Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Al Gore for President
March 6, 2007 12:18 AM   Subscribe

Draft Gore. He has participated in a lampoon of his defeat, has at least one web forum devoted to what might have been and may yet be, has his own web site, his own Wiki page, is an Academy Award winner, is encouraged to run by at least one major newspaper , and has numerous web sites devoted to encouraging him to run. His competion? Jeb Bush, (if there is any justice in this world, please let it be the Jeb miester), Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain.

I predict a landslide of unprecedented proportions. Metafilter before .
posted by altman (88 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
In all seriousness ... his reluctance to fight for his rightful victory in 2000 makes it impossible for me to ever support him.


Kerry ibid.

.
posted by RavinDave at 12:35 AM on March 6, 2007


In all seriousness ... his choice of Cheney-foreign-policy-clone Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2000 makes it impossible for me to ever support him.
posted by three blind mice at 12:55 AM on March 6, 2007


It looks like there's been one post in that forum.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:59 AM on March 6, 2007


A priceless comment by tkchrist.
posted by russilwvong at 1:04 AM on March 6, 2007


Yes, Lieberman is a fuckstick, but the full glory of his fucksticktitude was unknown in 2000. As far as the Gorebot's people knew, he was just a religious wackjob who would carry the retiree vote in South Florida, with the bonus of making the ticket look strong on foreign policy. Nobody thought anyone would ever listen to the guy.
posted by Optamystic at 1:05 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


index-splash.html indeed.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:23 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


I just reeeeeally don't think "Is an Academy Award winner" should be in any proximity to a list of criteria making someone resemble, even remotely, a presidential candidate.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:30 AM on March 6, 2007 [3 favorites]


Gore would make a better prez than Bush...and who would RavinDave recommend?

And for those who think there's someone perfect for the job; time to wake up.
posted by rmmcclay at 1:40 AM on March 6, 2007


Nor should "is the wife/brother/son of a president", for that matter. Or should "raised the most cash".

Or, when it comes to it, should "is running for the job".
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:40 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Better as a statesman than as a President. So he's good on the environment-- what else ya got?
posted by starkeffect at 2:09 AM on March 6, 2007


I always figured the Democrats should put him up; since he already won once, it shouldn't be too hard for him to do it again.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:27 AM on March 6, 2007


I think John Greenleaf Whittier said it best

For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: "It might have been!"

posted by GavinR at 2:39 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Gore would make a better prez than Bush...

Who wouldn't?

The question is, could Gore fix up the mess Bush has made? If not Gore, who?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:45 AM on March 6, 2007


I just reeeeeally don't think "Is an Academy Award winner" should be in any proximity to a list of criteria making someone resemble, even remotely, a presidential candidate.

I think it depends on what the award is for, now doesn't it?

Anyway, I'd vote for Gore in a second. He'd do no end of good for America's international image, and almost certainly make a huge start on restoring her (America is a girl, right?) reputation.

But for obvious reasons I'm not eligible to vote, so my voice is a very quiet one.
posted by The Monkey at 3:16 AM on March 6, 2007


The question is, could Gore fix up the mess Bush has made? If not Gore, who?

I hope that's something the congress is working on, but I wouldn't bet on it.
posted by SteveInMaine at 3:17 AM on March 6, 2007


For Sale:

One Mefi Electoral Predictotron.

Rarely used, Comes with own batteries, Arrows and blu tac.

Can also double as Washing Machine.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:18 AM on March 6, 2007


Rarely used?

Come off it, it looks like it has been seriously over-used!
posted by imperium at 3:23 AM on March 6, 2007


Maybe if Gore had put up more of a fight (where "more" == "any") in 2000, I might have retained some respect for him. But it was not so, and we have these last eight years as a testament to his inaction.

Sorry, no.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:32 AM on March 6, 2007


I was convinced he was going to run if he dropped 20 pounds or so before the Oscars. Judging how he looked on Oscar night I don't think he has any intention of making national media appearances on a frequent basis in the near future. It's sad, but it really does come down to that. If he's not working out, it's a sign he's not running.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:46 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think it's very interesting that we're 20 comments into this thread, and no one bothered to mention that half of the links are effed up in the original post. Does no one bother to click the things any more, or are you all just being polite?
posted by Dave Faris at 4:00 AM on March 6, 2007


...and who would RavinDave recommend?

If you're asking my dream ticket -- probably Howard Dean/Barack Obama. Realistically, I'd go for an Obama/Richardson ticket.
posted by RavinDave at 4:09 AM on March 6, 2007


Oh, please, no. Gore is just a horrid, horrid campaigner. Horrid. That he's gotten fawning press for his movie doesn't change that. He had his chance, blew an easy shot, and should stick to a supporting role for Edwards or Obama or someone.
posted by mediareport at 4:38 AM on March 6, 2007


Gore would make a better prez than Bush
So would Mike Tyson.
posted by Flunkie at 4:59 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


There's no way he'd go back in:

He had it and he let it go. The night he didn't win, finally, 'officially', he had a big party and in the Daily News the next morning (or the next) there were picturesof him partying and carousing and boy, did he look like he had just dodged a loaded freight train.

He looked happy and relieved and just - like he would never ever go through that shit again.

So,

Where can I win money off my certainty that he won't run?
posted by From Bklyn at 5:08 AM on March 6, 2007


Howard Dean/Barack Obama. Realistically, I'd go for an Obama/Richardson ticket.

As much as I like Howard Dean, he's come to be the Dick Cheney of the left. I know some people on the center-right that react with revulsion every time his name is mentioned.

Looking at the current field of Dems, I think Gore is the best and only viable choice. Mostly because the current field is unelectable. Hillary is too much business as usual, Edwards isn't gritty enough, Richardson doesn't have "it" (whatever "it" is), and Obama, while appealing and a perfect VP choice, has yet to put forth anything more than flowery words about the soul of America.

Gore is progressive on the environment, on health care, on foreign policy, but he is credible with regard to being pro business. He's also smart enough to be a good President, something that people are coming around to again.

... his reluctance to fight for his rightful victory in 2000 makes it impossible for me to ever support him.

This is not a widely held view among moderates and Republicans leaning Dem, I can assure you.

As for his campaigning, yeah, he was abysmal in 2000, but I think he learned a lot from that, and would be a different sort of campaigner in 2008.

I just don't think he's going to run.
posted by psmealey at 5:12 AM on March 6, 2007


Hmm, I'm almost inclined to change my opinion because of XQUZYPHYR's point, but I don't know. I think the Democrats would be crazy not to make him run.

I think he does have charisma problems, but I think they might work for him this time. It makes a nice contrast. Plus this time, he has or will have Bill in his camp. That was his actual fatal mistake last time. Stupid moral compass!

Also, he didn't put up a fight last time because he didn't know then what would happen. He mistakenly assumed that the stability of the nation was more important than one stolen election. Hopefully now we all know better.

Besides, ABC News thinks he will run and will win.

On preview, From Bklyn once politics gets into your system it is really hard to get it out.
posted by BeReasonable at 5:16 AM on March 6, 2007


he has or will have Bill in his camp

Really? Bill's gonna support him over his own wife? Or is this another Bill you're talking about?

yeah, he was abysmal in 2000, but I think he learned a lot from that, and would be a different sort of campaigner in 2008.

Based on what? Seriously, what makes you think he's "learned a lot" about how to be a better campaigner?
posted by mediareport at 5:25 AM on March 6, 2007


Anyway, I'd vote for Gore in a second.

That was the problem in 2000. Many voted Bush for first and Gore in a second.

Nader was a distant turd.
posted by hal9k at 5:29 AM on March 6, 2007 [3 favorites]


If he ran, I think he'd win. Even though he bowed out of fighting for his job in 2000, the American people bowed out of that fight as well. Running again would give America a 'mea culpa' that I think would put him decisively over the top.

I don't think he'll run, though. As was said earlier upthread, he dodged a big fucking bullet, and he knows it.
posted by davelog at 5:31 AM on March 6, 2007


If he's on the Democratic ballot, I will vote for him. Gladly. He'd tend to the economy, look after our International image, take international terrorism seriously (rather than approach it with crass opportunism, and hijack the fear it engenders to demonize his political opponents). He'd look after the environment. His solutions would be based on reason, rather than blind ideology. He wouldn't spy on Americans. He would restore habeas corpus.

So he's imperfect. So what. He's a thousand times the man, and he'd be a thousand times the president, that Bush is.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:34 AM on March 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


Maybe if Gore had put up more of a fight (where "more" == "any") in 2000, I might have retained some respect for him. But it was not so, and we have these last eight years as a testament to his inaction.

He put up a fight, but what was he supposed to do after the supreme court's decision? Also, if bush had presided the way he said he would during his campaign, things wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

As much as I like Howard Dean, he's come to be the Dick Cheney of the left. I know some people on the center-right that react with revulsion every time his name is mentioned.

The irony is that Dean's views were pretty moderate, except about the Iraq war and the contemptibility of the George W. Obviously conservatives hate the idea of being called on their bullshit. And unlike Dick Cheney, Howard dean isn't a pathological liar and an asshole.

I follow politics pretty closely, and it really seems like he's not going to run, especially since he's gained a lot of weight recently.
posted by delmoi at 5:35 AM on March 6, 2007


delmoi: He put up a fight, but what was he supposed to do after the supreme court's decision?

How about support the Black Congressional Caucus when they attempted that formal protest?

May be symbolic -- but don't underestimate symbols.

.
posted by RavinDave at 5:42 AM on March 6, 2007


Seriously, what makes you think he's "learned a lot" about how to be a better campaigner?

Just a sense, from his vocal opposition to the Iraq War, to his leadership in getting An Inconvenient Truth made, he's learned that to be a relevant national figure, you actually have stand for something. The courage of his convictions was exactly what was missing from his 2000 campaign. It was still too much Clintonesque all triangulation all the time.

I do believe that his stances on those issues alone, make him a better campaigner. He's walked through the door and there's no turning back.
posted by psmealey at 5:45 AM on March 6, 2007


I once gave Al Gore the feely handshake. It was at a rally at the Indianapolis state fairgrounds in '92, and there was a press of supporters up near the podium, and he was reaching down shaking hands at random, smiling at the back of the crowd, and I thought, how do I get this guy to look at me while he shakes my hand? And before I knew it, he had my hand, and I stroked my middle finger back and forth on his palm, and he looked straight into my eyes like he'd been goosed, which was a cue for his Secret Service men to step in and hustle him off the stage, and I thought, whoever wins this election, I won the war!
posted by breezeway at 5:51 AM on March 6, 2007 [6 favorites]


I would love to see Al run. I think that he's easily one of the smartest men to run for president ever and the fact that we got stuck with one of the dumbest men on the planet as president amazes me to this day. But if he's not running, he's not running. Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Biden and Edwards are running. None of that group would be my first choice but any of them would be 100 times better than what we have now.
posted by octothorpe at 5:58 AM on March 6, 2007


And when you see the democrats pick for president, all you're going to be screaming is: "GORE GORE GORE!"

Sorry, to much wrasslin.
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 6:09 AM on March 6, 2007


I'm shocked there's not more support for him here. He would be an incredible president. This guy is incredibly smart, has tons of foresight, and is loved around the world. Remember lockbox? We were going to put our surplus away, invest it, and use it to pay for social security. What a boring idea! He's no different than Bush!
posted by xammerboy at 6:11 AM on March 6, 2007


There's no way. Gore is too friendly with the Clintons, and stepping into the election would ruin that relationship.

Also, the fix is in. Like it or not, it will be Hillary in 08. And that will be an utter fucking disaster, simply because the Democrat apparatchiks can't be bothered to poke their heads outside of their own echo chamber.
posted by xthlc at 6:13 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


The other issue in play is that Gore is already treading on thing ice with his personal views being considered without being a candidate. It's bad enough that the GOP platform has all but been settled on flat-out denying global warming, but to incorporate that with an actual campaign would be worse.

Since he's not a current or attempted office-holder right now, the stuff he's doing is more legitimate in the public eye. He's testifying before congress next week, holding the awareness concerts- hell, even the movie. If he did all that as a candidate, he'd be passed off as "just doing that because he's a candidate."

The irony here is that all the stuff he's doing that's become so effective is what's making him more and more palatable as a candidate, yet the only way he'd run is if he wasn't being so effective with what he's already doing. The fact that he cares so much about what's he's doing right now means he wouldn't want to give that up to run for president. Roll that one around in your head for a while. Running for president would be a detriment to his interests. Just saying that makes me so sad about American politics in my generation.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:18 AM on March 6, 2007


Gore is too friendly with the Clintons

I can't back this up with links, but all my reading over the years indicates that the last thing Gore is with the Clintons is friendly. Both at the personal and political levels. Gore pretty much stands opposite Hillary on nearly every major Democratic issue.
posted by psmealey at 6:20 AM on March 6, 2007


Gore/Obama would be the perfect ticket. Obama will make up for Gore's lack of charisma and it'll help him win the next presidential election.
posted by mike3k at 6:34 AM on March 6, 2007


It would be awesome if ran in 2008 on a third party ticket, just because it would pry open the bipartistocracy.

But heck, if the Dems lose in 2008, maybe he'll still be cool enough to win in 2012.
posted by zennie at 6:47 AM on March 6, 2007


"I think it's very interesting that we're 20 comments into this thread, and no one bothered to mention that half of the links are effed up in the original post. Does no one bother to click the things any more, or are you all just being polite?"

Even if they worked, they'd still only go to Wikipedia.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:52 AM on March 6, 2007


I can't back this up with links, but all my reading over the years indicates that the last thing Gore is with the Clintons is friendly.

The most flattering thing I've heard Gore say lately regarding Hilary is that "she's capable". I don't think Clintonian relationships are what's keeping him from running. More along the lines of he just doesn't want the job.
posted by davelog at 7:06 AM on March 6, 2007


Tony Kushner said it best back in 2004:

The principle of realpolitik is that politics isn't an expression of your personal purity. Politics is about compromise. People need to understand that politics is very much a matter of the lesser of two evils, or three -- however many evils, but you choose the least evil one. Al Gore was a horror and the most untalented politician on the national scene in many a year, but if anybody actually thinks that Al Gore would not be an infinite improvement over what we have now...

To hell with your purity. If Gore is the best chance we have to stop corporate bandits and theocratic fascists from hijacking our country for another four years, then he owes it to his country, not just his party, to run for the presidency again. Your wounded pride from the 2000 election debacle should not enter into the realpolitik calculations necessary to figure out how to undo the damage done by the Bush Administration.
posted by jonp72 at 7:08 AM on March 6, 2007 [4 favorites]


I think Gore is the best and only viable choice. Mostly because the current field is unelectable.

and gore was? ... and before you claim, "but he WAS elected", consider this - if he had been REALLY electable, it wouldn't have been so damn close to begin with

as unelectable as the democratic field may seem ... does the republican field seem more electable?

my guess? ... surprises are likely ... by 2008, we're going to be living in a different world with more pressing problems and the same old song and dance isn't going to get anyone anywhere

it's quite possible the next president of the u s hasn't even tossed his/her hat into the ring yet ... or that we're not familiar with him
posted by pyramid termite at 7:10 AM on March 6, 2007


and gore was? ... and before you claim, "but he WAS elected", consider this - if he had been REALLY electable, it wouldn't have been so damn close to begin with

And if my aunt had balls, blah, blah, blah. Look, Gore ran a shitty campaign in 2000, but he still won the popular vote. Whatever you think of him, that's pretty damn electable to me.

Hillary is electable in the same way that Kerry was. Experienced and "Presidential", but at the end of day, too cautious and muddleheaded to win over enough of the middle 40%. We're seeing the same thing from the current crop of Republicans now running (McCain, Romney).

I absolutely believe that the eventual winner might has not thrown his/her hat into the ring.
posted by psmealey at 7:17 AM on March 6, 2007


Gore should run for president and pick Hilary as his running mate.

I'm willing to bet that at least 60% of Americans would like nothing more then to see America return to the position we were in circa 1998.

How could you not vote for a Gore/Clinton ticket?
posted by Afroblanco at 7:24 AM on March 6, 2007


It does not matter who runs or who gets elected, nothing will change, and by then the US will have bombed Iran so there will be a whole new series of problems to deal with.
posted by Vindaloo at 7:24 AM on March 6, 2007


I can't believe the word "beard" has not been mentioned once in this thread so far.
posted by brownpau at 7:47 AM on March 6, 2007


didn't you see him on tv? al gore should start the big people's party and pick charles barkley to run with him.
posted by bruce at 7:53 AM on March 6, 2007


Meh, I think Gore would make a good VP (again), especially since he has the environment movement to attend to.

Plus he is already a level 10 Vice President.
posted by SirOmega at 8:00 AM on March 6, 2007


I think Gore has been more effective (in general, and for his own image) as a non-politician. You can say a lot more stuff that makes sense (and much less bullshit) if you are not trying to run for, or hold office.
posted by stifford at 8:10 AM on March 6, 2007


Come on guys, he has his own wiki page.
posted by ersherr at 8:15 AM on March 6, 2007


Al Gore: round mound of rebound!
posted by breezeway at 8:17 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


I would have hot monkey sex with whatever political advisor manages to convince the parties concerned that a Gore/Dean ticket is the way to go. Oh my God, the hot monkey sex. I'd do things that don't even have names yet to see that happen.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:28 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Nader was the best choice in 2000 and in 2004. Will he try again? Will Nader bother to give the American voters another chance to refuse to vote for him because the corporate press says he's not electable because nobody will vote for him because the corporate press says he's not electable?

My SO seethes when I tell her Kuchinich was a shill, whether he knew it or not, to lure in people like her who'd eventually vote for a creep like Kerry over Bush. People often seethe when I point out that once again it turned out I was right all along.

Yeppers, in 2008 the American voters will once again have a chance to ignore the advice of people like me, and so once again get screwed royally. 'Cuz like hey, if I were worth listening to I'd be a Murdoch employee, eh?
posted by davy at 8:41 AM on March 6, 2007


Kucinich is my rep and I freaking LOVE him. Adore him. We call him, affectionately, "our little moonbat" in this house. His office is ultra-responsive to requests, he's a good guy... but I still wouldn't vote for him in a presidential election. (Although we'd have a really hot young First Lady who'd be more in the Hillary FL mode than Laura Bush is, and who would be a force for quite a lot of good).

Same for Nader. I cannot stand Nader. Absolutely cannot stand him. It's not a third party thing. Hell, you want to drive people really nuts, get Gore to run as a Green. I'd vote for the Greens then no matter how hopeless it looked.

Until our election system is reformed to allow proportional representation or whatever else it would take, third parties on the national level are useful only for bringing up issues the other two won't discuss without prompting.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:55 AM on March 6, 2007


Part of me thinks that the draft Gore movement is all a conspiracy by the media because they loved beating up on him so much in 2000.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:01 AM on March 6, 2007


If he's not working out, it's a sign he's not running.

he's much more devious than you, Mr. Smartypants -- it's all padding and prosthetic special-effects makeup, underneath all that crap lies a 190-pound, ripped-as-fuck Al ready to run and squash Hillary.

as of now he's playing Clark Kent, wait until he gets into that phone booth.


It would be awesome if ran in 2008 on a third party ticket, just because it would pry open the bipartistocracy.

really? he'd spoil the vote so badly that the GOP would manage to get anybody -- with the possible exception of Charlie Manson -- elected in a race like that.

now that you make me think about it, maybe that's his plan -- sweet sweet revenge against Hillary: run as a third party candidate and sink her chances.
posted by matteo at 9:22 AM on March 6, 2007


Nader was the best choice in 2000 and in 2004. Will he try again? Will Nader bother to give the American voters another chance to refuse to vote for him because the corporate press says he's not electable because nobody will vote for him because the corporate press says he's not electable?

You forgot to call everyone who didn't vote for Nader "sheeple."

Look, Nader is an interesting guy, but he'd make a lousy president (charisma issues, no ability to compromise, pursues losing positions just to make a point). He got 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000 and only .4% in 2004. Do you honestly believe that everyone else was just duped by the press into not voting for him? Ever think that maybe they don't agree with his positions on the issues? Ever consider that maybe they just don't like him?

Yeppers, in 2008 the American voters will once again have a chance to ignore the advice of people like me, and so once again get screwed royally. 'Cuz like hey, if I were worth listening to I'd be a Murdoch employee, eh?

Yes, you're a prophet. Get over yourself, please.
posted by bshort at 10:30 AM on March 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


(that was directed at davy)
posted by bshort at 10:34 AM on March 6, 2007


Will Nader bother to give the American voters another chance to refuse to vote for him because the corporate press says he's not electable because nobody will vote for him because the corporate press says he's not electable?

Worst Simpsons comic book store guy impression ever.
posted by psmealey at 10:35 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


He'd be a good or even great President, should have been President. I'd like to see Richardson as the nominee. The media-created Hillary vs. Obama crap is getting really annoying, and it's early times.
posted by theora55 at 10:44 AM on March 6, 2007


matteo: really? he'd spoil the vote so badly that the GOP would manage to get anybody -- with the possible exception of Charlie Manson -- elected in a race like that.

Your statement assumes that third parties candidates are inviable, no matter the candidate. Which is my point, in a way. I'd take another GOP win if it helped bring the third party image toward the mainstream. We need fresh blood in the system, and if we leave it up to the GOP and the DNC, that will never happen.

My suggestion is kind of far-fetched, of course. It'd be much more sane if we implemented instant runoff voting.
posted by zennie at 10:50 AM on March 6, 2007


You Gore backers need to read the Constitution:
President wanted. White Christian-seeming male preferred, but willing to appear to consider others. Full head of hair a must. No fatties.
(Emphasis not mine)
posted by Superfrankenstein at 10:59 AM on March 6, 2007


I'd take another GOP win if it helped bring the third party image toward the mainstream. We need fresh blood in the system...

...which we'll get plenty of should this country be stupid enough to "elect" (yes, those are sarcasm quotes aimed at you, Supreme Court) another ra-ra warmonger jerkwad, zennie.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 11:09 AM on March 6, 2007


Gore ran a shitty campaign in 2000, but he still won the popular vote.

Gor has some baggage. Winning the popular vote in 2000 is one.

There is so much shame our society associates with "losers" and appearing to lose, even though you win in essence, has the same effect. Maybe worse. Because we all know he "won" but was forced to shuffled off in disgrace that shame - his shame - is reflected onto ALL of us. It is our shame.

If our citizenry had any integrity at all it could admit it's mistakes and correct them easily. But we don't handle shame well.

Think of it like this: The Iraq war. We now ALL know what a horrible mistake it has been. But it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. There were plenty of non-partisan experts who said what horrible mistake a preemptive and unilateral invasion of Iraq was going to be before the war. There plenty of experts who said there were no WMD and no ties to Al Queda. Yet night after night on the news EVERYONE, the administration especially, acts like it's all a big surprise.

They act this way because deep down we are all ashamed that we are letting this go on and on. And the longer we let it go the more shame we secretly feel. The more shame we feel the LESS likely we are to admit mistakes. We are a culture that hides it's shame and suppresses it.

And when you can't admit mistakes you can't fix them. So it's easier to either act surprised by the inevitable -OR- blame somebody else for your shame. So we are not leaving Iraq any time soon so we can make sure it's good and fucked up.

We secretly blame Gor for Bush on the left. And the right blames him for symbolizing how the left was correct about so many things that the right can NEVER own up to. It is why they are so merciless to him. The more correct he is on issues the WORSE they get.

If he won in 2008 the right would assassinate him I guarantee it.
posted by tkchrist at 11:35 AM on March 6, 2007 [4 favorites]


I said it before in the moonworm thread and I'll say it again: tkchrist, I think I love you. Don't tell my boyfriend. (The real one, not Howard Dean. Howard, alas, loves me not).
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:09 PM on March 6, 2007


In 2000 I thought a Nader presidency would have been a disaster. He seemed a little nuts and he wouldn't have gotten along with congress at all.

In retrospect, there is no way he could have been worse then Bush.
posted by delmoi at 12:12 PM on March 6, 2007


Oh and by the way, if gore had won in 2000, we'd be gearing up for a Lieberman vs. Jeb election next year. The Democrats, and especially the progressive wing of it are far stronger then they would have been if gore had won in 2000 as a pussy-whipped moderate. No one would have know how bad things under bush would have been, and the "conservative movement" would be just as legitimized in the eyes of the public as it was in '2000. If Obama wins in '08 progressives will have complete control of the government for the first time since the civil rights era.

Frankly, I think American politics has a brighter future now then it would have if gore/lieberman won in 2000.

Shame about all those Iraqis though.
posted by delmoi at 12:17 PM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Actually Davis Guggenheim (the director) is an Academy Award winner, not Al Gore. But because he gave an acceptance speech the media seems to overlook that.
posted by Roman Graves at 12:19 PM on March 6, 2007


tkchrist: People will just forget they ever supported the iraq war in the first place, just like a bunch of Neocon authors tried to do recently. But unlike them, most people won't have a paper trail. They'll tell people and they'll believe that they opposed the war from the beginning.
posted by delmoi at 12:20 PM on March 6, 2007


Frankly, I think American politics has a brighter future now then it would have if gore/lieberman won in 2000.

That's all relative isn't it? We are so deep in the shit now, practically anything would look better.
posted by psmealey at 12:27 PM on March 6, 2007


People will just forget they ever supported the iraq war in the first place, just like a bunch of Neocon authors tried to do recently.

This has little to do with anything, but I find it curious that, other than a tiny portion of my Republican acquaintances, I don't personally know anyone who supported the Iraq War in 2003. The consent for that invasion was largely a media construct.
posted by psmealey at 12:32 PM on March 6, 2007


Insert "Halliburton-stockholding, evil asshat" for "media" in the phrase "media construct" and you just might have something there, psmealey.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:42 PM on March 6, 2007


I want Gor to run. I do.

He is such a magnet for abuse and would soak up so much negative bandwidth that nearly every other candidate would be a stealth candidate.

delmoi is right about 2000 in many ways. Gor as president would have had a Republican congress on his ass at every turn. Can you imagine what they would have turned 9/11 into? A referendum on a weak, pussified democratic created military and foreign policy.
posted by tkchrist at 12:57 PM on March 6, 2007


delmoi writes "Frankly, I think American politics has a brighter future now then it would have if gore/lieberman won in 2000. "

Supreme Court, though. Roberts is going to be presiding over that fucker for the next 30 years.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:58 PM on March 6, 2007


Draft Gore? I really prefer Gore Lite or Gore Dry. Or OktoberGore.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:12 PM on March 6, 2007


I'd vote for him. Again.

All signs point to him not running, however.

And when's the last time a "draft _____" campaign has succeeded in either its stated or implied goal?
posted by abulafa at 2:26 PM on March 6, 2007


Why Gore Should Run, And How He Can Win.

But Mimi Smartypants put it best way back in 2002:
Let my love open the Gore
Let my love OPEN the Gore
Let my love open the Gore
the Al Gore

1, 2, 3, 4 Get your former vice prez on the floor
Gotta get up to get down

Look over there, it's MC Al Gore
He's hard to catch like the albacore
He's hard to destroy like uranium ore
A to the L to the G-O-R-E
Speaking his rhymes to the petite bourgeoisie
Smartypants in his pants is what he be needing
One taste of my ass and the man be pleading
"Please baby please baby Mimi baby please"
I say, "Al, cook me up some macaroni and cheese"
'Cause you know I like things that are many and boiled
And you know how I like it when your chest is all oiled
Mmm, oily-chested bearded GOR fighting for our rights! To party, to free speech, to have that pesky ol' habeas corpus, to drive cars powered by trash, to fight glaciers...
posted by bitter-girl.com at 2:27 PM on March 6, 2007


There is so much shame our society associates with "losers"

you're forgetting that richard nixon lost in 1960 yet got elected in 1968 ... having lost isn't necessarily a dealbreaker for gore ... what might be is that the party and the country's changed

i keep wondering if both parties aren't going to split this time ... or that we're going to end up with a brokered convention in one or both

right now, i don't see any leadership out there because the american people are too divided to be led ... and gore only seems like a leader because his recent activities have focused on one issue on which he's taken a straightforward stance

i don't know ... the way things are going, the winner in 2008 may have "sacrificial goat" written all over him
posted by pyramid termite at 4:18 PM on March 6, 2007


Al Gore would probably win the next election for one simple reason: the moderate and independent voter does not want to make the same mistake twice. Unfortunately, most Democrats still think that ideas matter most.
posted by Brian B. at 4:35 PM on March 6, 2007


Without instant runoff voting, well, third party candidates aren't doing us any favors. It's just an ego trip.

Personally, I think this next Presidency will go to a Republican, especially if the Democrats will run who I think they will, either Clinton or Obama. Although I don't personally feel this way, I don't believe Americans in general will take either a black man or a white woman. It's white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant males almost all the way. Give the United States another twenty or thirty years of personal evolution, maybe. Clinton is especially bad, as the Republicans have been using her as a personal boogeyman for a good fifteen years now. Meanwhile, the Republicans pitch Rudy into the ring, let him coast a bit on the "Hero of 9/11" schtick, and he's a shoo-in.

I'm oddly okay with that. I'd like the Republicans in power, in so many ways, for so long, that when the nation is in serious, painful, unignorable trouble, there's not a blameable Democrat in sight.
posted by adipocere at 6:30 PM on March 6, 2007


I think this next Presidency will go to a Republican, especially if the Democrats will run who I think they will, either Clinton or Obama.

i don't think clinton will get it, because she's far too associated with past politics ... not to mention her initial support of the iraq war

obama hasn't paid his dues yet

Meanwhile, the Republicans pitch Rudy into the ring, let him coast a bit on the "Hero of 9/11" schtick, and he's a shoo-in.

i see the evangelicals bolting if that happens ... they'll stay home or run their own candidate ... rudy doesn't represent them and they know it

it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world ...

i think it's very unclear ... and we don't know what the overall situation will be in 2008 ... it probably won't be much like the current one
posted by pyramid termite at 7:20 PM on March 6, 2007


There's no way that Hilary or Obama are making it past the primaries. Think back to 2004. Remember Dean? He was way out in front, had a ton of grassroots support, but bombed in the primaries.

Hilary has more of a machine behind her, but give it another year. Her big problem is that she has the unfortunate ability to motivate people to get out and vote against her.

If anyone credible enters the race early next year they'll still have a good shot at getting the nomination.
posted by bshort at 8:12 AM on March 7, 2007


Think back to 2004. Remember Dean? He was way out in front, had a ton of grassroots support, but bombed in the primaries.

I wonder if 1988 might end up being a better allegory. At this point in that election cycle it seemed a foregone conclusion that the nomination battle would be between Gary Hart and Joe Biden. Both were taken down (ahem) by scandal and were completely out of the race well before Iowa and New Hampshire.

The primaries are an eternity from now, a lot can (and will) happen.
posted by psmealey at 8:47 AM on March 7, 2007


Holy shit, bruce, the thought of a Gore/Barkley ticket in '08 just gave me chills. Do you have some sort of petition I could sign?
posted by saladin at 9:42 AM on March 7, 2007


« Older Unicycle skills. Note: 40sec YouTube post. More e...   |   The Independent Press Associat... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments