

Franken is one of them. So would be Warren. Both DEMOCRATS, I might add!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[lapucelle]

28. Al Franken is 65. n/t

[randome]

39. Close enough!

Technicalities...grumble...this place sucks...isn't fair...grumble...mutter...bah!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[yurbud]

11. of "retreads" I'd take Gore over Clinton

[NCTraveler]

15. Where does your comment here even come from? Nt

[yurbud]

125. reply to #1

[NCTraveler]

126. No, not without a stretch. Nt

[Skittles]

122. WE GET IT, YOU HATE CLINTON

MOVE THE FUCK ON

[yurbud]

129. I do not "hate" her. I vote for policies and I'm looking for common ground

corporate Democrats seem to always fall back on "unify behind us or we don't need you," which is clearly not a winning strategy.

[delisen]

23. Sad to discard former candidates as "Retreads."

We don't need for Republicans and others to work hard to disparage our candidates- they succeed in getting some of us to do it for them.

We will be moving on to our next loss-if we don't face up to why we lose when we actually won.

In 2000 the Republicans bankrolled Ralph Nader who told us there was no difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates.

In that election cycle Putin and Russians had observed how easily we are fooled. In fact Putin did remark on our election irregularities the put G W Bush office.

In 2016, Putin and the Russians used their knowledge and intelligence to place their preferred candidate in as our president.

I don't care about the fresh-faced or or the vizened visage. If their is no in-depth knowledge and experience of the foreign affairs and economic issues, they are not ready for prime time-they are no match for the Putin's of the world.

We lost over 900 seats to Republicans over the last 8 years because we did not pay attention, The opposition doesn't sleep and dream. The build and wait; they block legislation; they block judicial appointments. Where their are small spaces between us, they create chasms.

It's not our candidates who are losers. I find the focus on 2020 to be bizarre and the search for the new thrill to be the latest attempt to lose.

[randome]

41. Well, Clinton's age was no doubt a factor.

So was Dolt45's but that doesn't count when you've stacked the deck against your opponent. My point is that it's long past time to hand the reigns of control to new faces with new ideas.

Like it or not, visual impressions count! It isn't fair!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[delisen]

51. Sanders was the old one wasn't he? I guess some were afraid he'd have a stroke

and didn't vote for him in the primaries.

I found Clinton visual refreshing. finally some one visually new in Presidential politics!

[lapucelle]

53. I didn't get the sense that her age was factor.

And if visual impressions really counted that much, Trump wouldn't be the president.

[delisen]

54. Clinton's visual impression makes her bad candidate? Germans more progressive?

Merckel, long in office, has never catered to "glamour-charisma" voter. If she loses this round does it signal German voters becoming less intelligent? or just the new anti-immigrant uprising, or the Russian election-interference in western democracies?


I agree that the many American progressives might vote on appearances rather than facts or knowledge-but sometimes we have to educate the voters rather than accept shallowness as inevitable.

[pnwmom]

108. Nonsense. She was a year younger than DT and 5 years younger than Bernie.

And she looked younger than either.

[BannonsLiver]

56. +1

Poster was probably a toddler when all that went down and doesn't fully understand the magnitude of what was done to Gore. Ive run into that a lot with millenials. It's just a chapter in a history book to them, if that.

[randome]

81. The truth doesn't always work in elections, though.

Too many didn't care about the frivolousness of Clinton's emails compared to Dolt45's ignorance and misogyny. Those who voted for Dolt45 or who sat out the election knew which was the better candidate. They didn't care. That's why stupid and illogical things like appearance matter. This isn't a logical game.

I agree the Presidency is not something that should capture our resources for now. Far too many other avenues to address before 2020.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[William769]

77. It's unfair that Bush won! It's unfair that trump won! MOVE ON!

Who will they give us next?

Just some food for thought.

[randome]

80. I seriously thought they could not do worse than Palin. Man, was I wrong.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[TrollBuster9090]

128. Still, can they go lower than THIS?

by running ALEX JONES?

JOE THE (NON)PLUMBER?

[delisen]

3. Sad to be still looking for Great Male Hope Leader.

[yurbud]

12. I would be very happy to see Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard get the nomination

but the point of my post was noting who could unite the two wings of the party.

[oasis]

20. I wouldn't count on Gabbard keeping her seat in congress. nt

[yurbud]

61. she has pissed off establishment by calling bullshit on regime change--that will be a positive with

voters.

People inside the beltway seem to think that everyone believes the bullshit they spew and want to kiss the same asses they do.

The rest of us have received and will receive zero benefit from destabilizing the Middle East and even Ukraine, and escalating conflict with Russia and China.

[oasis]

65. Gabbard's clumsy attempt to provide cover for Assad's chemical attack

will come back to bite her. Bigly.

[delisen]

97. I think it time for the Human Rights push-the dictators are closing in on us.

One just installed a president in our White House.

[delisen]

31. Unity comes when you stop digging the trench with the shovel-weapons.

[lunamagica]

34. Gabbard, the next POTUS?

[brush]

45. Tulsi Gabbard? Hah! No Dinos please.

[Demsrule86]

62. I don't care for her.

[malchickiwick]

48. Tulsi Gabbard...are you out of your friggin' mind??!!??

I hope you know you're responsible for the vomit all over my keyboard. Thanks a lot!

[delisen]

52. Tulsi Gabbard-amateurism in foreign policy? in human rights, high tolerance

for dictatorships? and you would be happy. Which "wing" of the Democratic Party is that?

[yurbud]

68. Our government doesn't go to war over human rights, dictatorship, or even terrorism

If we did, Saudi Arabia would have been the first place we invaded after 9/11/.

You are confusing excuses and propaganda with reality.

Just because the talking heads on TV nod politely and play along when politicians spew that nonsense on TV doesn't mean all the rest of us are fooled.

Our government overthrows democratic governments that don't obey our banks and corporations and installs brutal dictators.

Please read Stephen Kinzer's OVERTHROW, John Perkins' CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN, or even Daniel Yergin's THE PRIZE, A Pulitzer Prize winning history of oil if you sincerely believe what you said, so you don't vote based just on what you hear on television.

[Demsrule86]

76. Bill Clinton went into Yugoslavia to stop human rights abuses....so

Democrats have done so...and unlike the GOP he was successful.

[yurbud]

111. do you stop human rights abuses using depleted uranium, backing Islamic terrorists, and leaving

a massive base along a pipeline route or the admission of a top diplomat that the war was more about enforcing neoliberal privatization than ending ethnic conflict?

Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State under U.S. President Bill Clinton and the lead U.S. negotiator during the Kosovo war. In a 2005 essay (quoted on page 415), Talbott wrote:

"As nations throughout the region sought to reform their economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society, Belgrade seemed to delight in continually moving in the opposite direction. It is small wonder NATO and Yugoslavia ended up on a collision course. It was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform--not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians--that best explains NATO's war."

http://www.alternet.org/story/98338/naomi_klein_strikes_back_at_critics_of_her_%27shock_doctrine%27_book

And some of those human rights abuses turned out to be as fictional as Iraq's WMD's.

We stirred the pot of ethnic conflict to break Yugoslavia into pieces to make it easier to coerce the pieces to do business on terms Wall Street banks and our oil companies dictate.

Dig deeper than what you hear on TV news. They are just parroting press releases.

[Demsrule86]

112. Baloney...Alternet is rewriting history...there is no question about the

massacres....my old pediatrician was from the area and told me first hand accounts. Clinton did a good thing there.

[yurbud]

114. That wasn't Alternet, that was Naomi Klein reposted there.

She has a pretty good track record of her work holding up after her neoliberal critics excuses and lies fall apart.

[Demsrule86]

116. Naomi Klein is a Clinton hater and pretty much hates the Democratic Party too.

[yurbud]

115. which part do you dispute?

[Demsrule86]

117. The reason for getting involved which Bill Clinton was reluctant to do...

was the murders of innocent people...much like how people wanted something done after Syria gassed babies...Naomi Klein always ascribes the worst motives to the Clinton's and Democrats in general.

[yurbud]

118. she ascribes economic motives which historically turn out to be true. It goes without saying...

Republicans use a slightly different set of excuses since it doesn't take much to get the consent of their base given their bloodlust.

[Demsrule86]

119. Righ,t lets think of a convoluted reason so we can find a reason to trash

a Democratic president and the party. I don't agree with you.

[grantcart]

74. In Hawaii they are not as impressed with Gabbard's Trump friendly attitude

In Hawaii they see behind the headlines and see a Democrat that frequently sides with Trump and the reactionaries

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/17946/Tulsi-Gabbard-lsquoThe-Congresswoman-Trump-Fans-Can-Loversquo.aspx

1. The Hawaii congresswoman was also one of just 47 Democrats who voted for a bill that would make it all but impossible to admit new refugees into the United States.
2. And oddly enough, considering her state’s reliance on the tourism industry, she mirrored Trump’s overreach on immigration issues by calling for European passport holders to be forced to apply for tourist visas
3. She is also wishy-washy on gun control. Trump opposes a ban on assault weapons, aflip-flop from his prior positions; Gabbard, meanwhile, is conspicuously missing from Democrat efforts to legislate the issue. Eighty percent of Democrats, including fellow Hawaii Democrat Rep. Mark Takai, are co-sponsors of a bill that would ban so-called assault weapons—Gabbard is not among them.
4. Both Trump and Gabbard share a common friend: billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. The Hawaii Democrat reportedly introduced an Adelson-backed bill that would outlaw online gambling. Earlier this year, Gabbard won a Champions of Freedom Award at The World Values Network’s annual gala, co-hosted by Adelson. Meanwhile, the magnate has indicated his willingness to donate more than $100 million to Trump’s campaign for president….
5. While she frequently criticized Clinton, she refused to criticize Trump. When given a chance to condemn Trump, such as with this story, Gabbard avoids the topic—and in the past, she has avoided harsh words for the Republican businessman.

[yurbud]

95. that's good to know if true. I'm mainly impressed by her relatively anti-war stance and

honesty about foreign policy.

[phleshdef]

92. Warren is fine but Tulsi Gabbard is a piece of shit.

[pnwmom]

109. Tulsi Gabbard??? She visited DT in the Trump tower

soon after the election, and afterwards came out gushing.

[phleshdef]

91. Its sad that you have a gender requirement at all.

I certainly don't. I'll vote for whoever I think the best candidate is and gender will NEVER be a consideration.

[athena]

120. It's interesting that supporting men is not considered a "gender requirement"

but supporting women is.

The truth is that there has been a gender requirement for the office of the presidency since its beginning. If that weren't the case, we would have had roughly 20-25 female presidents by now. But you're not at all bothered by that. What you're bothered by is a woman resenting that she will probably never live to see a woman president.

Enjoy voting for the next male politician while claiming that gender is NEVER a consideration.

[phleshdef]

121. I voted for a woman in 2016.

If a worthy candidate who happens to be a woman in 2020, I'll vote for her

[athena]

123. I can guarantee you that you will be voting for a man next time,

and that you will not be the least bit bothered by the gender of your choice being no different from that of the last 45 presidents.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. ...

[MoonRiver]

5. BAD IDEA!

We need new, liberal faces, preferably under the age of 60, who haven't lost national elections.

[caroldansen]

6. Your idea is valid. He was the vice president under Bill Clinton. The

two best presidents this country ever had was Bill Clinton and Obama. They made friends with practically every country and everyone loved America. Unlike the republicans. They could ask almost any country for anything and get it. I really want that again.

[GulfCoast66]

96. Best we ever had?

I think Lincoln, FDR and maybe even Washington might disagree. Teddy might disagree as well when he started reigning in corporations. And for lifetime achievement we have to give a nod to Eisenhower who was probably as liberal as Clinton.

I do agree that they are the 2 best in my 50 year lifespan although a strong argument can be made that LBJ had a more positive long term impact with the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society. Had he avoided Vietnam he would be one of he big 3.

Have a nice evening.

[bluedigger]

7. The Al Gore that ran for President almost twenty years ago?

[lapucelle]

57. No, the Al Gore who won the Nobel Peace Prize

for environmental activism 10 years ago.

[jehop61]

8. No please

He's had a chance. Someone new and fresh needed. Besides he's amassed a fortune, had a hooker scandal and a divorce since he last ran. The rebubs would have a field day

[treestar]

10. After Donald those

Types of issues don't matter

[delisen]

24. Please advise us of the outcome of the "hooker scandal." Are you smearing?

Divorce giving Republicans a field day?....in 2020? I don't think so.

[yurbud]

35. I looked up that "hooker" scandal. It was a masseuse who claimed he assaulted her

Here's the text of her report to the police:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/06/23/report-from-the-police-investigation-of-al-gore-sex-case

[kcr]

110. A "hooker scandal"? Just where do you think you are? n/t

[lpbk2713]

9. It might work if he's given up on being "nice" .

He gave in to the other side much too quickly in the Y2K Florida Selection IMO.
And that caused eight years of pain that we might never get over.

[DK504]

18. Or if he hadn't sold his television station

taking away the only progressive tv station on any where in the US.

[delisen]

26. Did you want Gore to oppose the decision of the US Supreme Court?

so our candidate was at fault??? I think I am seeing a pattern here.

[nini]

13. This is a fresh approach to bash Hillary

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Is that what it is?

I really want to move on:

The older I get "remember whenism" becomes more attractive but is ultimately depressing.

[delisen]

49. I think Churchill was the right person for Britain after War was declared.

At the time he had been considered a failure--but he knew the nature of the enemy in the 1930s when others did not and got fooled. He would have been the right person to be Prime Minister in the 1930s-he had the correct world view-others didn't understand that they were already at war.

Churchill got turned out after victory and that was also the right decision-he was of the British Empire, iit was unraveling, and he was the wrong person for a war-changed England.

There are so-called progressive in the Democratic Party-both young and old-who have been very slow to recognize the changing world; slow to recognize how foreign policy and economics intersect.

While they think of themselves as "progressive" I see them as having an old world view and as being regressive in analysis and response.

Any Democrat with a view of women as an interest group whose interest are something that can be described as "women's issues" is out of touch. Any who do not see the primacy of human rights are out of touch. Any who were unprepared for the automated near-future are out-of-touch. Big Money in politics? The focus was entirely on American billionaires-like looking in the wrong end of a telescope.

I don't care if a candidate is 35 years old or 85, good looking or ugly, charismatic or unelectrifying-looking at those characteristics as priority, pivotal, or prerequisites reminds me of Bush fixing the facts around the objective to achieve an act of vengeance and revenge in which the rest of us were to pay for his ignorance, inexperience, and personal vendetta.

Our world has changed over the last decade and many progressives, who think they are cutting edge, did not know it was happening, and then have been slow to acknowledge it.

They did not learn of it in progressive journals nor on msnbc, or in university classes-because those sources are also out of touch.

We have been full of -isms, and blinded to what has been in plain sight.

The one certainty I see is that our world is going to change enormously-it will become much better or much, much worse. We will have human rights or we won't.

I see the focus on a presidential phenotype" for a 2020 victory, without building a coherent vision, a strange endeavor.

[lapucelle]

55. Very nicely put. N/T

[JHan]

105. Well said.

[delisen]

27. Yes. fifth columns are always with us.

[R B Garr]

30. Thanks for pointing that out. It is a bit backhanded,

and I didn't see that at first.

[JHan]

63. I thought the same.

[yurbud]

87. so we can only have one even possible nominee ever? I could see that with FDR. Otherwise...

unless she is already the nominee in an election, you can't summarily dismiss the possibility of other candidates.

[nini]

90. Did I say that?

No I did not.

[yurbud]

94. it's implied when even entertaining the idea of another possible candidate is "bashing"

[nini]

100. in your world perhaps

That is not what I said.

If you want to read more into what I said than what I did - knock yourself out.

bye

[yurbud]

88. THAT is actually a fresh approach to bashing her. Pretending her fans are blind sycophants not...

folks who chose her because they agree with her policy positions.

[Skittles]

124. YES

sickening to see so many DUers use ANY EXCUSE to bash her

[NCTraveler]

14. The "only one" argument needs to die.

"Al Gore is the only candidate with credibility in both wings of the party."

And you have outlined Clinton/Sanders(or someone like him) as our only other options. Strange.

[brooklynite]

16. Tell me...what campaign message of his particularly appealed to you?

I'm willing to bet you can't remember one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. He said he was for the people, not the powerful.

[R B Garr]

25. Lock box. Climate change. There were quite

a few. And he was for climate change decades ago when liberals were openly ridiculed about it. He endured all of that, but persisted. Not like a Senator now who promotes it now that it is a popular subject. I'm at least glad that Gore will be around to take rightful credit instead of letting someone take his spotlight.

[R B Garr]

19. I saw that trailer in the theater, and it took my

breath away to see Gore in action again. Bush got all his Daddy's retreads, which is now just a reminder how much "progressives" work against themselves by banishing brilliant Democrats like Gore and now Clinton based on some phony talking points. We would be living in Gore's world now. Instead we got Bush's war. Doesn't sound too progressive to me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. Do we have to keep going back to those old Clinton-era retreads?

I like Al Gore, but he is more useful doing what he's been doing on environmental issues.

[delisen]

37. Experience as retreads. We don't need no stinking experience. Celebrity is what we need.

I suggest a Kardashian, proven popularity; actors are really charismatic. I don't want a character actor though.

Someone really good-looking and young would really, really, really bring out the voters, dontcha think?

....and don't let the candidate bring up too many facts in campaigning-it's a turn-off ,and makes republicans so angry they unleash their mad dog attackers.

So here are the qualifiers: pretty face if not heart throbbing good looks, handsome physique, little experience,

super charismatic, and someone who gets along with media and the Russians.

Is there anyone working for RT who might be a fit?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. There are plenty of people working in the party now

who are not "celebrities" but who would bring new ideas and new energy, not the same old same old from 20+ years ago. I don't want an inexperienced, flashy celebrity type but I do want someone with a progressive vision. I see no point in continuing to nominate and run our previous losers (who will be in their '70s), even those who didn't deserve to lose.

[lapucelle]

58. Both Hillary and Gore have had successful

post-Clinton era careers in public service. What "old Clinton era retreads" are you referring to?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

75. They should stick to those successful careers.

There are people who are starting to become successful in local progressive politics - people like Obama when he was a community organizer and then a state senator. Those are the people to watch, not the septuagenarians who may have been big cheeses twenty years ago.

[lapucelle]

89. Would you rather have Hillary going back to being a senator

or being a Secretary of State?

Some people who were "big cheeses" 20 years ago continue to be "big cheeses" today. (I'm not quite sure what your "big cheese" standards are, but I assume that someone who received 96,000,000 votes 5 months ago should count, unless, of course, almost being a septuagenarian disqualifies her. And while our most recent nominee was Gallup's "Most Admired Woman" 20 years ago, she still holds that title today, so people must still find her message relevant.)

While it is important to watch for, to mentor, and to promote new leadership, there is also something to be said about the guidance of those with institutional expertise.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

93. If she wants to run for the Senate again, that's fine with me.

The people of her state can decide whether they want her to represent them. Of course there is value in experience, but she can mentor others in a lot of ways besides running for president. I'm her age, and I would like to see someone younger, with new ideas, as a leader. That goes for Bernie, too, in case you are assuming I am biased against Hillary.

[lapucelle]

98. I am one of the people of her state.

Last edited Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:12 PM - Edit history (1)

She was a great senator, and both downstaters and upstaters supported her. I've spent many years as a volunteer. We have two wonderful Democratic senators from NY. Hillary would never try to unseat either of them.

She said in an interview last week that she would like to work on the great unfinished business of the 21st century: equality for women and girls around the world.

Like Susan B. Anthony who never got to cast a vote, Hillary will never sit in the Oval Office. She did, however, clear the path for the next qualified candidate who happens to be a woman.

And history will always wonder what could have been accomplished and who would have better off if Gore and Clinton, both winners of the popular vote, both slurred as the "lesser of two evils", had won the office.

[Binkie The Clown]

32. The Republican noise machine would make mince meat out of him with his own words.

They'd call him a goofball climate alarmist, and worse. They already treat him as the punchline of a joke. It would be far worse if he was running.

That's the last thing we need is another candidate who comes complete with a pre-made laundry list of things the right will hit him over the head with, and the stupid right wing voters already see him as the incarnation of Satan himself.

We can't win by repeating the same mistakes over and over, or running the same tired candidates over and over. It's time for the next generation to step up to the plate.

[delisen]

44. I don't know. The rising temperatures may make him look like a savior-

The Second Coming -a beard would be good. He could take up carpentry-and no one will care if he wears earth tones.

[yurbud]

79. good points

[JHan]

107. Have the republicans ever cared what liberals would think of their candidates?

Or how liberals will paint their candidates?

They are going to smear our candidates regardless - whether old or young, male or female, they will find something and swiftboat relentlessly.

It's time for us to stop giving a fk where this is concerned and fight them using their own game. On AM Joy, there was discussion about the ways republicans have sought to smear Ossof as a terrorist sympathizer - yes a terrorist sympathizer.

The republicans have lost all moral ground to pontificate about our politicians. They've nominated a shameless liar, a corrupt, intellectually lazy, compromised, inethical boor to run for president and we are still wondering how they will smear our best and brightest?

What we need to do is stop letting them define who we are.

[lapucelle]

33. Wait...in 2000 Gore was falsely painted as

"the lesser of two evils". That's how a third party candidate (with the help of the media) siphoned off enough votes to give the election to Bush.

Gore is no longer "evil"? Maybe both he and Hillary could run in the 2020 primary so we can have the opportunity to decide which of the two is the true "lesser of two evils between two lesser of two evils".

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?_r=0

[delisen]

42. In 2000 Republicans bankrolled Nader's run against Gore. Are they smarter than we are?

[lapucelle]

46. They know how to cultivate and exploit useful idiots from all sides.

[yurbud]

50. 2000 should have been a turning point in a lot of ways

after the theft of the election via voter purges and the Supreme Court, Democrats should have made it harder for the "lesser of two evils" charge to stick, and once back in power, done everything they could--LOUDLY-- to stop voter disenfranchisement.

[JHan]

64. lol threadwinner lol.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

36. An excellent public servant, but a poor candidate, so Not a good idea nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. We can't go back in time.

[ZX86]

43. Call Joe Lieberman!

We're getting the band back together!

[yurbud]

86. OK, that's the best argument against Gore--worst VP pick this side of Palin

[brush]

47. O'Malley will try again. There's Warren, Franken and hopefully some young bloods will emerge

Time to move forward while gesturing fondly back towards our "should've been, and actual winners" from the past.

[Glitterati]

59. Fair or Not, Al Gore is seen as a loser.

However, he lost, he lost spectacularly and no one comes back from that political graveyard.

Do you have any idea how many times we will hear "He lost his own state" during a campaign?

[Demsrule86]

60. We need someone new.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

66. Unless Presidential campaigns are dramatically shortened and issues-focused, forget it.

Gore doesn't have the personality to survive it.

His best chance was in 2000 after serving as VP and representing a continuation of Clinton.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

67. The one the far lefted labeled as no different than Bush

Last edited Sat Apr 15, 2017, 03:21 PM - Edit history (1)

I respect Al Gore but it's up to him whether he wants to run or not in 2020.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

69. He did quite well among self-identified liberals.

2000 Exit Polls.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/

6% of liberals voted for Nader, but the 81% to 13% margin among the other liberals was far better than the margin among moderates.

[R B Garr]

70. Here is the trailer for Gore's new movie. THIS is what we could have had!

[Thrill]

71. I think Howard Schultz is going to run

And he's going to surprise people by how good of a speaker he is. Going to be better than you think on the stump

[davsand]

72. I think Dems need to move on to new faces.

If they've run before at that level they need to be retired. Biden is probably my pick of that particular litter, and even he's probably not a viable candidate, if I'm being honest.

It's time for new meat and fresh faces. No more Clinton era, or Obama era politicians, please. They did their time, let them rest while somebody else takes those body shots.



Laura

[Voltaire2]

73. That is a terrible idea.

[jg10003]

78. Gore is my hero but Americans don't vote for...

Technocrats. Dukakis, Gore, Hillary, Adlai Stevenson, Dewey. All very compatent but could not rouse the passions of voters.

[Gothmog]

83. I could support Al Gore

[JI7]

84. FUCK THOSE WHO DIDN'T SUPPORT GORE IN 2000

None of those fuckers are progressives. Same fucking ones who always want to lecture othErs.

kerry would have been great in 2004 and Hilary in 2016 . I'm so glad we had Obama.

[cheapdate]

106. Word.

[alarimer]

85. What an uninspiring choice then and now.

No thanks.

[mvd]

99. Too risky

I feel he would have many of the same problems Hillary had. Would be a good leader but not the best candidate. I know Gore and Hillary really won, but I would sooner run Hillary again than Gore, and I really prefer some new.

[nycbos]

101. WTF are you smoking?

[Lisa0825]

102. I truly LOVE Al, but I want to see someone who will be under 70 running.

Not ageism - I just think it is time for the new generation of our party to step up.

[doc03]

103. What next we going to dig up a corpse to run. I like Al Gore, I like Hillary Clinton

and Bernie Sanders but their ship has sailed. Don't we have anyone that isn't on Medicare to run?

[Warren DeMontague]

104. I used to want him to run again very very much.

But that ship has sailed and just as importantly, i dont think he wants it.

We need to expand our bench... rather than one "marquee" candidate sucking up spotlight and airtime, I'd rather have 10 lesser and semi-knowns making a name for themselves and discussing the future of our party, nation, and planet.

[TNLib]

113. I hope he runs and others as well

I don't understand why we can't have several great candidates run in the primary.

[TrollBuster9090]

127. Gore and Biden both do, but...

but they'll both be in their 70s by 2020, and their running would make it look as though the Democratic Party hasn't had a new idea, or a new generation, or a new infusion of energy for 20 years.

Even the Republicans have new blood. Granted, it's pretty hard to find people who were born in the 50s and 60s who have the mean, stale, dour ideas of the 1930s Republican Party...but somehow they're managing to do it.

Surely we can do better.

[WinkyDink]

130. He conceded too quickly for my taste.