http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/

[QUOTE=JamesAquila,Jan 25 2008, 07:10 PM]

Here’s my question to you: If the Democrats have trouble picking between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, should Al Gore consider entering the race?[/QUOTE]

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/[/QUOTE]

ABSOLUTELY, WITHOUT A DOUBT, 100% POSITIVE, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES,......!!!!!!!

In my wildest dreams, huh? :P

If there's even a slim chance that could happen I would cast my vote strategically even if it meant Hillary, except in the general election. Whatever I have to do to keep it neck and neck.

I added my two cents!! Yes he should!! It would be a moment I've waited for this entire election cycle. Just the fact that CNN is posing this question makes me a little hopeful. :rolleyes: But yeah, it's still a long shot. Just gotta keep Clinton and Obama neck in neck, and keep Edwards in the race!! :Y:

Yes.

The Bullspit this week shows he is much needed.

(But then Hillary would do the bullspit on him...

I have never seen an ex-president be so unpresidential as Bill Clinton has been.
He is acting like Roger Clinton. A real buffoon (but then I don't like him on a normal day).

Who is Edwards shilling for is the question? Who and what does he really want?
As there is no way for Edwards to win
(because if it came to both top candidates not winning, voila, Al will win)...

so what game is Edwards playing? (and I don't much like him either I do admit).

Yes, of course he should. That is exactly what we've all been hoping for---a real convention fight after all these years of having the media select the candidate based on the vote of a tiny minority of states. At last, there seems to be a break in that scenario with no candidate the obvious "winner" and therefore amazing the media, who don't know what to think since all they report is polls they influence through their non-reporting of issues. :tongue:

of course in 1968 a real fight did not help the Dems to win

and there is no guarantee Gore will be the one asked after that, it is just a hope

And today there were reports that Obama is picking edwards as his Attorney General (shades of Bobby)...meaning if true, dealing is being done earlier

But also leaving open the question as to who is considered for Obama's VP?

still know who I would pick, if the other scenerio don't work out

Here's a humorous comment posted after the story...

January 25th, 2008 3:06 pm ET

He didn’t win before. So sure, let’s have more of Gore. He’s no longer a bore. In fact, he’s a true Democrat to the core. Let him join the race and he will soar. The rest of us will roar and poor Hillary will slither away…. through the loser’s door.

Here's what I posted:

No one is better qualified to be president than Al Gore. He has everything the current candidates lack: experience, diplomatic-know-how, good judgment, wisdom, dignity, an understanding of priorities, knowledge, gumption, and he’s already proven once that he can win.

Al Gore has never ruled out running, and he is, hands down, the best person to be president. Nothing would be better for the U.S. and the world than for Al Gore to rise from the ashes of a deadlocked convention in August. and take the office that the majority of Americans elected him to in 2000.

And what of the "super delegates?" Are they not likely to be DNC-types that want to keep the party "in line," and will vote for Hillary?

The primaries and caucuses gain lots of attention but the 800 lb gorilla is lurking in the shadows :?:

Leahy, Kerry and now Kennedy endorsing Obama? Something is happening here, and it's not that the Democratic establishment is in love with a charismatic inexperienced candidate. Let's face it, they don't care what the voting populace wants, but they are strategically doing something here to get to a Brokered convention in Denver. Remember Dean should have won in 2004, but they changed the rules. It's happening again, if not more obvious. If it's not "Big Al" they have someone in mind at the top of this ticket with Obama as a probable VP running mate. And how they are responding, it's not Hillary.

They are telling Hillary= nobody likes you Hillary. Go away.
And if she doesn't and it is brokered, last person who would become the candidate then will be Hillary.

The defiance of most of the senate/house in backing Obama over Hillary is amazing.
Hillary and Bill went to far. Hllary is unliked (face it- the majority of people who actually want Hillary(are there many?) only want her because of Bill.
How many people out there actually personally like her, for herself? Very few.

And she is tearing the party apart. :angry:

And Teddy gave it to her good yesterday.
But even more so, Caroline's wonderfully written piece about Obama was a major slap in the face to the Clinton's.

There is hope...Hope Hillary will not be our nominee.

(and the other 800 pound gorilla lurking in the back is Bloomberg...If Hillary is the nominee, Bloomberg runs.
If someone else is, Bloomberg will endorse that person and work with that person instead of running himself.

How did they change the rules?

When I mentioned by the rules, please don't take me figuratively. My fault for not clarifying....
What I was saying is Dean was the presumptive nominee and then all of a sudden came Kerry. It's been widely reported that the party machine threw resources with other help Kerry's way in Iowa which contributed to his win. Also, good point about Bloomberg.
I don't want to wear the "Tin Foil" hat but there's definitely maneuvering going on here and though it might stop HRC, I don't know that's it's ultimately going to give Obama the nomination.

That has been widely speculated, mainly by disgruntaled Dean supporters, but most political analysts will that both the Dean and Gephardt campaigns got too negative in Iowa and sank both campaigns.

I am not saying you are not right...But can we both agree the Democratic Establishment was unhappy with Dean being the nominee at the time?

I think it depends on who you consider the Democratic Establishment. Those in Washington didn't like Dean but he had a lot of support from State Party Chairs and they really have the most power in the party.

A BROKERED CONVENTION!

I can see it now, Clinton and Obama bickering with their people at the convention...then you here a loud ruckus in the back of the Convention Hall...AND IN MARCHES AL GORE WITH THE AL GORE ARMY! :!:

If Clinton & Obama CANNOT stop this BICKERING then BIG DADDY AL GORE WILL HAVE TO DO IT FOR THEM! ;)

THE LPOTUS WILL NOT PICK SIDES LIKE KENNEDY & KERRY DID! WE DO IT TOGETHER OR NOT AT ALL! ;)

I think we are getting bogged down here.

The bottom line is there is a possibility that Clinton will go in the convention with the most delegates (though not enough to win), Obama will go in with the momentum and Edwards will go in as "the King maker." Then you will have a problem and an opportunity simultaneously. Although some pundits (who I think are on crack) think you can put Clinton and Obama on the same ticket, I think otherwise. I know I'll be challenged and "flamed" here, but I think you will need a white male on the ticket or the Democrats will be "toast" in November.

I don't think either Obama or Hillary would pick each other as their running mate. I think Obama would ask Gore before he'd ask Hillary to be his VEEP. Now I know Gore wouldn't accept, but I'm just saying it'd be more likely that he'd ask Gore before he'd EVEN consider Hillary. And Hillary would probably consider someone from her own circle. JMO.

Sorry to confuse the issue with facts.

Isn't it funny that the mainstream media kept saying it would be the Republicans having the Brokered Convention. Now that it looks with like a McCain/Huckabee ticket, it's the Dems who if they plan to win in November will have to "go down this road". You cannot win the General Election with either of the two niche candidates, Clinton and Obama. The Democratic party I think now realizes this and they will find a way to put a white male at the top of the ticket with Obama as a running mate. Hillary will be told to "sit down" and become Senate Majority Leader. The only two candidates I can see winning in November for the Democrats are John Edwards or Al Gore.
(That's my prediction)

[QUOTE]
Sorry to confuse the issue with facts.

"Yawn"...What's your point?

The point is that Dean lost Iowa because of the nasty campaign he ran and Kerry won because he ran a campaign that connected with the people of Iowa. The so-called "Democratic Establishment" had nothing to do with it.

So...I will not get into your specifics here because we don't ever see to get to the "big picture" but you're saying and let me make sure I get this straight...That the Democratic Establishment does not have influence on the nominee?

No I'm saying the there is no monolithic Democratic Establishment. The real power of the party lies with State and local party officials. And that they had no influence on the result of the Iowa caucus in 2004.

Dean lost because he ran a bad campaign built on vitriol and arrogance that turned off the people of Iowa. It is just denying reality to think otherwise.

So let me ask again...and I don't want to get dwell on this trivial nonsense; You're saying that the influence is completely on a local level and the Main Democratic Party never interferes?

Party rules forbid the national party from taking sides in the primaries.

Ok, so whatever it is, I think you have made your point. That's good.

The point is that Dean lost Iowa on his own and Kerry won it on his own.

I guess there's never been smoke-filled back rooms in the Past where the Parties made secret deals and "manipulated" who would be the nominee either.
So you're entitled to your opinion.

Ok, we move on.

Can the Democratic Party win with their two frontrunners?

In TN, I'm voting undecided since Edwards has dropped out. Edwards did not endorse anyone. I do not think that Obama or Clinton can win in the general election. If we do not want another GOP in the White House, we should vote undecided.
I heard a GOP say this morning if Clinton is the one, the GOP would come out to vote for a ham sandwich if they had to.

The GOP wil focus on Obama being inexperienced and not ready for the job as president. They will stress McCain's experience. So, we can not go with Hillary or Obama.

We're not going to have a choice but to go with Hillary or Obama.

And let's face it, if Gore were in the race, they'd tear him apart also. Maybe it wouldn't be quite as easy, but there's plenty for them to either lie about or pick on him for. NAFTA comes to mind . . .

Also, if any of you decide you can't vote for Hillary or Obama, it's "uncommitted" you want to vote for, not "undecided." I believe all 50 states have uncommitted delegates. I haven't made up my mind yet what I'm going to do. I just can't believe we waited eight long years for Gore to run again, and it's not going to happen.

Guh. :mad:

We're talking 2004, not 1924. And it is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of reality. Dean supporters have been pimping this false narrative for years now because they are too stubborn to admit that he ran a bad campaign.

Obama and Clinton are destroying each other. I think it is as clear as it has ever been that Bill Clinton did not want Gore to win in 2000 because they had Hillary waiting in the wings for '08. Gore knows this, and he is abiding his time, and he will know exactly when to get in the race. Gore did say that he was giving the candidates time to address global warming, and so far practically nothing. Gore is not going to let the Clintons do this to him.

If Gore has won in 2000 he'd be finishing up his second term and be ineligble to run again in '08. So the logic of this statement escapes me.

The Clintons knew with sixteen years of Democrats in the White that it would be asking too much for another eight years of control.

[/QUOTE]
We're talking 2004, not 1924. And it is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of reality. Dean supporters have been pimping this false narrative for years now because they are too stubborn to admit that he ran a bad campaign.

Your reality pal...
Do you want to contribute here or are you just on this board to harass everyone?
You harp on one thing and have a hard time seeing the big picture.
It's getting old.

As Daniel Moynihan use to say "everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts". And so far you've not presented one fact to back up your original statement. But you have tried to change the subject, obfuscate, put words in my mouth and now resort to personal attacks.
Since at the title of the forum says this is a "reality based organization", standing up for the truth is contributing. And maybe if more people harassed those who make allegations without proof and parrot false narratives this country would not mess it is in today. That is the big picture.
What's getting old are people who want to say whatever they please without regard for reality or the truth and expecting a free pass when they do so and then get in a snit because someone calls them out on it.

OK I see your point. But wouldn't that mean that the Clintons would had to of been 100% positive that Gore would be re-elected in 2004?