View Full Version: Gore needs to tag Obama or Edwards as VP!

Al Gore Support Center Online Forum 2008 :: A Reality Based Organization Fighting For Al Gore! > Al Gore and the 2008 Election Talk > Gore needs to tag Obama or Edwards as VP!



Title: Gore needs to tag Obama or Edwards as VP!


andrewv1 - October 13, 2007 12:35 PM (GMT)
All of us we're pretty excited yesterday when there was much speculation about the possible Gore Candidacy. Unfortunately almost in unison the TV talking heads presented the fact that he has no money or organization in dealing with Clinton for the nomination at this point. At the time, I was very surprised no one brought up what radio host Thom Hartmann went on about on his show;
Gore should go to all the Democratic Candidates and work out a deal making one of them his VP running mate. Of course, Hillary wouldn't be interested but between Edwards, Richardson, Obama, or the other candidates they would welcome the opportunity.
My question is how does Election guidelines work to transfer organization and money from one candidate to another?

al001 - October 13, 2007 01:23 PM (GMT)
Can't fully answer your question but shouldn't he first announce he's running?

andrewv1 - October 13, 2007 02:08 PM (GMT)
I think the question is how can he get into the race....Every network as well as cable news mentioned that the odds were against him getting in because he is running short of time in setting up an organization and money before the primaries. Every one of the present Democratic contenders now know they will not get the nomination including Obama and Edwards. I would speculate that many of them would be more interested in getting on a Gore ticket than positioning themselves as a Secretary of State under a Hillary administration.
Since Gore is not posting his schedule after Chicago next week I find that interesting.

IanOC - October 13, 2007 04:10 PM (GMT)
If and when Al gets into the race, he will take support away from Obama and Edwards. One or both of them will realize they can not win and then will need to work out a deal with him -- but it is unlikely that would happen until December or January. Without Gore in the race, Clinton's poll numbers are about 50 percent. With him in the race, they drop. If Edwards or Obama or both drop out and Gore is in, that's when things will get interesting. Gore is the only one who can beat here.

This is Gore's time. Hope he rises to the challenge. The pundits who say it's too late or that Gore has concluded he can't beat her (give me a break!) are full of themselves. Reagan entered the race in November, Bush and Clinton in October, and none of them had Gore's appeal at the time.

Gore is the greatest statesman America has. Clinton is a former first lady who voted for a war that the majority of America is opposed to. You think Gore is intimidated by that?

JamesAquila - October 13, 2007 05:07 PM (GMT)
If Gore decides to run before he announces he meet with Edwards and/or Obama, get them agree to drop out and endorse him. That would be the smartest way to do it.

dbciii - October 13, 2007 06:14 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (IanOC @ Oct 13 2007, 10:10 AM)
If and when Al gets into the race, he will take support away from Obama and Edwards. One or both of them will realize they can not win and then will need to work out a deal with him -- but it is unlikely that would happen until December or January. Without Gore in the race, Clinton's poll numbers are about 50 percent. With him in the race, they drop. If Edwards or Obama or both drop out and Gore is in, that's when things will get interesting. Gore is the only one who can beat here.

This is Gore's time. Hope he rises to the challenge. The pundits who say it's too late or that Gore has concluded he can't beat her (give me a break!) are full of themselves. Reagan entered the race in November, Bush and Clinton in October, and none of them had Gore's appeal at the time.

Gore is the greatest statesman America has. Clinton is a former first lady who voted for a war that the majority of America is opposed to. You think Gore is intimidated by that?

poll numbers really don't mean anything.


The recent one that the MSM made a big fuss over that showed HRC moving ahead of Obama and Edwards in Iowa was 399 "likely caucus voters." Gore is roughly equal to Edwards

By contrast, an MSNBC unscientific online poll yesterday had 59% saying gore should enter and they'd vote for him. Last I saw it was over 168,000 people. Of course it was probably responded to mostly by those who like him, but those are still impressive numbers.

So what is reality? Who knows?




andrewv1 - October 13, 2007 06:29 PM (GMT)
I thought it amazing how Newsweek's Richard "Hillary Water Carrier" Wolffe giving MSNBC analysis of why Gore should not enter the race were that his poll numbers were low.
I guess when he was given his Terry McAuliffe talking points he was instructed not to point out that Gore was not in the race yet, so the poll is not really viable.

The Clinton Campaign reminds me somewhat of a Lite version of their Bush counterparts.

jz4gore - October 13, 2007 06:35 PM (GMT)
Hey JAMES!!!
June here...
And yes, we're ALL still at it... hoping and praying that the talking heads who're ruling out 2008 are dead wrong...
I did read a piece this AM that suggested Gore would see if Hillary imploded... and the fact that she's taken the lead has discouraged him from getting into it...
Still, my car reads like a Gore loveletter, and everyone who stops me asks WHEN Gore will announce, or WHY HE HASN'T ALREADY!!! I wonder if Gore himself realizes the kind of broadbased support he's got?!
Think positive thoughts!!!
Gore2theCore,
June

misspooh - October 13, 2007 08:28 PM (GMT)
If Gore gets into the race, Hillary's campaign WILL implode! He shouldn't wait for it to happen, he should MAKE it happen....

IanOC - October 13, 2007 09:01 PM (GMT)
You're right that the poll numbers don't tell us how people will actually vote. Kerry was in third with 15 percent about this time in 2003. But it is fair to say that Clinton is the frontrunner at the moment, and that if those who oppose her do not consolidate behind one candidate but split the vote among Obama, Edwards and Gore, she will win. So there has to be a move to support one those three, it seems to me. Otherwise we've got Hillary, and she may to lose to Giuliani, and, well, kiss goodbye to the earth.

Mike F - October 13, 2007 11:16 PM (GMT)
I've heard that Democrats are talking about tagging Ohio Governor Ted Strickland as a VP choice since he's quite popular here in Ohio...and we all know how important it is to carry Ohio in a presidential election.

ReElectAlGore2008 - October 13, 2007 11:19 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mike F @ Oct 13 2007, 07:16 PM)
I've heard that Democrats are talking about tagging Ohio Governor Ted Strickland as a VP choice since he's quite popular here in Ohio...and we all know how important it is to carry Ohio in a presidential election.

Who?
Never heard anyone mention his name whatsoever, for anything at all

There are plenty of much better choices out there

Nagasakee - October 13, 2007 11:46 PM (GMT)
I believe two forces are at work here:

1) if Gore jumps in he won't need an organization. His name recognition is s freaking high that he need not worry initially aboiut the standard political organizaion. The "Howard Dean approach" but...squared.

2) He really does not have good poll numbers. Hillary is the only candidate that exceeds his negatives. He knows the very second he enters his negatives sky rocket and his positives dive. Wold Blitzer (the little putz) immediately starts a story "Was this the plan all along?"

Gosd I hope he gets in, I have no idea who to support otherwise.




Hosted for free by InvisionFree