Before I begin, I want to thank those of you who read and commented on my recent article regarding Fred Thompson, and his seemingly eminent entrance into the 2008 Presidential race. If I remember correctly, there were about 50 different responses (agree and/or disagree) to the article. They were all very good, and I am very grateful to all my Gather friends! For those who have not read and/or commented on it, the title of the article is “Fred Thompson and the 2008 Presidential race” or something like that. I’d love to get your thoughts after you read it.
Similarly, I would like to do an analogous publication with regards to Al Gore. As many of you know, I own and manage a political/polling/public opinion research firm. And, I am an admitted “political addict” on top of that. So, the combination of these two means that, for example, when writing pieces like this one, I get very excited! Please share your excitement with all of us as you read and comment upon this article!
For months now, I have predicted that, if he decided to get into the race, Al Gore would be the Democratic party’s choice as nominee for the 2008 Presidential race. Further, I have predicted that, should Gore not get into the race, that John Edwards would be the Democratic nominee. I'm starting to waver on my prediction that Gore will run and be the nominee. I'm also starting to think that Hillary Clinton may become nominated regardless. My initial reasons for thinking he would run and win include the following:
n He has “been to the mount” for 6½ years now, and has a different, more healthy perspective toward his own life and the Presidency than he once did.
n Because of his work in the area of global warming, he has been recognized by some as a leader in the global warming arena, and in fact has won two Pulitzer Prizes and published best selling books to this end.
n He can uniquely say that (in his opinion) he was actually rightfully elected as President in 2000, and had he been inaugurated then and served two terms we would not be in the kinds of messes (i.e., Iraq, economy, environment) in which we are now mired.
n Does anyone having once run for President ever “become cured” of that “disease”?
Now, I’m not so sure Gore will even get in the race. Consider the following:
n He is significantly wealthier than he used to be.
n Appearances would suggest that he is genuinely happy with his life.
n The current field of 2008 Democratic candidates does not appear to have a void of one or more people who are capable in their own right of being good candidates with good campaigns. The CNN debates, which were televised earlier this evening (June 3), illustrated this to me.
Even if Gore does get in the race, I now believe that Hillary Clinton may get the Democratic nomination anyway. She looked quite impressive this evening.
Well, what do all of you Gatherers, some of whom are the most intelligent people I know regardless of whether I agree or disagree with you, think?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 66
Not sure yet about Hillary; the reality in both parties is that a candidate can appeal to "the general public", but the candidate is nominated by activists, and their agendas rarely have anything to do with what the general public wants or thinks. If I read MoveOn correctly, it's likely that Obama or Edwards is their favorite. But we've got a long way to go till next winter when the primaries/caucuses actually happen.
Similarly on the GOP side, the party activists seem to be leaning away from Guiliani (who is probably the public favorite) and more toward the Fred Thompson/Mitt Romney side of the field. I don't think McCain has the ability to lead the field although I do like him.
All I can say right now is that we're not likely to get bored with this election anytime soon :)
the best argument I've read lately contending that he will rin comes from Bill Robinson on HuffPo. Here's a taste:
\\ I mean, please. Let's get real. Of course he's running.
Are we to believe that a man who has spent most of his life in public office, like his father before him, is happy to turn away at the very moment the country -- nay, the world -- is clamoring for him to step into the breach?
Are we to believe that such a man is perfectly content to walk away from the table, with his last campaign forever emblazoned in textbooks as the biggest miscarriage of justice in electoral history?
Are we to believe that this man, with his Oscar nominated documentary, his Time magazine cover, his # 1 Bestselling book, his tv network, and, oh yeah, a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize nomination, would rather not rule the most powerful nation on earth?
This is beginning to remind me of movie stars who insist they'd really prefer to be incognito. Never mind that their whole lives have been spent in rabid pursuit of fame. Fame at all costs. They just wish they could be ordinary.
So why can't we just let Mr. Gore be ordinary? Is it because he is so extraordinary? I happen to think so. But that's just me... And, apparently, the citizens of Pennsylvania, who have put him ahead of all candidates, Democrat and Republican, in yesterday's polling. Still, he says he "has no plans to run." Right, and Judi Dench thinks it's an honor just to be nominated.//
read the whole blog at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-robinson/al-gore-is-running_b_50405.html
Peace,
kmf
Gore is becoming sorely tempted to run – but if he does, he will lose. If you have a moment, feel free to read my own take on Gore, which explains why he'll lose:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976952832
Hillary does look like the strongest Democratic candidate, but unfortunately she is a woman, and she has an extremely polarizing personality. People either hate her or love her. The Democratic leadership secretly hopes she will not win, because if she does, Giuliani is certain to win by default. Surprisingly, Giuliani would have a tougher time against Obama, who can beat him in a head-to-head debate.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976952832
Also listing his negatives, he is not strategic. Why in God's name would he have conceded the presidential race in 2000 before he even knew the story. He called Bush to concede, at least according to the news, before most of the controvery over the election came to light. He was so concerned about being a gentleman and playing by the rules that he gave the election away. Then when the irregularities came out, Bush sent the tough guys down to Florida - James Baker III and others to make sure he was represented. Gore seemed to be alright just letting the process work itself out.
This could show that Bush has a whole machine behind him, and Gore was just one man alone, not able to invoke passion and fight in the Democrats as the Republicans had in George Bush. Or it could show a Gore that does not know really what to do in a crisis? He lectures endlessly about how the country should work in his new book "Assault On Reason" and in his speeches and movies, yet he seems lost when it comes to taking action on his own without a precedent .. in short, short on testicular fortitude.
All the negatives aside, I would vote for Al Gore if he ran, because I think he is the right man for the job right now. We are so concerned about how the world sees us, well, electing Al Gore would be a strong signal that the people recognize that something has gone a little wrong in the past 7 years, and are going to do something about it.
When you look at the challenges facing America, they are domestic, they are the nose to the grindstone kind of hard-work issues that a man like Al Gore would be very good at. Budget and tax issues. Solving the future of social security. Health care. Pollution. International relations. All the things that I do not care if we have a charismatic nice-guy cowboy in the White House for.
Additionally, Al Gore, though he is not as smart as he seems to think he is in my opinon is not a moron like George Bush. Al Gore can speak in public and get across complex ideas, even if he does sound lecturing and condescending about it. I do not care ... I want the mess in Washington to get cleaned up.
I wish that Gore had had the guts to fire periodically at Bush during the last 7 years and criticize him for his dishonesty and his incompetence. I wish that he had fought like a demon in order to not let this wildfire or incompetence and corruption get out of control in Washington over the last 7 years. He did not, but I think he could make a good president, and maybe we need a consolidator president that can fix things instead of a unilateralist dictator in office in Washington right now.
I think if Hillary runs the democrats will lose. Much like the previous choice of John Kerry. My Dad is a Republican who did not/does not like President Bush but voted for him because he said he couldn't in good conscience vote for Kerry. I can more likely see him and other middle of the road people in both parts voting for Richardson -- but not likely they will get the chance.
I don't like endlessly revisting this, but when it is constantly brought up to prop up Bush's great leadership ... it is all smoke and mirrors.
I think Gore would be adequate as a leader, and may shine in some areas. Bush has not gotten so much as one issue right ... expept in my eyes Bush is the one to recognize the importance of standing up and previaling over Islamic Facism. The problem is that he has been totally incompetant at doing that. The only metric for Bush's success in this is not that there have not been any attacks on America, it is the overall influence we have in the world, versus how much terror is being visited on the world by the Islamo-Nazis.
I give Bush a C or maybe a B- for his performance in the "War On Terror" ... even the name he came up with for this is BS ... and I give him a virtual D or F for everything else he has NOT done, and worse for his stupid idiotic suggestion to privatize social security. The man is a total disaster ... and more distinguished people - moderates - have come out and said this publically than I can ever remember in my life about any other president.
Gore could not do worse. I think Gore will probably not run because the biggest thing that could ruin his life would be - what if he gets screwed again by election corruption ... what does he do?? Can he let it happen again, does he live with that and the history books for the next thousand years saying here is the man who let America fall to facism, ... what does he do? I think it is too much for anyone to bear, even though I think Gore would win, I am afraid he would find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again.
hahahaha
And as petty as it sounds I don't think a Black man with a foreign sounding name could make it by them either. These are the same people after all who elected (or nearly elected, anyway) a man widely recognized as 'probably crooked' and 'definitely dunce' twice just because he sounds so down home friendly and sincere when he talks.
I tend to agree with you, however, for what it's worth. (At least so far!!)
Just to set the record straight, Gore never said "I invented the internet." What he did say, and what the right twisted into "I invented the internet," is that he coined the term "information superhighway," which he did. Admittedly, it's one of the most efective spin jobs I've ever seen - right up there with turning the word "liberal" into an insult.
Not sure what you meant when you threw "An Inconvenient Truth" into that middle name thing, but if you are obliquely trying to say he's wrong on climate change, I'd be happy to direct you to several million sources around the world that would disagree, including several threads right here on Gather where it's been argued ad nauseum.
His scientific understanding is what is in question to me. He takes on the airs of a scientist, but does he really understand both sides of the issue, and the political issue of the responses. I think he does to a large extent. I think Gore is foward looking which is a huge improvement over say, Bush, who doesn't get any of it.
The problem is how does Gore connect with this stuff. He followed his University Professor I think was the story. How does he find these issues that are important to him, and why? I think this is what the "invented the Internet statement is about for some people.
I think Gore's personality leaves something to be desired, and his scientific understanding as well ... BUT ... at least he is thinking in the right way. At least he supports science and technology and sees the methods. At least he realizes that we have to invest in our people, and that the President is the President of America, not the President for a large group of monied interest groups who want to use America for ends he agrees with or has been trained on which is where I think Bush is coming from.
If Al Gore runs, he is not perfect, but I would vote for him. I do have concerns about his aggressiveness and fight. He is too much the Southern gentleman wannabe, and the world is a tough place, particularly dealing with the problem spots, the Middle East, China and Russia. I would give him a chance because we need to role things back, but we also need someone who can forge a concensus, and I think Gore could do that. I just worry if we do have another 9-11, it will likely be worse and need a bigger, more focused, and successful effort to prevail.
Ever the optimist? I don't believe Gore has any intention of running. Had he that intention he would have made it known sufficiently early to preclude the loss of the Clinton machine and the support from 2000.
After reading the comments I would say that just because Gore has been in politics doesn't mean he's not happy with his life now. I'm sure he feels that he is doing something worthwhile and perhaps more effectively than he could as president, trying to cajole a congress into action from above.
Someone said something about his having more money now. I don't believe anyone runs for president for the money! There is far greater remuneration working in various other private endeavors.
I suspicion that Hillary talked with Gore before she started putting together her war chest. They could have battled it out and damaged them both. Gore knows that by popular vote, he won an election to the office of president! That may be laurel enough on which to rest.
This is a topic about which feelings run high and which most people are convinced their opinion is the only valid opinion. They "know" what they are talking about! This makes for interesting discussion.
His entry into the race is only my prediction, and one that admittedly one with which I'm less comfortable compared to last spring.
Wow, Dan -- I'm impressed. Did you go to undergraduate school at Yale, and graduate school at Harvard as did Bush?
You aren't keeping up with things it seems. Al Gore's carbon footprint is less than mine! He can afford to buy carbon credits and I can't!
As soon as he announces his candidacy, Al Gore will rise to the top tier of the Democratic candidates--along with Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
Gore ran a poor campaign in 2000, because he distanced himself from Bill Clinton. In 2008, he will have improved credentials, because he was right about Global Warming. Unless the situation in the Iraq war improves, Gore (and all of the other Democratic candidates) will have a popular anti-war platform.
Some people will not vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Some people will not vote for Obama because he is black. Gore is a white man, like all of the Republican candidates; so people will not vote against Gore for either of those reasons.
Yes, that is impressive. Has anyone else besides George W Bush ever been accepted by Yale with only a 1200 SAT score?
To elaborate, he won't, in my opinion, do well because of race/gender reasons as you claim, but instead (again, just my opinion) he can uniquely make the argument that "had I been installed as president in 2000 like I should have (since I legally won), we would not be in the mess we are today -- war, slow economic expansion, national malaise, etc." Again, I personally don't agree with the truthfulness of that statement -- only that it would certainly be an easily arguable statement with great appeal among Democratic primary/caucus participants.
Here is the link:
http://www.iuptown.com/YaleProtest/bushs_yale_transcript.htm
Another article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/
My point (which maybe ai could have stated better) is that the 537 Bush plurality, because of chads and the like, may not be accurate. From his standpoint, perhaps he won the popular vote in Florida as well. His lawyers at the time certainly argued that.
Adlai Stevenson was nominated by the Democratic Party but lost in 1952 and 1956. William Jennings Bryan was nominated by the Democratic Party but lost in 1896, 1900, and 1908. Al Gore would need to have a convincing argument in 2008.
1) Say what you will, but Al Gore is an infinitely more appealing and "sellable" candidate to voters than Adlai Stevenson, who looked and acted like a wimp when compared to Ike.
2) Gore has "been to the mount", and done a great deal of personal reflection. Even as a staunch Republican, I have to admit it shows.
3) He has already won two Oscars (therefore better and/or more highly known than AES in 1956), may win the Nobel Peace Prize but gets lot of publicity simply by being a "finalist".
4) He basically "owns" the key issue, other than Iraq which will soon cease to exist as an issue since Clinton/Obama/Edwards are ultimately basically similar or identical to each other, among Democratic caucus/primary participants -- the environment, and in a doomsday context. Democrats eat up bad news like a Tyrannosaurus ate meat.
Thoughts?
On your point #4...............is Global Warming really seen as a key Democratic issue? I mean, its gotten lots of press, no doubt. But is it really a key issue in the Presidential campaign? I will agree with you, however, that Gore 'owns' this issue.
Even among Illinois Democrats that I've talked to, Global Warming is not really at the forefront of the platform. This topic seems like a #8 or 9 issue on a Top Ten list.
I see an Al Gore candidacy as splitting the party even further. He and Edwards seem to be getting a lot of press from the far Left side of the aisle..............not where most of the mainstream Centrist voters are.
Interesting discourse! You were doing great until the last statement. From a slightly left of center position I'd say that the Democrats who are far left make up less than a third of the party in congress. You may visualize it greater as a Republican since the Republican ultra right seems to be in the neighborhood of eighty percent of the Republican party. It would appear at this time that both parties have swung to the extreme but I don't believe that is for real.
It behooves both parties to push to the center in the general election although in the primaries they will both reach for the extremes to get the party nomination.
By the way, I hate to disappoint the both of you but this amateur says that Al Gore ain't gonna do it! He'd have already been working on were he interested. Now we wait to see who's right, the amateur or the pros!
Don't focus on the wrong variable (e.g., % composition of the far left). Instead, focus on the reality of what is really happening.
With regards to Al Gore, why then is he continuing to do things like appearing on Oprah recently, and Ellen DeGeneres this coming Wednesday? And, the big $$ high tech people in th e Silicon Valley have publicly said that they are waiting for Gore (and if not him, then Obama).
If he's not going to run, then he's got some similar type of objective in mind. And, incidentally, by waiting, he doesn't have to do such silly things as the CNN-sponsored "Faith and Politics" discussion that the current top three were compelled to do. That event can only hurt a candidate -- not help him/her.
About Al Gore, we'll see! On the candidates, they always go to the extreme during the campaign for the primaries, then back to the middle in the general election. Of the three, Hillary is the most right leaning candidate or will be after the primary. Edwards is next and Obama is probably the most liberal following the primary. Obama is still an idealist! If Hillary goes up against say, Romney, that will be essentially two middle of the road candidates! While Obama against Thompson would be liberal against conservative.
Gore may or may not be preparing for something but not the presidency. Sure, if a deadlocked convention (which won't occur) drafted him I think he'd run but otherwise forget it. He, I believe, is enjoying his life at the present time, feeling important without the risks of public office, and making all the money he needs to maintain his life style! Why would he give that up?
1) Clinton/Obama/Edwards each have one or more pretty major problems
2) There's a lot of ungiven Democratic $$ still out there (particularly among "traditional" liberals and the high tech community)
3) He himself can bankroll a good share, which he couldn't before and has as an option.
4) (Most importantly) He can say the one thing (perhaps wrong, but at least arguably correct and probably correct among hardcore Democrats) that no other candidate can say:
"Had I been installed in 2000 like I legally should have been (our legal people were correct, not theirs), we would not be the mess we are today."
-- Iraq, only sort of good economy, health care, gas prices, etc.
-- Here's the chance to do it right this time
If you're a country music fan, you've heard Collin Raye sing, "That's my story (prediction) and I'm stickin' to it".
It is my belief that the sooner we dump the Left Wing of our party, the easier it will be for us to regain the White House.
Dump the Hippies!
That should be our next Presidential battle cry.
That's why you guys win 51 to 49. Its that little bit that always makes the difference.
If we could truly be in the Center with some measure of believability, you guys would never win again. Sadly, we're too far left to do anything but watch the parade pass us by..........again.
Al Gore whether he runs or not is clearly the best candidate for the job of President. He has the experience, the self awareness, the passion, the intellect, and the respect of people here and abroad to turn things around from the ugly mess this administration has made of our country. I believe he has done a "Bobby Kennedy" the last seven years and during his time away from the spotlight Al has gotten perspective and insight that when added to his considerable government experience make for a man who knows himself and can make decisions on his own. With the 2008 election the Democrats to lose, and the control of both houses of Congress, this would be the perfect time for Al Gore to run because he virtually could not lose. He can stand on the stack of hanging chads and KNOW he won in 2000 as we all knew he did.
There are several barriers to entry however. The Clinton family is certainly one. What does Bill Clinton do if Al joins the race? Bill is Hilary's best chance at election, and it makes sense at least to me that Bill would love to again reside on Pennsylvannia Ave. even if it is as Mr. Hillary. Can he allow Al to run against his own wife? Can he effectively campaign for Hillary without knocking Al down a peg or two?
The other is supposedly Tipper Gore who is rumored to want no part of the circus anymore. While every married man should resopect his wife, this aint happening becasue Tipper says no way jose.
I also believe that unless the people give him a "mandate" and call for him to run that he won't. I believe he wants to, but won't until America calls for him by name. This may or may not happen.
All this said, I personally hope he does run. I have nothing against Obama or Hillary, or even John Edwards. But Al Gore is right for some many good and better reasons then the other candidates are that he almost has to run. He knows he would win this time. Jose Canseco could beat the Republicans in 2008. The time has never been more right nor the light so strongly pointed toward one candidate than it is pointing at Al Gore right now. So what is he waiting for? We just have to ask him. Al will you please run?