http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/arc...ng_for_gore.php


The Atlantic.Com

Waiting for Gore
01 Feb 2008 05:23 pm
Matthew Yglesias

Now that MoveOn's decided to endorse Barack Obama there's really and truly not much out there worth having in endorsementland except the grand prize of Al Gore. Josh Green steps up to the plate with the breathless speculation you crave:

On the other hand, Obama is now close enough to a big win that Gore’s endorsement could easily put him over the top. Gore is beloved among Democratic primary voters. His staunch denials have been unusually effective in tamping down speculation that he’ll endorse, so an announcement would be earthshaking and guaranteed to dominate the airwaves until the February 5 primaries. Take Tennessee, Gore’s home state, which could wind up making the difference. Democratic polling there is somewhat sparse, especially that done after John Edwards’s withdrawal. But Tennessee looks to be a state in which Clinton currently holds a lead—that is, unless a certain favorite son were to endorse her opponent.

I think that's persuasive. On the other hand, I've never been totally sure where the widespread assumption that Gore prefers Obama has come from. I understand the basis for the idea that there are important Gore-Clinton tensions, but at the same time Gore seems like very much the sort of person who might be sufficiently persuaded by Clinton's arguments about experience, etc. that he just doesn't have strong feelings about the race.

This is a blog. For commets go to link and continue reading after main article.

I still believe Gore is going to get into this race.

Great article above but you left out the most important bit:

A well-connected Tennesseean told me two things today that got me thinking about this. The first is that Obama and Gore have been speaking regularly, about every two weeks or so. The second is that, despite this, and despite Tennessee’s primary on Tuesday, Obama has not visited the state since June. It may be simply that he does not plan on competing there. Or it may be that he’s been waiting for a special occasion.

Another fascinating article has just appeared in The New Republic which I print below in full. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/a...avor-obama.aspx

The key line is at the end and i have bolded it.

Why the Clock May Favor Obama

Isaac makes a good point about the MacGillis/Kornblut piece in today's WaPo, which wonders if Obama has enough time to catch Hillary before Tuesday. I'd add a couple thoughts:

First, Obama isn't playing for a win on Tuesday. Just something that approximates a stalemate. (I'd say that means carrying 8-10 states and 45 percent of the delegates up for grabs.) The old conventional wisdom was that a long, drawn-out fight benefits Hillary, since all her natural advantages (fundraising ability, name recognition, establishment support, access to free media) will kick in once Obama's momentum fades. But, increasingly, I think a drawn-out fight favors Obama. Not only is he raising money at a phenomenal clip ($32 milion in one frickin' month!), but Clinton-fatigue is starting to take its toll. (Such is the nature of "fatigue" that it only gets worse over time.) Conversely, people seem to like Obama more the more they see him.

The other thing to keep in mind is that, if Obama can just survive February 5, then he's back to a schedule that's perfectly manageable for someone with so much money and such a large organization. There's not a day on the primary calendar between Tuesday and the convention that has more than four contests scheduled. Even on March 4, which the Post says could be a decisive day, Ohio and Texas are really the only two games in town. (Vermont and Rhode Island also vote that day, but, you know, they're Vermont and Rhode Island.) And there are two weeks between March 4 and the previous primary day. Since, as MacGillis and Kornblut point out, Obama tends to do better the more time he can focus on a specific state, I see this slightly benefiting him.

Bottom line: It may be to Obama's advantage to have one massive primary day (Feb. 5) followed by a bunch of two-state affairs, since, if he can just survive the former, he's got a great shot in the latter. Conversely, it would have been much trickier for him to have several six- and eight-state primaries every week, since it would have been impossible to focus on one or two particular states but, unlike February 5, the press wouldn't keep giving him a pass.

Update: A reader points out that, if this becomes a delegate race, Obama can't afford to dig too deep a hole for himself--it's too hard to make up ground in later primaries since they're not winner-take-all either. Good point. If Obama wins 45 percent of Tuesday's delegates, he'll be facing about a 200-delegate deficit. He probably needs to keep it closer to 100, which would mean winning about 47.5 percent of delegates. Still eminently doable (even likely), but worth keeping in mind...

END

This is my analysis of both articles:

These two articles from respected journals speculate that Gore is going to endorse Obama soon. I don't believe that but I have suspected for sometime that Gore and Obama were going to announce that they were going to have a meeting. The press will say that the meeting is about Gore endorsing Obama but after an extended meeting they come and announce a joint-ticket: Gore-Obama in that order. That scenario is strengthened by thiese articles.

In the final paragraph of the Atlantic article the journalist says that he has spoken to, 'a well connected Tennessean who told me two things today.' Tennessee is Gore's home and from what he goes on to reveal this person must be very close to Gore. The two points are that (1) Gore and Obama speak every two weeks or so. This is only the second time there has been any confirmation of a connection between them. Obama let it slip out 2 months ago that he and Gore speak, 'around every three weeks.' Now its two - but its probably even more frequently. A top-tier candidate for President is the busiest person on the planet so they would not be talking that frequently just to catch-up. They are talking about a plan. At a minimum we can assume that Gore is taking a very active interest in this race - despite there being no public indication of that.

The second interesting thing is this 'well-connected Tennessean' pointed out that Obama hasn't visited Tennessee since June. Big deal? He's been busy in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere. The fact that he hasn't visited Tennessee is not newsworthy - so what is interesting is that the journalist, after speaking to the 'well-connected Tennessean' thinks it is newsworthy. The last line in the article is, 'it may be that he’s (ie Obama) been waiting for a special occasion (ie to visit Tennessee).' This journalist has been tipped off I believe about a forthcoming Gore-Obama meeting.

Gore has been in Switzerland and France last week but on Friday was in Georgia where he again finished his speech by saying, 'Political will is a renewable resource.'

There was another news report a few days ago saying that Gore is going to make a decision about an endorsement after Super Tuesday. All those delegates who have been elected to the convention to support Obama would then become supporters of the new ticket and in those future states where Gore cant get on the ballot in the primaries people can vote for the Obama delegates to go to the convention and that will be a vote for Gore at the convention.

The best outcome for Gore is that Obama does well in Super Tuesday but that Hillary is still in front. This is the outcome that the polls and betting markets say is most likely to happen. The other massive factor is that one third of the delegates at the Democrat National Convention in August are appointed - ie Super Delegates. These people are party apparatchiks and I suspect will be largely pro-Gore.

This is the most political moment in this generation. Every major Democrat has thrown themselves into this race - everyone except Gore who has been deafening in his silence. But Gore is the most political being there is so I cant believe he is just going to remain silent for too much longer.

RECALL RECALL RECALL

In the above post I pasted the wrong article from The New Republic. Th correct article is below. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/a...st-on-gore.aspx



According to a source close to Al Gore, multiple people in the former VP's orbit are in touch with him on a regular basis to urge an Obama endorsement. According to this source, Gore's hesitation is three-fold:

1.) The memory of the ill-fated Dean endorsement looms large for him.

2.) (Which is somewhat related to 1.) He's worried about somehow jinxing Obama.

3.) He's enjoying the contrast between himself (statesman-like, above the fray) and Bill Clinton, who's been rooting around in the mud for his wife and damaging his legacy in the process.

To that list, I can't help adding a thought of my own: If, as now seems possible, this race goes to the convention and the convention gets deadlocked, is it so crazy for Gore to imagine himself as either a.) one of the party elders who decides the outcome, or b.) a unifying, white knight candidate in his own right? And, if that's not crazy, shouldn't Gore sit tight for now?

Just askin'...

--Noam Scheiber

I'm not very well versed in election law, but I believe that it's not possible for a candidate who has won delegates in his/her name to simply assign them over to another candidate unless he/she drops out of the race, and even then, I'm not sure how that works. In other words, I don't think Obama can simply hand all those delegates over to Gore to make a Gore/Obama ticket. First of all, there's the disenfranchisement issue. All those people who voted for Obama suddenly have their votes counting for someone else. What's to say they all want Gore to be president instead of Obama? Seems to me it would cause quite a bit of anger, particularly in the black community, if that were to happen. Beyond that, why would Obama, who's got a very good shot at being nominated, decide to take a backseat to Gore? It just doesn't make sense.

I'd love nothing more than to think that it's still possible for Gore to get in the race somehow, but I just don't see it, and especially not by this scenario.

Gore should either be President or be quiet (about endorsements now or later). Keep the focus on global warming if he "has no intentions to run." --- Period.

I agree TN Blue. Gore should either be President or not endorse. An endorsement will lower his brand and while it would be the biggest endorsement it almost certainly would make no impact on the final outcome. So then why the hell has there now been three articles in respected journals in the last 3 days quoting people close to Gore saying that he is about to endose Obama? (the third one is below). Its because the meeting between Gore and Obama is going to morph into the announcement of a joint-ticket.

This is the third article appearing in a respected journal in the last few days which quotes people who are obviously passing on what Gore has told them to pass on. This is no coincidence. Its a well thought out plan.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12682


Washington Prowler
Healer or Endorser?
By The Prowler
Published 2/4/2008 12:08:46 AM
GORE'S THINKING
Former Vice President Al Gore has asked his staff to begin laying out plans for an endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama if he performs well in the Super Tuesday primaries. "[Gore] doesn't see the utility of endorsing Obama until the endorsement would actually mean something and give Gore an opportunity to be the kingmaker," says a former aide with knowledge of Gore's thinking.

Gore is also being pressed by Clinton loyalists not to endorse anyone in the primary phase of the campaign but rather to serve as the one man who can "heal" the rift between Obama and Clinton loyalists leading on the convention in Colorado in August.

"Gore is beyond politics now, and to endorse would lower him to Clinton or Obama's level, I think," says another former adviser. "But he could take a real leadership role in the party if he wanted to, bridging the divide that we're beginning to see in the party. Bill Clinton can't do it. Really, only Gore can."


Go and have a second look at Gore at the Academy Awards in Feb 07.
Go and re-read Gore's Time Magazine front page story last year called, 'The Last Temptation of Al Gore.'
Go and re-read Gore in Rolling Stone in Oct 07.
Why has he still not said he definitely wont run?
Why did he let thousands of volunteers bust their guts to get him to run and thank them all profusely when he sternly told them to stop in 2003?
Why did he put on www.Current.com 4 one minute messages that are absolutely designed to make Democratic primary voters love him?
Why did he let people donate serious money to buy an ad in the New York Times?
Why did he very quietly and delicately ask the Draft Gore people to stop and say something like, 'please stop, its complicating things?'
Why did the world barely heard from Al Gore from 2001-2006 but then in mid 2006 just when the 2008 campaign is kicking off he goes and gets himself everywhere?

Why? Its all because he's had a plan to run for President since Dec 2000. Al Gore is a brilliant politican - and his entry into this race will be worthy of his brilliance.

Gore has wanted to leave it to the very last moment because he ran so aggressively in 1988 and 2000 and look so hungry for power. This time around he wanted to make it look like he didnt want to be President - but America wanted him to be President.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I just don't see anything in any of these articles that suggests anything other than that Gore may endorse Obama.

Also, in answer to all your questions about Gore's refusal to rule out running, the things he said and did at the Academy Awards, the Time article, the Rolling Stone article, the Current videos . . . I believe that prior to Live Earth, Gore did actually flirt with the idea of running again. All the signs were there. It certainly seemed that way during the Assault on Reason book tour. I believe he gave it serious consideration, and then, for reasons unbeknownst to us, he decided not to do it. So your questions are reasonable, but the conclusions you draw as answers are not.

Your other questions, though, are less reasonable:

Why did he let people donate serious money to buy an ad in the New York Times? First of all, Gore wasn't consulted about any of DraftGore.com's activities, just as he wasn't consulted about any of our activities at AlGore.org. We acted totally independently of Gore and his office, contrary to what some pundits have said (who alleged that he was running a shadow campaign through the draft organizations--bullpoop).

Why did he very quietly and delicately ask the Draft Gore people to stop and say something like, 'please stop, its complicating things?' He didn't quietly and delicately ask us to stop. That whole unfortunate incident happened because one of our state organizers called Gore's office to ask a question about something fundraising for something else (long story). He shouldn't have made the call, and had he asked us first, we'd have told him absolutely not to do it because exactly what ended up happening would happen--Gore's people had no choice but to ask us to stop once they were brought into the loop about what we were doing. As for how it would "complicate things," that's not exactly what the person said. He/she (I'm still trying to protect the person's identity) said it would "create other problems." Okay, same as complicate things, I suppose. But who knows what that means? Probably all it means is that, since Gore had decided already not to run, putting him on the ballot would cause problems for him and the Dem. Party. It would split off votes from those who were going to be running, and it wouldn't have been a productive thing to do. Gore apparently knew he wasn't going to accept a draft at that point, so putting him on the ballot would cause problems. It certainly wasn't going to help anything.

Why didn't he tell us sooner? Well, that one question continues to bother me, and it is a source of more than a little anger for me. After all, thousands of people worked their butts off to get him to run. I devoted over a year to working exclusively on the draft movement. I took time away from my family and my work to make this happen. Gore did know we existed, and he knew, from all the letters that flooded his office, that we were working to get him to run. So why didn't he tell us (and still has not told us) that he definitely wouldn't be a candidate in '08? We don't know. When I talked to Dylan Malone about it back in October, when we were all beginning to accept that the end was near, Dylan was puzzled that he hadn't heard from Gore telling him he wasn't going to run. But then he added that, unlike '04, there really was never a clear expectation that he'd run this time, and therefore, maybe he didn't feel he owed it to anyone to tell them to stop the draft movement. In any case, this remains the one unanswered question, and while I have some thoughts about why he hasn't ruled it out, at this point I don't think it's because he's still leaving the door open. Not for '08, anyway, and I think anything beyond that makes no sense at all.

We don't have all the answers, but I think circumstances now would make it nearly impossible for him to become a candidate. And I don't see how the Gore/Obama scenario would work. I'd like to hear someone tell me how it can happen (trust me, I'd love nothing more). Since, as I said before, I don't know that much about election law, I don't know if it's possible or not, but I don't think it is. And, as I also said before, I think it would cause so much animosity among people who support Obama at this point that it wouldn't be a wise move at all. You simply can't assume that most Obama supporters would like to see Gore substituted in as the top guy. I think there'd be an enormous backlash if that happened.

Just my two cents, of course, but I haven't seen anything that would make me think that he's still thinking of getting in the race, and even trying to read between the lines with the articles you've posted, I just don't see it.

Of course, I absolutely could be wrong, but unfortunately, I don't think so.

Hillary and Obama are becoming so bitter toward each other, and they will not release their delegates to the other. In order to win in November, the democrats will have to bring in someone that is not in the race right now. It might be Gore/Obama. Obama needs Gore in order to be ready in '16.

I agree that a Gore/Obama ticket would have been great, and it would have set up Obama for 2016. Unfortunately, Gore decided not to run (apparently), and I don't see any way for him to do so now. Hillary and Obama will be within several hundred votes each of the necessary 2,025 at the convention, and the delegates will haggle among themselves until finally one or the other has enough votes. It won't take much to get the couple of hundred they'll need.

Having said that, I'm voting "uncommitted" tomorrow. Reed Gusciora is a Gore supporter who's running as an uncommitted delegate in NJ, and if there's any chance at all of something happening at the convention, I want to help it along. :P

I'm voting "uncommitted" tomorow. The last poll that I heard about in TN, that 28% is uncommittted.

The poll you're referring to probably showed "undecided" voters, not "uncommitted," which is the designation on the ballot. Many undecided voters, when finally in the voting booth, will end up voting for one of the candidates. Many don't even notice the column that says "uncommitted," and if they do, they don't know what it means to send an uncommitted delegate to the convention, so they vote for a candidate rather than "waste their vote." I'm guessing the actual number of uncommitted votes in TN tomorrow will be a good deal less than 28%, unfortunately.

The latest polls show, essentially a tie between Obama and Hillary in New Jersey, California and Missouri. It will be interesting to see how things look Wednesday. I feel I'm part way through the anger and found another candidate I can support. Good thing too for my mental health. :!:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1444

I just got a robot call from Hillary. She sounded just like a robot, too! "Hel-lo. This is Hil-la-ry Clin-ton." I hung up. We got a flyer in our mailbox from the Obama camp. There's been surprisingly little activity here in NJ. I've seen a few ads on TV from both sides, but that's about it, other than what I said above. Having 24 states voting in one day has spread the candidates so thin that they can't possibly put any serious energy into all of them. I guess they're concentrating on the big states of CA, NY, etc.

At this time, the Hollywood crowd is very quiet. I know that they want Gore. Are they saving their money and support for later?

Herer's another article in The Atlantic speculating that Gore just might run.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archive...endorsement.php

I don’t think Al Gore still wants to be President the way, say, Mitt Romney clearly wants to be President right about now. But I bet some part of him still wants it, and though I hadn’t really contemplated the “brokered convention turns to Gore” scenario, I’d been assuming that his own lingering ambitions are playing some role in his reluctance to endorse Obama. Especially since the Dean endorsement, while it’s remembered as a blunder because the good doctor flamed out, seemed at the time like the work of a canny politician positioning himself for a future run. Howard Dean was never going to be President, whatever ex-Deaniacs claim when they’re deep in their cups, and Gore had to know it. Associating himself with the Dean insurgency was thus a way for him to officially throw his weight behind the anti-war, anti-Bush, and yes, anti-Hillary Clinton camp within the Democratic Party, a move that might have plausibly reaped great dividends had he decided to run for the party’s nomination in ’08.

In the event, he didn’t – and now he has another chance to endorse the anti-war, anti-Clinton candidate. But whereas Dean was doomed to defeat, Obama might just win this thing, and even if he doesn’t he’ll probably be back again in 2012 or 2016 with his halo more or less intact. By endorsing Dean, Gore was blessing a candidate whom he could plausibly regard as little more than a stalking horse for his own ambitions; by endorsing Obama, though, he’s giving his blessing to a man whose star increasingly outshines his own. A world in which Barack Obama becomes President is a world in which Al Gore almost certainly never will, and while I don’t think this consideration matters as much to him as it once might have, I’m sure it’s crossed his mind.

Earthmother, I really appreciate your response. And I also want to thank you and the countless others who did so much to encourage Gore to get on the ballot. I dont live in America and am not American so havent been able to do a thing. I wanted to donate money but was told that it was illegal - so I have just had to be a passive supporter. But i do want to say a massive thank you.

When you say that it makes you angry that he didnt tell you earlier well, to be frank, you should be angry if he doesnt end up running. It would be the sign of a bad person to have let you do all your work for nothing and take a year off from your other work. But since we know that Gore is not a bad person - but is in fact a very good person - then I still have to believe he has something spectular up his sleeve.

In the Rolling Stone article last November Gore said something like, 'If things change and I do get into this race well I want all those people who have been working to urge me to run to keep that passion so we can use it at that time.'

One year we all knew what was on Al Gore's agenda for 2007. The Academy Awards, Live Earth, his book tour, the Nobel Prize. But when we look out to 2008 there is nothing on his agenda. His whole diary seems to be blank.

I think feel pretty sure Gore is going to get into this race.

I wish you were right, but I just don't think so, and even the latest article you posted is more about Gore endorsing Obama than Gore getting in the race. It even says that a world with a President Obama is world without a President Gore.

Btw, what part of the world do you live in if not here?

My dear earth, I think the answer to this one is something you correctly deduced in answer to a related question: I think that Gore was seriously considering running right up until the very end of when he could have feasibly gotten into the race. He therefore did not want to rule it out.

I know--trust me, I know--what a heartbreaker it is that he isn't running, but I hope you aren't really irked at him for not issuing an official statement about not running. I think he struggled with it mightily and maybe he is even still struggling with it, although imho it is now way too late to consider getting in as a Democrat. I can't even fathom why folks keep thinking he could ride into a brokered convention like a savior and become the nominee. He isn't on a single ballot, he wouldn't have a single delegate, the whole idea makes no sense whatsoever. So, if he did get in, it would have to be as an independent, and, like you, I believe Gore is far too loyal to the Democratic Party to be likely to choose that route...althooooooough, he is just passionate and concerned enough about global climate change to maybe do it (run as an independent, that is), if he felt that none of the candidates for the other major parties were making it a top priority. But again, I think that is HIGHLY unlikely at this point. He doesn't want to play the role of Ralph Nader, God knows!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And even McCain, God love him, is courageous enough to say that he would make an international treaty on global climate change a top priority of his presidency, though he knows he is going to be lambasted for that by the right-wing radio talk shows. One thing about McCain: he has a lot of integrity and he stands by what he believes. He is most likely going to be the Republican nominee and he is committed to working to turn around global climate change. So with him as the repug nominee and with Hill or Obama as the Dem nominee, I don't think Gore would feel a pressing need to jump parties and get in as an independent at this point. I think he has made his decision. But I think he agonized over it more than we will ever know and that it wasn't final until the last possible second. Maybe he felt by that point that it was too late to issue a Shermanesque statement, like that would almost be redundant and would somehow distract attention from the declared candidates?

I don't know, but all I know is, I don't think Gore deserves our irkedness. He has my continued respect, admiration, appreciation and support, as I know he does yours. I know it must have been even more crushing for you, having put in so much time and energy into trying to get him to run as you did. But he has his reasons for choosing not to and also for choosing not to issue a formal statement about it, and I think we should respect that.

I continue to respect, admire, support, and love the man, too, Edna, but yes, I couldn't help but feel angry and led along. I believe he knew before Live Earth that he wasn't going to run, so why did he allow us to continue with our work? He knew that there were thousands of people out there giving time and money they didn't have to get him to run, and if he knew that he wasn't going to, then he owed it to everyone to say so. I know there are many who say he didn't owe us anything, but I do feel he owed it to us to be honest about his intentions instead of continuing with the "I have no plans" line, which, on face value, is the truth, but it's disingenuous if he really knew he wasn't going to run. "I have no plans" is political-speak for "maybe I will and maybe I won't." Everyone knows that. If you're really not going to run, you say it in no uncertain terms, as he did last time around: "I will not be a candidate in '08." Everyone understands what that means. There's no wiggle room (although, of course, a person can change his mind).

In any case, it hasn't changed my feelings about him and all he is. We put up a valiant fight, and there isn't much more we could have done. Either he was going to run or he wasn't, and he made his decision.

Well, I don't know if he knew before Live Earth. I just don't know when he decided what, ya know?

If you truly feel hurt and angry, then I have to respect that. That's how you feel. But I'm sad about it because I don't think Gore meant to be disrespectful to his supporters by his actions, non-actions, words or non-words. I think this is just how it played out and it is CRUSHING to us and thar ya go, ya know? But I see your points and understand how you could feel that way.

I just feel surprised and shocked, myself, that he really did decide not to run afterall. It seemed to me that all the stars were aligned for him this time around. But maybe the events of 2000 affected him more than we know. He quips that he is a "recovering politician". Maybe underneath the humor, there is a lot of real pain about what happened. Think of how much we, as Americans, Democrats and Gore supporters, are traumatized STILL by 2000 (at least, I am anyway!). Then think how much more awful it must be for him. Maybe he just could not bring himself to open himself up to it all again. Because he probably feels and thinks he can do a lot as private citizen Gore now, anyway, with all the stature he has now in the world. I don't know, I've given up trying to figure it all out. The one thing I feel sure of, however, is that he never meant to let us down or hurt us. Like the quote I have of his in my signature line says, we just have to trust that he knows what he's doing.

I know it is hard, though!!!!!!!!!! I personally had myself some sort of meltdown over it all on primary election day here in Florida. It started in the polling place and then went into full-fledged post-traumatic stress disorder when Kerry made some remarks about the Florida primary election being "fabricated". Not actually that bad, remarkwise, now that I have calmed down and thought about it all in the clear light of sanity *lol*. But on election day when he said that? I LOST IT. Lost it, I tell you. But, see, I was already upset from 6:56 a.m. onward, from the moment I got into the polling place. I am surprised how much it all hit me: from the 2000 election to Gore not running in 2008, it just all slammed into me like a Mac truck as I marked my electronic ballot. Trust me, I know it is hard. But I'm just saying it is hard for Gore, too, harder than we can fathom, I'm sure. Maybe he couldn't bring himself to issue that Shermanesque statement, ya know? He is human, afterall.

I just voted uncommitted in Tennessee. I will not give up until the last minute on Gore. My heart says to stay tuned for the convention.

Hi Earthmother

I live in Sydney, Australia. I can assure you that Al Gore has a lot of support Down Under. In fact there was a poll done today for our largest newspaper said that if Aussies were voting we would vote for Al Gore to be President.

Here is the article.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23165...5012572,00.html

Al Gore wins NEWS.com.au presidential electionBy Lincoln Archer
February 06, 2008 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email

Al Gore would be president if you voted
Obama thrashes Hillary for the Democrats
Super Tuesday: Huckabee wins first state

VOTERS in two dozen US states are making their choice in the US presidential election race today but if it was up to you, none of those in the running would make it to the White House.

NEWS.com.au readers have chosen climate campaigner and Nobel prizewinner Al Gore as the candidate they want in the most powerful job in the world, based on the results of our Vote-a-matic: US edition.

Of those candidates facing US voters, Barack Obama would win in a landslide if our readers had a vote. The freshman Illinois senator thrashed his main rival Hillary Clinton by a 3-1 margin

So far, it looks like Hillary is going to be just ahead after Super Tuesday. This is perfect for a Gore entry.

Sadly, if Al Gore were running the USA, he'd win here, too. :rolleyes:

Sadly, if Al Gore were running in the USA, he'd win here, too. :rolleyes:

A Gore endorsement would be a surprise. Particularly since the American Spectator magazine is a right-wing publication.