could Al Gore be the democratic nominee for president?

[nageov3t]

just a funny possibility raised by this article...

"My real worry is there is no back room," says this adviser. Clinton says she'll go all the way to the convention in August. If there's a stalemate, the superdelegates could decide to pass on the first ballot to test the candidates' strength at that juncture. We could then be way back to the future, the first time in the modern reform age that a candidate is not chosen on the first ballot.

If that happens, the convention could turn to a compromise candidate. Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party. After all, he already won the popular vote for the presidency. It was only because of a fluke at the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel. No one could deny that he's ready on day one to assume the presidency. "It's the rational choice if this turns into a goddamn mess, which it could," says the Clinton adviser, who doesn't want to be quoted seeming to waver about Clinton's chances of securing the nomination.

Gore has kept his silence throughout the Democratic nominating season. But his name will surely surface as his party ponders the possibility that they will not have a nominee by the time the convention rolls around?especially since John McCain enjoys a huge head start in launching his general-election campaign. We have the Ted Kennedy forces to thank for the freedom of choice that all delegates enjoy, not just the supers. In 1980, Kennedy argued for an open convention, while President Carter was determined to keep convention delegates bound. With a 600-delegate margin over Kennedy, Carter prevailed. As a result, any delegate voting against the candidate he or she was elected to represent could be replaced by an alternate and thrown off the convention floor. The rule was strict and enforceable. Kennedy couldn't dislodge any of the Carter delegates. Two years later, after Carter lost the election, the phrase "in all good conscience" was inserted into the rule, belatedly giving delegates the latitude Kennedy had sought.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119851

so, what do you think... Al Gore v John McCain -- the 2000 election that should have been?

 

[nonameo]

I think not.

 

[punkdork9]

My god i think i would move out of the country....

 

[Fern]

I am amazed at the lengths some Dems will go to in order to avoid recognizing the will of the electorate and their elected delegates.

Even the Clinton's starting out by saying "it's all about the pledged delegates".

Now, it seems every day there's some new or argument or method to avoid adhereing to that.

On the one hand, I find it makes the party look so wishy-washy, and seem to have no real repect for the concept of "voting". I mean, "vote all you want, we support that. But we're gonna do what we're gonna regardless".

On the other, I'm starting to wonder if by throwing out all this other stuff so often they are trying to mentally/emotionally wear us down so that nothing they could possibly do at the convention would shock or surprise us.

Wierd, really.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

each candidate's argument from the beginning has essentially been "whichever perspective is the one that means I win is the only one that matters."

 

[dphantom]

Nope, too busy flying around in his private jet talking about how we will die from global warming.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

So because they're facing having to nominate someone who missed out on about half of the popular vote, they will just nominate someone who got none of the popular vote? Does not compute.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
So because they're facing having to nominate someone who missed out on about half of the popular vote, they will just nominate someone who got none of the popular vote? Does not compute.

Maybe they want to see if Gore can beat the #2 from the 2000 election?

 

[Perknose]

Phokus, is that you?

 

[Zedtom]

I challenge any Obama or Hillary supporter to look at these three individuals and decide who would be the most qualified to lead this country.

The objective of the democratic party strategy at this point should focus on winning the election. If this bickering continues, the Republicans will portray McCain as the mature statesman who is above the fray. Al Gore has already attained this status.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
If this bickering continues, the Republicans will portray McCain as the mature statesman who is above the fray.

http://news.aol.com/political-...elsea-clinton-so-ugly/

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

Elder statesman who picks on awkward teenage girls. I guess 5 years in a pit aren't enough to teach some people manners.

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
I challenge any Obama or Hillary supporter to look at these three individuals and decide who would be the most qualified to lead this country.

The objective of the democratic party strategy at this point should focus on winning the election. If this bickering continues, the Republicans will portray McCain as the mature statesman who is above the fray. Al Gore has already attained this status.

He has a point, the best thing the party can do is throw out the whole primary (it takes up too much TV time anyways) and just appoint someone. This would ensure that all the voters would have the same say...zero.

 

[ranmaniac]

Al Gore is too busy trying to rule the world with Global Warming, plus I think he'd rather get paid in Euros instead.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
I am amazed at the lengths some Dems will go to in order to avoid recognizing the will of the electorate and their elected delegates.

Even the Clinton's starting out by saying "it's all about the pledged delegates".

Now, it seems every day there's some new or argument or method to avoid adhereing to that.

On the one hand, I find it makes the party look so wishy-washy, and seem to have no real repect for the concept of "voting". I mean, "vote all you want, we support that. But we're gonna do what we're gonna regardless".

On the other, I'm starting to wonder if by throwing out all this other stuff so often they are trying to mentally/emotionally wear us down so that nothing they could possibly do at the convention would shock or surprise us.

Wierd, really.

Fern

I think people are in fantasyland about this whole convention thing. It's interesting to them and speculation is running rampant, but the outcome is going to be pretty boring I'd bet. Chances are very good that one candidate is going to end up being the delegate leader at the end, and that's who will be chosen by the superdelegates. The end.

 

[senseamp]

Why would we want Al Gore if we can have the real deal and put Clintons back into the White House?

 

[Rainsford]

Yes, a race between two people who couldn't even beat Bush in 2000...THAT sounds like a winner to me. "Oh, you don't like the job Bush is doing, well here's two people the country thought would be EVEN WORSE!" :roll:

Seriously though, Al Gore should stick to his day job (whatever that might be). I think he would be a fine President, probably better than McCain or Clinton, but he'd be a terrible nominee. The message of the Democratic party should be about moving forward, getting past the Bush goat rodeo that has been going on these past 7 years...and the WORST way possible to try to do that would be to nominate someone who brings up all the bad memories of the first time Bush ran for office. With McCain on the Republican side, we might as well go back in time to 2000. McCain will drag down the Republicans to some extent for that reason, no point in the Dems getting in on it too...it will only end up hurting both parties, and ultimately, the country as a whole.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
Al Gore is too busy trying to rule the world with Global Warming, plus I think he'd rather get paid in Euros instead.

"Rule the world with Global Warming"? Is Al Gore filling in for Lex Luthor or something?

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: loki8481
each candidate's argument from the beginning has essentially been "whichever perspective is the one that means I win is the only one that matters."

Please tell me when Obama has advocated doing anything other than what the DNC has decided to be the groundrules for this election?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
So because they're facing having to nominate someone who missed out on about half of the popular vote, they will just nominate someone who got none of the popular vote? Does not compute.

Maybe they want to see if Gore can beat the #2 from the 2000 election?

Of course he can, he beat the Republican's #1 already.

Unfortunately, he didn't run and I think there's almost no chance he will this year.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why would we want Al Gore if we can have the real deal and put Clintons back into the White House?

Thanks for reminding me about one thing that really irritated me about Hillary. She doesn't know how not to meddle in things which aren't her business. No one elected "the Clintons". We elected William Jefferson Clinton, and then Hillary started acting as if she were co-president. Who elected her? No one.

Now we're to elect "the Clintons" again? If Bill gets to run things, then that's wrong. The President is an individual, not a wrestling tag team.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why would we want Al Gore if we can have the real deal and put Clintons back into the White House?

Thanks for reminding me about one thing that really irritated me about Hillary. She doesn't know how not to meddle in things which aren't her business. No one elected "the Clintons". We elected William Jefferson Clinton, and then Hillary started acting as if she were co-president. Who elected her? No one.

Now we're to elect "the Clintons" again? If Bill gets to run things, then that's wrong. The President is an individual, not a wrestling tag team.

Well, to be fair, Bill Clinton was pretty up front about electing them as 'a team', and in history, we've had first ladies from Wilson to Eleanor Roosevelt play some important roles.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Every day it seems the Dems come up with some new way to create a one party system, with them not being it.

 

[BoomerD]

If Al Gore could have come off in 2000 with as much personality as he's shown with the "Inconvenient Truth" campaign, I think he'd have beaten W by a large margin, but instead, he came off dull and lifeless, with all the personality of a sack of flour.

I believe he'd have made a pretty decent president, but I honestly can't claim that 9-11 would never have happened as some people have tried to say over the years. I think it would still have happened, but Gore might have actually done things better than W did and we WOULDN'T be mired in a needless war in Iraq.

That being as it may, I really don't see any chance they could draft Gore into running. If it were possible, it'd have been done already, instead as a "Johnny-come-lately" into the race.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
If Al Gore could have come off in 2000 with as much personality as he's shown with the "Inconvenient Truth" campaign, I think he'd have beaten W by a large margin, but instead, he came off dull and lifeless, with all the personality of a sack of flour.

I believe he'd have made a pretty decent president, but I honestly can't claim that 9-11 would never have happened as some people have tried to say over the years. I think it would still have happened, but Gore might have actually done things better than W did and we WOULDN'T be mired in a needless war in Iraq.

That being as it may, I really don't see any chance they could draft Gore into running. If it were possible, it'd have been done already, instead as a "Johnny-come-lately" into the race.

Good post.

Ironically, Bob Dole did the same thing - listened to professionals until he seemed wooden and negative. Then right after the campaign, he went on Saturday Night Live and showed us his sense of humor, and many of us immediately saw a side of him that would have made us consider voting for him.

 

[senseamp]

It just goes to show that America got the leadership it deserved in 2000. For all the whining about how much Bush sucks, if you vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with, you get all hat, no cattle cowboys to lead the country. And of course with Obama, we are on track to repeat the same pattern.