Is Al Gore the 'way out of a mess'?
By Steve Benen Thursday Mar 27, 2008 5:47pmThe political world spent a fair amount of time last year mulling over whether Al Gore would run for president, who his running mate would be, whether he could win, etc. Once it became clear that Gore wouldn’t run, speculation shifted to who he’d endorse, when, and what kind of impact it might have.
Now, however, we should probably get ready for a new wave of Gore-related scuttlebutt, centered around a new idea: Al Gore, compromise candidate.
The first I heard of this was earlier this week, when Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.), considering the prospects of a brokered convention, told a Florida paper, “If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket.”
A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization’s editorial board.
If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.
The idea certainly seems far-fetched, but it's starting to generate more attention, not less.
Login or Register to post comments.
Not gonna happen. Obama is nominee.
And what about Gore? Does he have a say in the matter?
Bad move. I'd probably vote for him, but I know many people my age (19-24) who want Obama.
Right wing talking point, designed to distract and divide Democrats.
Rejected.
Those who believe that Gore should run should realize that Gore, like Obama and Clinton, is against the immediate and total withdrawal of American forces from that abattoir in Iraq. Keeping the troops in that slaughterhouse a day longer than necessary is not the best way of supporting them.
Bring them home-alive and in one piece-now.
I really don't understand why people are giving Hillary so much credit at this point as a viable candidate. Even her own campaign says she has at most a 10% chance and in my opinion Obama will make a terrific candidate and a very good President. It has been my opinion for a very long time that the corporate media has been the ones that have been promoting her just to make it a close "horse race" that attracts eyeballs. It is past time Hillary is given the same coverage as Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and Kucinich. She is no longer a viable candidate we need not be drawn into the discussion the argument.
Actually, fuck it. I'm going to get bitched at for saying this, but I will not vote for Gore should he be the 'compromise candidate'. Don't worry, I'll still vote straight down the line Democratic for every other office in my home state, but I'll select one of the Socialist candidates should this transpire.
Sorry, DNC, but Obama must be the candidate.
If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.
Gore's lost twice already, once in the '88 nomination, and the second time in 2000. He's like Edwards: a guy with his heart in the right place, but no sense of brinkmanship.
i used to want him to step up. sorry to say that now i see him as the One Who Won' Step Up When It Counts. like calling for a recount. or running when we all wanted him to. dunno. feels too late. "compromise candidate"? ugh.
In fact, Big Al's Already ‘Warming Up’
The media is playing up the whole Democrats are destroying each other. Thats crap. In Pennslyvania people are going to vote in record numbers. A huge amount of Repugs switched to Democrat and not because of Limpballs.
Mitch @ 1:
not necessarily.
And Gore is far too smart to run again.
YES yes yes yes yes and kucinich 08
Tequila @ 9:
bullshit ! the media and the repigs tell you whos going tol get the votes!
Mitch @ 1:
The Obamanee.
NONSENSE.
Given Dean's statement today, the win by Obama will be in place by July 1, long before the convention.
Al Gore WILL NOT step into Obama's win. Anyone calling for such is trying to carry forward the outmoded view that a black man cannot win. NONSENSE.
• HRC has carried on a scorched earth policy, and the DLC must answer for it.
Dean is closing out the superdelegates' status. That is the correct path. Let them make their choices by July 1, and then we will unite to dismantle the Republican Crime Wave via their chosen leader, John McCain't.
no free rides Al.
Barrack had to earn his popularity, votes, pledges the hard way.
Erroll @ 5:
my sentiments exactly!
Tequila @ 9:
Gore DID NOT LOSE in 2000.
I like Gore and we all know he got robbed in 2000, but look who he chose for a running mate. Those kinds of mistakes will never be forgotten. He is still part of the old ways of government. We want Obama. We want change in how our government is run.
RueMorgue @ 7:
If you socialist vote allows McCain't to win your state, you can go fuck yourself with a yardstick.
Paul in LA @ 20:
He just lacked the guts to keep fighting for the victory that was rightfully his.
Ron @ 21:
Gore DID NOT choose Lieberman -- the DLC did (the Clintons did).
Only John Adams and George Bush were two term VP's and one term Presidents, Richard Nixon is the only Pres. to be a two term VP and a two term Pres.
Anyone other than Obama will split the party, the people have spoken, they want Barack Obama, and Hillary will not accept that. Too bad for her. She's only prolonging her eventual loss.
Jeez, I get up almost everyday wishing Gore was in the White House. Bush has been one long nightmare.
Man in the Mists @ 23:
Bullshit. If you don't know we have had a coup, then you are grossly underinformed.
Paul in LA @ 22:
I'm from Illinois. Jesus Christ could be the Republican nominee and he wouldn't win my state. But I can still deprive the DLC-er's one vote, just for the satisfaction of knowing that I did not contribute to the re-incarnation of the 1972 electoral cycle.
odanny @ 25:
Nixon was also a lying scheming murderous hateful anti-democratic crook, plus he kept the same types of people around him for the same purposes.
Oh come on! We don't need any of this. Hillary needs to wake up, smell the mocha latte, and quit beig an inconvienent pain in the ass.
It's completely ridiculous. Al Gore isn't interested in the job. If the party has enough vigor to actually disenfranchise *all* of the voters who voted for either Clinton or Obama and go with someone who wasn't on ANY of the ballots, then they certainly have the balls to simply say Obama is it he has the most votes the other 44% of democrats just have to live with it (or not, their choice), Obama is the nominee.
If they're really too wimpy to actually tell Clinton that she's done next week after North Carolina votes (and certainly by the time PA and IN are done), then they're too wimpy to go for Gore.
Further it presupposes that the real problem Hillary has is with Obama himself. This isn't personal for her. She just thinks she is the only suitable Democratic party candidate. It will be her or no one as far as she's concerned. She would never agree to compromise with Al Gore being top on the ticket or anyone else. Period.
Get real people.
Paul in LA @ 24:
Agreed, but he could have said no. If he had gained the whitehouse, look at who we would running now. The election being stolen by Bush, may be a blessing in disguise.
jimbo92107 @ 4:
Agreed. This is just mental masturbation.
Screw That. Gore should only be on the ticket if he accepts Obama's invitation to be Vice President.
USA invade Bagdhad.........That would be Stupid?
Dick Cheney's words of wisdom in 1994.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=50c_1188905271
Space Coyote @ 33:
Good Perspective. Thanks.
If the Democratic party does this, I'm becoming an Independent. There are people who are saying if the super delegates hand the nomination to Hillary, they will not see her as a legitimate candidate. Why would it be different for Gore? Why should I vote for him? He isn't even interested in the job anymore, so why should we give it to him? And what makes these people think he'll win if he is seen as a compromise candidate?
It's nothing more than a hearty f*ck you to the voters if this happens.
Sorry, but even if Gore had "won", he'd still have had as much of a "mandate" as Bush did in 2004. He lost, and that's that.
RueMorgue @ 28:
Same thing for California, but I am seriously going to have to work hard not to punch anyone who says to my face that they, a supposed Democrat, will vote for McCain't if Obama is the candidate.
I've met several, and shouted myself hoarse. As someone who has always supported the Democratic party, the time has ENDED for the bigot Clintons and the corporate DLC to betray us. That said, I rejoice that Hillary has had such a public shaming.
If Gore is nominated ('cuz a white man beats a black and a woman, even though not one person has voted for him), I won't vote for any Party nomination for years! I'd vote for the liar and cheater who saved rwanda from a hail of bullets before I'd vote for Al freakin' Gore!
Paul in LA @ 27:
Good point.
Tequila @ 38:
He did not lose. GWB NEVER had a mandate, except the one he ripped from our heart on Nine-eleven.
You're reading comic books written by cretins.
Ron @ 21:
agreed, excellent point
this gore idea is just silly. if obama doesn't win the election, it will be because there was some horribly frightening skeleton in his closet....he would disappear.....
there is no compromise needed otherwise...
the only thing the party needs to do is get the loser (clinton) to shut up and walk away, a la huckabee....(funny, that loser jerk was from AK also, no? maybe its an AK thing)
Ruthless People @ 8:
"If the dog wouldn't have stopped to sh*t, he would've caught the rabbit."
Paul in LA @ 39:
You know, I absolutely agree with you. I'm goddamned done with 'triangulation', I'm done with Southern Democrats, I'm done with the Clintonistas, and I'm done with Joe Lieberman. We as a party need to remember our liberal heritage or else we, as a party, are not worth the paper the chads dangle from.
If anyone from the Democratic Party is reading this, I demand that you grow a pair, fast.
Were are the white-devil Pennsylvanians, I keep waiting for them to materialize but have yet to here a thing.
Mike Gravel , just went Libertarain , hmm ! .
EliteLemming @ 46:
they will be out once the sun goes down.....
Last week I believed that a Gore-Obama ticket should have been a compromise.
But since Hillary has lost ground this week, I believe that this race will sort itself out after May 6th. If Obama keeps Pennsylvania under 10, and win North Carolina and Indiana, then this race is over. EVERYONE will finally start treating Clinton like Huckabee if she tries to continue on past North Carolina and Indiana.
I don't think the party can be harmed anymore as long as Obama just focus all of his attention on McCain and deflect anything Clinton shoots at him.
ohio progressive (typical white person) @ 43:
No, my dad was born in Arkansas. He was a real Democrat.
Even if Gore ran I'd still "have my crush" on Obama. I am 100% for Obama. The end.
Obama/Gore 2008
Paul in LA @ 22:
Thanks, Paul....sure needed a good laugh! This is the same kind of shit that led people to waste their votes on a loser like Nader because they were pissed off at Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004.
Democratic Party supporters, for Christ's sake KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE GOAL! I live in New York State, Hillary is my Senator, and I STILL voted for Obama because I believe he has the best chance to beat McCain. This is the ONLY goal we MUST focus on. For God's sake, if the Democratic convention nominated Charlie McCarthy or Mortimer Snerd, I've rather vote for them ANY day than any puke Republican, no matter who.
Ron @ 32:
I don't believe that is true.
This isn't 2000, and the DLC has been exposed. The DLC which the Clintons created has blown up like a cheap cigar. Jumpin' Joe Lieberman, Al Wynn, the ten-state strategy, the Southern strategy redux, and now the scandalous HRC Run for Ruin.
I'm very happy that the DLC has now earned the notoriety -- it has been a necessary illness. The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party is back in charge, and we will secure the country from this fire alarm of Republican malfeasance and treason.
Why should there be a compromise candidate?? It's either Obama or Clinton. Obama's leading with delegates, so why is the Democratic Party talking about Al Gore (again)
David N @ 47:
No surprise there. He was already running with the Fair Tax as one of his platforms. Neal Boortz's little pet project. No income tax, 30% national sales tax for all, regardless of how much money they make. That was really the only thing I didn't like about him.
Barack Obama makes me want to be a better man. How often has anyone here said/felt that about a politician?
Sort of rhymes with "baloney".
Why is the fact that it is generating more media attention mentioned in a way to suggest this may be more likely than we think? It is like junk food for them. A speculative story that requires no sourcing or fact checking and can generate "controversy" and interest in their paper for minimum effort.
Seeing that kind of headline over at RCL just pisses me off. Seeing it over here just depresses me. But neither causes me to start considering the suggestion as a legitimate possibility.
tyree @ 14:
And Ron Paul as Secretary of State. Yeah
Mike @ 53:
Not all Democrats are created equal.
Remember Gore's '88 run for the nomination? No? He certainly seemed to talk a very different game back then than in '00 - going so far as to openly claim to be 'pro-life' in an effort to win over southern voters, for instance.
No, sorry. No dice.
Mike @ 53:
Legitimate protest votes exist in safe states. I don't blame Nader for 2000 -- in fact I think he was ripped off also.
Look at the votefraud lawsuits. We have the evidence -- federal indictments against the #3 votefraud company have just been made public, E,S&S is under or soon to be under indictment, Diebold has dumped most of its share-value, and is about to be purchased by a warmonger (and banned by several states), etc. The caging lists, which forced Rove and Gonzales to resign, is going to bite the RNC on the ass and the nose (the same thing).
The US attorney scandal is heating back up, and Gov. Siegelman is going to testify before Waxman next week(?). The fox is afoot, and it is time to sound the horns -- not go back to the abysmal nonsense of people not being able to remember their ass for the hole in the ground Bushco made in New York City.
32 Ron Says:
Paul in LA @ 24:
Ron @ 21: ......"The election being stolen by Bush, may be a blessing in disguise."
====>> Yeah, maybe?? If you dropped two hits of acid and...
It seems like such a pipe-dream that is only surfacing because the current process is descending in disarray. People are always looking for some messiah that will solve all their troubles. It seems just a couple of steps above those who were suddenly saying 'Chelsea for President' because she told a college reporter to mind his own business.
Ron @ 32:
Compared to how Bush has totally destroyed our country - let alone the misery he's inflicted on Iraq - that's reeeeeeaaaaaallllllllyyyyyy a stretch. Besides, you CAN'T believe Hillary wouldn't have been running anyway - damn it, it's HER entitlement.
This is all such nonsense. It ain't going to happen. You know it. I know it. What's the next story.
There has to be an actual opposition party for it to be called a coup.
Man in the Mists @ 23:
Um, sorry, that sounds a lot like LOSING to me. In fact, it is WORSE than losing the vote. Of course, it isn't all his fault. Without a Senator to co-sponsor the motion, he couldn't do a thing. Unfortunately, I never heard of him trying to find such a Senator, and he certainly did little to generate public support or outrage.
In any case, it is difficult to find fault with him for his decisions, but they hardly qualify him for Fat Cat Nominee.
Captain Kangaroo @ 59:
Doug @ 2:
prob busy talking with Hillary about her VP spot after his surprise nomination.
45 RueMorgue Says: Paul in LA @ 39:
RueMorgue @ 28:
I’m from Illinois. Jesus Christ could be the Republican nominee and he wouldn’t win my state.
Same thing for California, but I am seriously going to have to work hard not to punch anyone who says to my face that they, a supposed Democrat, will vote for McCain’t if Obama is the candidate.
I’ve met several, and shouted myself hoarse. As someone who has always supported the Democratic party, the time has ENDED for the bigot Clintons and the corporate DLC to betray us. That said, I rejoice that Hillary has had such a public shaming.
You know, I absolutely agree with you. I’m goddamned done with ‘triangulation’, I’m done with Southern Democrats, I’m done with the Clintonistas, and I’m done with Joe Lieberman. We as a party need to remember our liberal heritage or else we, as a party, are not worth the paper the chads dangle from.
If anyone from the Democratic Party is reading this, I demand that you grow a pair, fast.
===>>YES!! Agreed.
linus bern @ 63:
a honest politician chosen by the party would be good. Obama fits the bill,
Hillary (Rambo) Clinton does not.
Interestingly enough the most accurate polls put HRC and Obama in a dead heat for popular vote within the margin of errors.(Pew research) The prevailing sentiment on this thread seems to be that HRC and everyone who supports her candidacy are evil incarnate. I'm kind of curious how those rather over stimulated supporters of Senator Obama propose to force HRC's supporters to vote for their man on election day when so many have indicated they could never vote for HRC?
DHSmd @ 67:
Nonsense. A conspiracy of the neocon size CANNOT be stopped at the polls until its crimes have horrified the nation. It has taken us eight years to dismantle enough of the votefraud to be able to measure our votes of dismay.
The Congress was controlled by conspirators in 2000, and the SCOTUS was derailed by five acts of impeachable failure to recuse. Remaining work to be done next year: IMPEACH Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, the remaining conspirators who worked for Bushco, and installed their conspirator in the Shitehouse.
If I had a bong, I would probably take a looooong bubbly hit off of it....and then another...then, maybe it would make perfect senses to me as to why Gore is even in the discussion.
Peter G @ 72:
Go look at the latest Galloup poll out today. Obama 50, Clinton 42, MoE +\- 4.
Paul in LA @ 61:
Maybe I will wait till this episode is over, Obama gets the nomination and you'd vote for the democrats again. Don't get entangled in media hypocrisy. Its just to boost the rating. We all know this won't happen and Al has himself said many times he was not going to run, and he didn't, so what makes us all think he will now. There is no reason to get so upset and scold Gore for what is nothing but an empty vessel.
Paul in LA @ 68:
All the things Chimpy now ignores anyway, so whats the problem,
remember the Fed Res is in Ron Paul's sights too, oooh scary stuff (for
crooksbankers)tear them down build up new honest orgs and rules that the US president and admin has to abide by.
Peter G @ 72:
They will have to grow some lobes and realize that they cannot vote off the ticket.
Obama's supporters report they won't vote for Clinton? How many of those voters have ever voted before? How many have ever voted in the Dem party? HRC has lost a TON of mainstream, long-voting Democrats because of her HORRENDOUS campaigning. Saying that McCain't -- an insane and corrupt motherfucker -- would be a better prez was HRC's denouement. She has fucked herself into a tincup, and hopefully damaged the DLC fatally.
As much as I admire, respect and genuinely like Al Gore, this is a terrible idea. There is no way to justify overlooking the candidate who has the most delegates, most popular vote and has been ahead throughout the race to hand it over to someone who wasn't even running. Talk about undemocratic.
The fact that Joe Klein dreamed up this idea should tell you how ridiculous it is. If my impressions of Al Gore are correct, and I think they are, he would never take part is such an undemocratic scheme. He, unlike Hillary, thinks more of his party and his country than himself.
Peter G @ 72:
SCOTUSA.
Why do you think Al Gore is the holy grail? he isn't. Pick one...Clinton or Obama. Simple as that. Grow up...no white knight gonna ride in...we have to decide between the two we have. The greater question is to what end is the continued campaign of Hillary Clinton after NC and Indiana if she does not trounce Obama in Pa, NC and Indiana. I am not sure she can or will so why ? What is the intent of the Clintons in a continued campaign once past those three primaries? What contribution to the Democratic Party and the country? Same goes for Obama, if it looks like Hillary can pull this off and stop him with these three primary wins and the super delegates begin breaking for her? What would Obama gain, the Democratic Pary gain? If this goes on past the 6 May I am not sure there will be any reason to go to Denver...lets just get ready for the McCain presidency.
The thought of Meghan McCain blogging from the White House does give me serious pause, how bout you?
Matt Hussein in Texas @ 76:
WRONG!!!! The Nader votes in NH were overwhelmingly left-leaners, and would've voted for Gore over Bush. NH would've given Gore the presidency no matter WHAT Florida did. (Spoken as an enraged Florida resident in 2000.)
Oops, this is what it should've looked like.
There could have been no stronger Gore supporter than I. But he failed to stand up when his party and country needed him(last fall) so he's lost my favor. He's no longer the man or patriot I thought he was. Sorry Al, too little, too late (though not too late to endorse)...Obama 2008!
Paul in LA @ 73:
Showing my ignorace here, Paul. Does the procedure follow that for impeaching a president?
Tequila @ 66:
Bullcrap. When you steal elections to take the county to war, that is a coup.
As for 'opposition,' Speaker Pelosi led, as minority whip, SIXTY percent of House Dems to vote nay on the Iraq Resolution. That's why she's Speaker, and she has done more than YOU to stop Bushco and slow down the destruction of America by the Republican party in Congress.
I'm going out protesting. Fuck John McCain't, and fuck L Ron Paul the coward who won't file impeachment.
...ignorance....
(Showing my ignorance again...)
Matt Hussein in Texas @ 85:
It does, but it is far less conflicted, and can take place in as little as a day if you have the votes.
What mess? We know McCain is the repugnacan who the hell would want that mess? I'd vote for Bongo the chimp before I'd vote for anothe deluded old man.
Paul in LA @ 88:
Please tell me it doesn't have to involve a blue dress.......
sammy1 @ 84:
More crap. I still support Al Gore, and want him to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations as soon as possible.
If you support people, that means you don't litmus test them. If your support is paperthin, you ain't the biggest supporter, you're just a fair-weather friend.
Real support is like Winter Soldiers. You have to withhold the scapegoating in order to support. You have to EARN support. And yet most people are like five dollar whores with their sup