U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 23, 2007 05:37 PM UTC

Gore Moving Closer to Presidential Run?

  • 92 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


From The Sunday Telegraph:

Friends of Al Gore have secretly started assembling a campaign team in preparation for the former American vice-president to make a fresh bid for the White House.

Two members of Mr Gore’s staff from his unsuccessful attempt in 2000 say they have been approached to see if they would be available to work with him again.

Mr Gore, President Bill Clinton’s deputy, has said he wants to concentrate on publicising the need to combat climate change, a case made in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won him an Oscar this year.

But, aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop.

His denials of interest in the presidency have been couched in terms of “no plans” or “no intention” – politically ambiguous language that does not rule out a run.

Tweet
Share

Comments

92 thoughts on “Gore Moving Closer to Presidential Run?”

  1. That Gore in the race hurst Edwards and Obama more becuase he’s better none and has stronger anti-war & green cred; however, I’m willing to bet that he would do more damage to Hillary then they others because he can rival her strength and experance.  I don’t know if I’d vote for him again, but it would be a tough call.

    http://www.pollingreport.com

    2. A Gore/Obama ticket might be very energizing.  I worry about all the humongous home, $400 dollar haircut stuff that could be thrown at Edwards since poverty is one of his signature issues and the wet-behind the ears factor for Obama, not that those issues could not be overcome.  As for Hillary, her negatives aren’t going to get any better, making her the longest shot of all in the general.

      Gore has been on the anti side on the Iraq war from the beginning, the bad news on the climate front keeps piling up and it just might be easier to elect a first Black VP before electing a first Black President. Gore might not be such a crazy idea.  Nixon came back from a loss and Gore actually won, just not by enough to stop the steal.  Dems have been less willing to grant second chances but there’s a first time for everything. 

      Alternately an Obama/ Richardson or Edwards/Richardson  could do the trick, unless Richardson can actually get people to see he has the best Presidential resume of them all.  Unfortunately Presidential contests are heavy on emotion and the superficial appeal factor and light on anything concrete in our era. 

        1. If by the same three you mean Gore and the Clintons you’re WAY off base.  There has been no love lost between them since before the 2000 election.  The Gores didn’t appreciate the whole Monica thing, the Clinton’s didn’t appreciate the Gore’s attitude and they certainly won’t appreciate Hillary losing out to Gore.  Don’t expect the Clintons to be spending much time at a Gore White house!

            1. Is this not the most interesting field in a long time?

              On both sides.  I can’t wait to see Hillary come unglued when she starts feeling the heat from one of the other challengers.  It’s already been fun to see which way the big donors are falling.

              1. Hillary is way too “cool” to let the “heat” unglue her.

                WAY too much real world political experience.  She was “cool” right through the adultery scenario.

              2.   Hillary has survived Al D’Amato and the Whitewater investigation, Newt Gingrich calling her a “bitch,” Ken Starr and B.J. investigation, Monica and Bill’s public confession of adultery, not to mention Rush & Co.
                  I think Hillary will hold up just fine in the Democratic primaries.
                  Bill, on the hand, will probably come unglued first! Say what you will about the state of their marriage, but when one of them is attacked, the other is very protective.

                1. I think she’s sacrificed so much to get here (her marriage, maybe her happiness, ant sort of ideology) that if she thinks Obama or another challenger is nipping at her heels, she’s going to unleash the machine.

                  It’s really going to be interesting to watch these debates.  Obama has yet to really get hardcore about any of his policies.  Edwards is, well, Edwards.  A lot of ‘contrasts’ with that guy (how’s that for the new kinder, gentler LB?).

                    1. …”Hug Day” last week, I’m trying to be less abrasive.  I still feel the same about most things, but I’m not fighting fire with fire anymore.

      2. First, Obama has said no to VP. Of course, he may have meant that with Hillary. But having 2 leaders from the mostly the east (and most see obama as being east coast, rather than midwest), would hurt. Instead, Gore/Richardson or Obama/Richardson would do the dems more good.

        2. Might not be written in stone.  Of course he wants to make it clear that he’s going for the top job and it’s hard to picture him with Hillary but why not say “yes” to the right winner if he loses and gets the VP offer?  It would still be historic, serving as VP would end the inexperience arguments and would set him up for the future. 

          Also, while people out here consider Illinois (or even Kansas) “east”, nobody from  the traditional midwest or east does.  It has always been considered midwest,very distinct from the east, by the rest of the midwestern states like Michigan,Minnesota, Wisconsin,Iowa, Indiana, etc. I know, I know, you think those are all “east”, too! Trust me, New York and Boston are culturally eastern.  Chicago and Milwaukee aren’t.  As a kid we took a trip from my native Chicago to visit a family friend in New York City and it was like going to Mars.

          1. As a kid who spent about 12 years on the ill/wisc. border (wonder lake), I certainly understand what you mean. But then again, ppl tend to view other regions as different from themselves. Many here will see Utah and Wyoming as being radically different, even though they are not (we have polygamy here, it is just kept quieter; we have LOTs of mormons, just not in the denver area; We certainly have lots of farmers/ranchers in colorado, but again not in Denver). The ppl here (and in WA, OR, CA, NV, NM, AZ, and etc.) will view Chicago as being EAST when it comes to the election. If the dems are going to win, they will need every edge that they have. Keep in mind, that the dems have an edge back east. Now, they need to develop it here. They are going to need somebody like Richardson to help win the west.

          2. I spent a month in Bensonville, right outside of Chicago for corporate training ca. 1984 for a month.  I lived in LA and had previously in CO, FL, and NY. 

            I thought I was on another planet. It was as if there was some kind of time filtration going on, that it was 1974, not 1984. I had gotten a very short business haircut, but the first words out of the management mouth was, “When you gonna get a haircut?” They really hated us Californians, but we were the ones making the numbers, and California is where they loved to come for a business trip.

            At every restaurant meal I heard the same question, “How do you want your potato?”  Why do you presume I want a potato?  When I would ask if I could get any vegetables, the usual answer was, “Let me see what we can find,” or some variant.

            My company had a long history with the auto industry and its vendors.  The people thought things like chrome and fake wood grain was very cool.

            When an engineer came out we went to the grocery store to get stuff for a BBQ.  College educated, she did not know what an avacado was. 

            Good people, salt of the earth.  But not my culture.

      3. to have VP offered to him.  More potentially ugly scandal coming out of Chicago and his relationship with a guy named Rezko, who is under indictment.

        Chicago Sun-Times is tying the two together regarding some failed public housing issues.  Rezko is accussed of being a slum-lord who used public money to redevelop housing projects for the poor and then let them go without heat, water, etc.  Most are now in foreclosure.

        This in addition to the already mentioned real estate deal.

        No question Hillary will use this against Obama.

      4. I am so over worrying about what trivial aspect of a candidate the Repubs will make fun of.  They always make fun of something, even if they have to make something up (cf. Al Gore  said he invented the internet).  I propose we each support the candidate we think would be the best president, and quit worrying about whether Repubs will approve of him/her (they won’t).

        1. but it is going to be a little inconvenient for a guy whose big thing is the two Americas, rich vs poor, if they keep coming up with sillier and sillier examples of over-the-top ostentation so they can paint him as a hypocrite. Just because you aren’t swayed by such trivialities don’t kid yourself that it doesn’t make any difference.  Remember Kerry windsurfing?  Remember all the ads featuring the term “latte-drinking”?  We can be sick of it all we want but that doesn’t make it go away. The Rs have been very successful at using that kind of thing to win elections. 

          1. Is what does a haircut have to do with his position on poverty? He got an expensive haircut, does that mean that he is no longer qualified to create public policy concerning poverty and welfare reform? Yeah, it will be played by the right, but so what. How many times will the public be played by BS antics that dont address real issues facing the country? Fool me once and all that.

            1. Frankly, to me (and I’m anything but “the right”), getting a $400 haircut harms his credibility on dealing with poverty.  It makes me wonder if he knows what he’s talking about, and makes me wonder how much he really cares.  None of the other candidates are Mother Theresa either, but I KNOW Obama spent years of his life working for pennies as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago to raise the standard of living there.  If I have to choose the better poverty advocate, Obama’s got my support, and yes it is partly because of Edwards’ haircut.

              1. then would anybody measure up? They all get expensive haircuts, whether it looks like it or not. They probably all go to fancy spas, get facials, and in general follow every bit of advice ever handed out by the Queer Eye guys.

                For me, the only thing wrong with Edwards’ haircut was charging it to his campaign rather than paying for it out of his own pocket. They’re all wealthy enough to afford all of that fancy stuff, and to eat at 4 star restaurants every night if they want.

                Being wealthy doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about poverty. Remember, FDR was the product of a truly patrician family, born with a silver spoon in his mouth. We all know what he did for the poor.

          2. Republicans *will* make fun of our candidate.  Period.  Shall I remind you of a few examples?

            – Gore and internet, love canal, love story, brown suits, etc.

            – Kerry and looking French, windsurfing, marrying money, purple heart bandaids, etc.

            – Dean and screaming, wife dresses funny, wife is a Jew, weird internet supporters

            – Hillary – marriage of convenience, pant suits, weight

            – Edwards as breck girl, rich, expensive haircuts

            It Does. Not. Matter. who we run. 

            Things that would be just fine in a Republican candidate will be fodder for months on end of talk radio and debate shows.  Bush can fall off a Segway and it doesn’t matter.  If he had gone windsurfing, it would have showed how athletic he was.

            So if you act in fear of your candidate being made fun of, you are playing right into their hands.  Pick a good candidate to support and do not buy into the frames the Repubs throw at him or her.

                    2. A one time slip up (kennedy) and making the mistake many times during one short broadcast.

                    1. He’s making fun of an LA Times article with “Magic Negro” used to describe Obama, and how ridiculous of a concept it is.

                    3. He only makes fun of something like that when someone else (usually liberals) does it first.  But you would only know that if you actually listened to his show….

            2. There is a big difference between “it doesn’t matter” and “it shouldn’t matter”. We have to elect our candidates in the world that is, not the world that should be.  I’m not saying I wouldn’t support Edwards or that I think his lifestyle should disqualify him. I’m just saying that I sincerely hope he takes note and tries to avoid $400 haircuts etc. for the duration. After all, none of the candidates you cite has won, have they? 

              It’s not about fear.  It’s also not about basking in our moral superiority. It’s about winning.  It IS a game, a very cut-throat game, like it or not. It needs to be well played.  Otherwise we’ll just find ourselves looking down on the next Republican regime from the sidelines,from up on our moral high horses. I just want the best candidate who is also best prepared to play well for my team and win.

              1. there are always two challenges: Playing the game well according to the rules that exist, and improving the context of the game in order to improve the quality of the outcome. The first challenge involves things like not getting expensive hair cuts while you are basing your candidacy on being a champion for the impoverished. The second challenge involves things like not reinforcing the wide-spread sense that such critiques are legitimate by treating them as legitimate. In other words, the two goals are in some ways contradictory, and involve a balancing act.

                I went to the ProgressNow convention here a few weeks ago, and the thing that really pissed me off was the way in which the only topic was how to get elected. We have become far too obsessed with the game, and have made the substantial challenges that the game is supposed to serve far too marginal of a consideration in politics. I want to see democrats win, but even more, I want to see good policies enacted. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that those two desires are synonymous. By continuing to permit the conversation to be about haircuts rather than about policies, we continue to maintain and broaden the disconnect between politics and policy. I’d rather lose a few elections than continue to lose hope that we’ll ever qualitatively improve the way in which we manage our collective existance.

                1. …getting candidates elected and the desire for good policy can come into conflict but there is no way around that.  An ideal candidate who loses will not do you as much good as a candidate who offers maybe 80% of what you want but actually gets elected.  80% of something is always going to be better than 100% of nothing.  100% of nothing is what brought us the scariest Supreme Court of my life time.  Even so-so Dems, had their been enough of them to control congress, could have at least prevented THAT.

                  And of course a haircut, by itself, isn’t going to make or break anybody.  The point is the Presidential election is the least rational of all our elections because such a sizable number of non-political voters who don’t really pay attention to issues only vote in Presidential elections and they vote from the gut. They vote for the one they find the most appealing for pretty superficial reasons.  Disgusting?  Too bad, that’s how it is.  The base that also takes the biggest chunk of those voters wins.  A good candidate who is solid on the issues can also be a smart politician and has to be to get elected.  Forget the damned haircut already. 

                  1. Except that the constant temptation to compromise to the reality you describe perpetuates it. There are many similar dynamics in politics: An idealistic young person goes into politics to improve the world she lives in. She must compromise her integrity in many ways to get elected, and then re-elected, always justifying the compromises with the argument that if she isn’t office, she can’t do all of the good she wants to do. But these compromises push her toward a generic pandering role strategically placed on the political spectrum to capture enough support to stay in business. And she becomes ever less the idealistic person with innovative ideas contributing her imagination and intelligent social analyses to the process, and ever more the drone who is a matrix of mechanical responses to the exingencies of the political process. What is lost in political courage.

                    Is a haircut the right hill to die on? No. Do I think Edward would have been smarter to have gotten a $8 haircut from the local beauty school? Absolutely. Do I think that having done so for reasons of image would have contributed to the victory of form over substance? Marginally. My point isn’t that no attention and no concessions should be paid to political realities, but rather that such concessions should not dominate the process. And for that to happen, we have to talk about something else besides “political realities” at every opportunity.

                    1. What you describe is the ideal that should guide us while remembering that ideals are targets that can never be fully realized in the material world any more than a perfect sphere can ever exist in the material world.  We can only try our best to get closer.  People who think and feel as you contribute to that getting closer.  Thank you.

    3. He was part of the team that “balanced” the budget(not really  balanced, but it was headed in the right direction). Sadly, W. is a TRUE RR clone and running massive deficits for no real reason, other then general incompetence.

      He called it correctly on Science issues esp WRT Global Warming. But the 2 issues that I have is that he allowed the IFR to not be finished AND would have made us part of the Kyoto treaty. Kyoto is a bad treaty until ALL parties are held to it AND the limits are defined beforehand. Even now, the members are playing games that will ultimately kill the treaty. But sadly, W. has been as much a disaster on this and squirreled away our opportunities.

      Sadly, he is attributed with saying that he “invented” the internet. While he never said that, he was instrumental in  pushing the initial funding for the research.

      All in all, Gore is a thinker that we sorely need. I only wonder if he CAN win an election? Apparently, some folks here have suggested that he has improved his biggest weakness; Friendliness. If so, then he will probably kill Clinton and Obama in the primary and win the general election. America (and the world) can not afford any more RRRs.

  2. Gore is focused on one thing only.
    But in case he doesn’t realize it, not every single American out there believes his alarmist movie or agenda.
    Just because he made a movie and got an award from extremely liberal Hollywood types, doesn’t mean he will win over the American people.

    Besides, who wants Alec Baldwin and his cronies on their side?

    1. He is the fourth candidate in our nation’s history to win the popular but lose the electoral college.  The other three did it w/o the help of the Supreme Court, at least.

      The only people who care about Alec Baldwin or whomever you wish to dredge up wouldn’t vote for him anyway, so that’s a non-issue.

      1. …then Republican Secretary of State of Florida,  Gore actually won Florida,too, in spite of the shenanigans, suppression and confusing butterfly ballot that had Jewish seniors voting for Pat Buchanan, a Holocaust denier, by mistake.  She has said that if the Gore campaign had not sought to cherry-pick certain counties but demanded a state-wide recount, he would have won and she was very proud of herself for handing the state to her party.  He won the popular and the electoral was flat-out stolen from him.

        1. My numbers were from the media consortium that very, very carefully recounted all ballots. KH’s observations are what we already know, but it’s nice to get confirmation from “the other side.”

          As my family lives in Sarasota, between my visits and seeing KH signs, it was very depressing.  At least she got her butt kicked.

      1. I think he’s having too much fun making a lot of money and pushing his movie to run for president.  Plus I think most of the top talent has been scooped up by both sides and it’s getting way too late to get in.

    4. The FOX News viewers to whom you refer also believe we found WMDs in Iraq.

      And these willfully deluded souls comprise a smaller and smaller percentage in public opinion polling, which shows almost 75% of Americans consistently stating that global warming is a real threat.

      You’d like to say that a focus on human-caused climate change is a liability for a national candidate…but you’d be wrong.

      1. and most of the rest of our elected officials also are on record saying we needed to kick Sadaam’s ass because of his having WMD’s.
        I stick to my assumtion that global warming should be just one small aspect of a candidate’s platform. Gore is a nut job and focused on just that one idea. And a well disputed idea at that.
        What about the war on terrorism, or drugs, or our deficit, or the price of gasoline?
        These things affect us right now and I believe most Americans think they is far more important than just the effects of natural caused global warming.

        And besides, Gore lost. He did not win. He was never president, same as Kerry.
        Therefore he lost.

        1. “Gore is a nut job and focused on just that one idea [dealing with climate change].”

          No, *you’re* focused on one of his ideas.  He hasn’t articulated a new Presidential campaign platform yet (and in all likelihood won’t run anyway), but his platform in the year 2000 addressed the topics you mention.

          Gore was criticized then by Republicans for focusing too much on this bin Laden guy, though, so obviously he’ll have to tone that down if he runs again.

          “And a well disputed idea at that.”

          Really, no.  We’re still waiting for a single peer-reviewed paper disputing that humans are causing climate change, or that the earth is warming rapidly by historical comparison.

        2. the Theory of Evolution, the Holocaust, and the moon-landing are well disputed. Mass ignorance has always been a prominent feature of human existence. Based on the actual evidence, the jury is no longer out on Global Warming. The fact that the world is in a dramatic warming phase isn’t even a “theory,” it’s an empirical fact. The explantion that it is due to some extent to green house gasses is barely a theory: There is a great deal of  empirical verification that greenhouse gas emissions act in such a way as to contribute to a global warming trend. Putting those two empirically verified fact sets together, there are few theories ever in the history of science more strongly supported that that of global warming. The measurements of ice-cap melting are so dramatically undeniable, it takes a special kind of commitment to continue to deny the reality. Not meaning to insult any individual, please take note that the word “ignorance” shares its root with the word “ignore,” as in to willfully ignore the evidence.

          Global warming will certainly cause many challenges for humanity, and a few benefits. The challenges include massive flooding in low-lying coastal regions, increasing desertification in already dry regions, an increasing frequency and average ferocity of hurricanes and tropical storms whose energy content is fed by the heat in the oceans over which they form and grow, and, most importantly of all, stressing the global ecosystem in unpredictable and possibly catastrophic ways (a few species here and there that can’t adapt to the changes die off, thus killing off other species that depend on them, in a ripple effect that has as much chance of becoming self-amplifying and geographically “contagious” as of dissipating). The benefits include improving farm yields in some regions (off-set to at least some extent by diminishing yields in others), and, probably, creating more places suitable for tropical vacations. By most analyses, it does not seem to be a very good trade-off.

            1. Sorry, OQD, maybe I just don’t understand your point.

              The notion that the Earth is flat was never a scientific position: Even the Greeks knew it was round (and one, I forget which, came remarkably close in his estimation of its size), and all well educated people in the Middle Ages knew it was round. Columbus was simply well-educated, not in any way trail-blazing into new intellectual territory (and, you might notice, his voyages in no way proved its roundness, or even hinted at its roundness: That would have required arriving at a point that had been arrived at, in living memory, by traveling in the opposite direction). All one had to do was observe a large sea-faring vessel disappear over the horizon to observe its roundness, and so this example reinforces the notion that beliefs based on reason and evidence are preferable to arbitrary beliefs.

              Though, on rare ocassion, the more arbitrary belief will be more accurate, and the one more assiduously derived will be less accurate (notice the avoidance of “right” and “wrong”). It’s like wearing seatbelts: Every so often, someone decreases the danger of death by NOT wearing a seatbelt (due to some set of fluke circumstances). But far more often, they increase the danger of death. Wearing a seatbelt is still the reasonable choice.

              This global warming issue might be such a case: Perhaps the arbitrary belief that it does not exist is more accurate and the more carefully derived belief that it does exist is less accurate. But probably not.

              2.   In the 15th century, many did not believe that the earth was round.  In the early 21st century, many in El Paso County (Colorado) do not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Ditto with global warming. 
                  It’s too newfangled.  It hasn’t been proven yet.
                  I guess we need to give them time……then again, we as a species may not have all that much time to fix the problem of global warming.

        3. You know, I’m just about as liberal as they come, and even I agree with your last statement here “He was never president, same as Kerry. Therefore he lost.” I think it’s almost pathetic how so many Dems are fixated on this idea that Gore should have won the election, should have been president. At the end of the day, he wasn’t the one with his hand on the bible taking the oath end of story, he was still the loser of that election and losers are not very well pre-positioned to win. When liberals and Dems focus on his winning the popular vote or the sketchiness in Florida they just serve to harden the image of Democrats as whiny losers who can’t own up to anything.
          I can’t imagine that I agree with you Gecko on any policy stuff, but your point here is well taken. I just hope some of my fellow liberals can see the sense in it as well.

            1. I wasn’t commenting on your points about global warming and its credibility with the American electorate. I was commenting on something that had been discussed elsewhere in the thread (not necessarily by you) and was being re-iterated. I wanted to make it known that it’s not only crazy wingers who support the 2000 Supreme Court decision, and want the Democrats to stop focusing on the fact that Gore won the popular vote (albeit most likely for different reasons).

                1. I agree with the first “Per Curiam” decision of the court, holding that there had been an equal protections violation. Because there were so many different methods of counting the ballots (hanging chads, swinging chads, dimpled chads, etc.), and since the accepted method of counting changed both by county and within a county throughout the recount process, it’s makes sense for me to say that each ballot or vote was not being treated equally as they should be.
                  As for the second part of the ruling, I disagree that the court stopped the recount, but I don’t think that it really mattered because they wouldn’t have been able to finish in time anyways what with having to start the recount all over again per the first decision. But to me it wouldn’t have hurt to let them try.
                  And I do wish my fellow Dems would stop harping on this and trying to make it out into something it wasn’t (i.e. massive Republican conspiracy, which just hurts our image).
                  I think Gore represents this “harpage” — to make up my own word — and that is a key reason for me why I don’t see him as electable, regardless of what the national name-recognition polls say.
                  I hope that answers it for you.

                  1. and I agree it does no good to obsess on who should have won that election but the fact is the court also took the extraordinary step of stipulating that this decision should not be held as setting a precedent.  Since there are and always have been different methods of counting and recounting ballots from county to county across every state in the nation, a precedent here would have brought our entire electoral system to a halt until consistency could be imposed.  In other words, even the 5 party line voters in the 5 to 4 decision knew it made no real world sense. But I’ll concede that they did it and that was that. Time to move on.

                    1. we, all have moved on. Just like Al did, the consumate gentleman. 

                      But that doesn’t mean that the fact that he won the popular vote should be thrown in the trash can. It affirms that wooden persona, earth tones, and all, he can win.  Eight years later he has become much more personable and intentionally or not, can ride the wave of Global Warming.

                    2. I think you’re right that he could win.  I think he would come to this election feeling much freer and more comfortable in his own skin with real star power.  I also suspect, when push comes to shove, he might be having too much fun living his life as a famous influential private citizen working on his issue to go through another race and all it entails. But, hey If he doesn’t run and another Dem (not Hillary) is elected President,he could be part of the government, maybe through a cabinet appointment.

        4. I VERY carefully stated that he won the popular vote.  Not only nationwide, but in Florida.  That is irrefutable. 

          I know that he lost in the Supreme Court and that based on early vote counts in Florida, the electoral college selected Bush.

          It’s in the semantics.  I know you can deal with those nuances, guy.

    2.   Both Nixon and Gore served a couple of terms in the House before graduating to the Senate, then serving as V.P. for two terms under popular presidents only to narrowly lose (or in the eyes of many, have stolen) the presidency.
        History doesn’t necessary repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes.

      1.   But sitting right where he is, he is in position to strongly influence who gets the Dem nomination and the party platform, deliver a significant fraction of the vote, and pick his job in the next administration, in exchange for his endorsement.
          Not bad for a loser.

  5. Gores Ties to Barrick…
    Some of the Chilean groups have limited themselves to denouncing Barrick’s environmental crimes-polluting the air with toxins and destroying Chile’s glaciers-and ask how the great champion of global warming could possibly associate with a monster such as Barrick. A distraught Sen. Alejandro Navarro, Socialist Party head of the Senate Environmental Committee, reported April 7 that he was writing a letter to Gore to warn him of what “his visit’s ties to Barrick Gold have provoked, so he can evaluate the impact this will have on his speech.” In a statement issued on her website, Fabiola MarГ­n Salgado of the Vida AutГіnoma organization, stated the same day that “every environmentalist in Chile would like to warn him that his image as an environmentalist will be ruined if he attends events sponsored by Barrick Gold.” Gore’s association with Barrick shows “callousness,” she said.

    Yeah, phony baloney Gore will probably run for the establishment just as Skull and Bonesman and Bush buddy Kerry plans to run.

    Dr. Ron Paul for President!
    http://www.ronpaul.o…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

107 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!