http://www.newsweek.com/id/108668?from=rss

Will Gore Play a Role?
From his 2000 strategist, an insight into the veep's plans.

By Daniel Stone
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:24 PM ET Feb 6, 2008

Former vice president Al Gore is notoriously evasive when it comes to talking horse-race politics, which seems peculiar for a guy who was once one of those horses himself. Instead, he has focused on issues like global climate change, work for which he was recognized with an Oscar and a Nobel Prize. But amid the buzz about the 2008 candidates and their high-profile endorsers, Gore's silence has been notable. NEWSWEEK's Daniel Stone sat down with Bob Shrum, longtime Democratic political consultant and senior strategist for Gore's 2000 campaign, to find out what the "Almost President" might be thinking--although in truth, Gore rarely talks to Shrum, either. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Al Gore is a heavy voice in Democratic politics. As the nation debates and analyzes these primary elections, where is he?
Bob Shrum: I believe that Al Gore has become much more than a politician. He's become a prophet. He's affected the world more than many presidents have, and my own instinct is that he doesn't want to get down in the political battle at this point. He'll support the Democratic nominee and campaign for him or her, but I don't think that he'll endorse. He's one of those rare politicians who, since having had the election stolen from him, has managed to reconstitute himself into a much bigger figure than he was before. My guess is that he's not putting that on the line in the primary.

But he's still human. Isn't he tempted to exercise his influence--which political experts think would be considerable at this point?
Since every prediction in this primary season is wrong, I'll make one too: he won't do it, and I'll probably be wrong.

He has said repeatedly that he's happily retired from politics--
But he's also said that he hasn't ruled out running for office on some future day. If the Democrats don't win this year, there will be a lot of people urging him to run the next time.

That happened in this election last year when a sizeable group attempted to draft him into the process.
Look, people have walked away from running for president before. Ted Kennedy, who I think would have had the nomination in 1984, didn't run and decided to make his life and mark in the Senate. I think in a different way, Al Gore has made the same decision. That doesn't mean four years from now that he could make a different decision. He's still young. I don't know his plan.

Well, you've got his cell-phone number with you, right? Let's call him up now. Let's see what he's thinking.
Oh, no no no. You're fishing for gold in a place where there is none.

OK. Some other big endorsements have come in over the past two weeks, like Senator Kennedy for Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger for John McCain. How influential are these big-name endorsements?
I think some endorsements really matter. The Kennedy endorsement gave Obama a big lift right when he needed it, after South Carolina. Some people are going to say that just because Obama didn't win Massachusetts that endorsements don't matter, but it's clear that Kennedy had a big impact on people all across the country. What's interesting about the Republicans, though, is that McCain had a series of endorsements this week that were all from a wing of the party that the far right hates, like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger. If he wins the nomination, it won't be because of those endorsements.

Having strategized high-level Democratic politics for 30 years, what effect do you think this nomination process had on the Democratic Party?
So far, I think people are happy with both candidates and could live with either. As the process gets more protracted, there's a danger that people begin to get mad at each other, so it becomes more difficult to unify the party.

What do you think about the prospects of a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket?
Well look, you never know. If you had asked me at this point in 1960 what the prospects were of a Kennedy-Johnson ticket, I would have given you the conventional response: zero. And I would have been wrong. But very few people turn down the vice presidency.

You've been a writer and pundit over the past few months, which is far different from your former roles as campaign senior adviser. Are you enjoying the change?
I think it's time. I'm from the very beginning of the baby-boom '60s generation. I was part of the group that came early and stayed late. I decided it's time to switch tables and let someone else do what I did. For now, I just like to comment. And I've managed to offend both sides [laughs].

But if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton calls you next month and asks?
Nope. Sorry.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/108668© 2008 Newsweek.com

I really want Universal Healthcare for all Americans. I have been an RN for 32 years. I do not understand why you don't support Senator Clinton.

Why doesn't someone ask Obama who is going to care for the children he claims to care so much for when their parents are in the hospital without insurance - not mandatory under his plan - or when they become unemployed during recovery periods, etc. Who will take care of the kids then? I see far more adults suffering from the kinds of chronic diseases that lead to hospitalizations...not the children.

Senator Clinton has more experience than Obama.

Additionally his campaign at one point didn't mind the lyrics in a song they used that disparaged women. Not cool.

Also, our country demands leaders who are decisive. I was proud of Senator Clinton when she wanted Obama to explain his 'present' votes, which he didn't ever do successfully. Where is the media on these issues? Our country needs you to support Senator Clinton so the ideas that were important to you can be addressed....decisively.

This friction is not good for the party or the country and you could really help right about now. Please?
Respectfully Submitted by a concerned voter who is tired of the media trying to steer the race by 'rooting' for Obama instead of 'reporting' about him. It is as if they are operating in fear of possible 'racist' accusations if thye question him the way they do others. Doesn't this bother you? Please help us help Senator Clinton help us. Your fellow Tennessee citizens did with their vote. Won't you lend your prophetic voice to help guide our country back to where it would already be now if you had not been cheated eight years ago?

I don't understand why you not only post on a thread in the Al Gore and the 2008 Election Talk but a thread called Will Gore Play a Role without you mentioning Gore at all. I also don't understand why you don't support Barack Obama.

Why doesn't someone ask Clinton who is going to care for the children she claims to care so much for when their parents are in the hospital without insurance - forced mandatory under her plan - or when they become unemployed during recovery periods and can't pay for the mandatory insurance? Who will take care of the kids then?

Senator Obama has more experience than Clinton.

Additionally her campaign at one point didn't mind slamming Obama for Rezko when her own campaign fund bundling manager was on the run from the law from bilking clients out of $20+ million. Not cool.

Also, our country demands leaders who are decisive. I was proud of Senator Obama when he wanted Clinton to explain her 'present' votes, which she didn't ever do successfully. Where is the media on these issues? Our country needs you to support Senator Obama so the ideas that were important to you can be addressed....decisively, unlike Clinton who voted for Iraq war.

This friction is not good for the party or the country and you could really help right about now. Please?

Respectfully Submitted by a concerned voter who is tired of the media trying to steer the race by 'rooting' for Clinton instead of 'reporting' about her. It is as if they are operating in fear of possible 'sexist' accusations if they question her the way they do others. Doesn't this bother you? Please help us help Senator Obama help us. Most citizens did with their vote. Won't you lend your prophetic voice to help guide our country back to where it would already be now if you had not been cheated by Clinton eight years ago?

I really have to take issue with this. The media is not rooting for Clinton as you put it. In fact every study shows that the MSM has been overwhelmingly negative to Clinton while coverage of Obama has been mostly positive.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm

The right wing has been calling the media liberal for years because they have a mindset that any coverage that doesn't 100% reflect my narrow point of view is biased. We shouldn't start thinking the same way.

Yes, negative and Clinton are hand in hand. With the disgusting racial tone of the Clinton campaign it is deserved.

Nevertheless, the media DID anoint Clinton.

My post was really a contrarian note, see that only a couple words were changed.

Really, I think Obama is a better DEM choice but I will vote for the DEM winner.

There is no nose-holding DEM choice, either are waaaaaaaaaaay better than the REP choice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/09/wus509.xml

This article is from the respected Daily Telegraph in the UK and it quotes a Clinton staffer who says there is a 5% chance that the Democrats will choose Al Gore at the convention as a compromise candiddate.


Hillary Clinton's advisers 'in a state of panic'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/09/wus509.xml

By Tim Shipman in Washington and Philip Sherwell in Chicago

Last Updated: 11:53am GMT 10/02/2008



Hillary Clinton's most senior advisers are in a state of "panic" about her presidential prospects and are plotting to enlist Democrat leaders in Congress to thwart her rival Barack Obama's ambitions.

The Clinton camp is braced for Mr Obama to win a series of primary elections over the next three weeks, which they fear could hand the Illinois senator unstoppable momentum in the race for the White House.


Mr Obama has begun calling those "super delegates" - 795 congressmen and senior party officials who could break a dead heat - who are committed to Mrs Clinton, asking them to change their minds and help him wrap up the nomination.

As of tonight, the two candidates were neck and neck but Mr Obama appeared to be gaining momentum.

"He's saying: 'Hey, I won your state and I won your congressional district, why are you supporting her?'" a Democrat strategist revealed.

The Clinton camp hopes to stop the Obama bandwagon by winning Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, after which Mrs Clinton is planning to call on party grandees including Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Harry Reid, the party's leader in the Senate, to persuade Mr Obama to stand down.

advertisement
Clinton aides have privately admitted that Mr Obama would only consider such a move if offered the position of vice presidential running mate, something Mrs Clinton has always been reluctant to consider.

A senior Democrat who has discussed Clinton campaign thinking with a member of her inner circle said: "The Clintons are in a state of panic. She has to win both Texas and Ohio."
But he added that this might prove impossible if Mr Obama maintains his momentum and wins most, or all, of the nine contests which come before that.

Mr Obama won yesterday's primary elections held in Washington state and Nebraska, and is expected to do well in Louisiana.

He is also favourite to sweep Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC, which all vote on Tuesday, as well as Wisconsin and Hawaii, where he once lived, on February 19.

Only in Maine is Mrs Clinton confident, though Virginia and Wisconsin may also go her way.

Asked about the upcoming states, Mr Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod told The Sunday Telegraph: "We feel comfortable with them. What was once inevitable is no longer inevitable. The momentum has switched in this race.

"We closed a 20 point gap in the national polls in the last two weeks. The more people are exposed to his message, the better he does."

But he added: "We are up against the Clinton machine. We are the perpetual underdog and will be throughout this process. We're ready to go all the way to the convention."
Clinton aides believe that if Mr Obama does not deliver a knock-out blow before March 4, the advantage will swing back to her and she will argue for a deal in which uncommitted super-delegates unite behind her, to preserve party unity.

But the prospect of a deal behind closed doors, that could brush aside the views of voters in the primaries, is already creating fury in the party.

Donna Brazile, an African American strategist, said last week: "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party."

But the Clinton camp fears that a failure to engineer a deal could lead to bitter battles at the Democrat convention in Denver in late August, which could even end with Al Gore, the former vice president, emerging as a compromise candidate.

"There's a five per cent chance of that happening, but that's five percent too high," the Clinton source said.

Mrs Clinton is also under financial pressure.



She claimed that she received $7.5m in donations after admitting lending her campaign $5m last week.

But the source claimed that her campaign is actually in far worse financial trouble than they are letting on.

There will be no proof of how much she raised for three months, when the totals are formally declared to election watchdogs.

The one thing the Clinton and Obama camps can agree on is that John McCain, who is popular with independents and moderate Democrats, is their "worst nightmare".

They now fear that he could pick Colin Powell or former congressman JC Watts, both of whom are African American, as his running mate.

But Mr McCain still has to shore up his conservative base and is actively looking at the Governors of Minnesota, South Carolina, Indiana, Mississippi, Florida and Texas: Tim Pawlenty, Mark Sandford, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Charlie Crist and Rick Perry.

Allies of President Bush are making the case for Rob Portman, a former White House Budget office director and Ohio congressman.



Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

I'm not giving up ladies and gentlemen - Al Gore for President!

Alpha-Gore-Omega

'nuff said. Down goes Billary. :angry:

Obama had a major upset in Maine...won 59 to 41

The way he is going he will win Texas too (and to think he had only 11 percent in a recent poll)

Step down?
In what universe if Obama is leading the # states won, the # delegates and the # super delegates (according to a new CBS poll) and that doesn't take into account the next few weeks

WHY in the world should Obama step down?

IF the super delegates were to throw the race to Hillary or even an outsider at this point, we would all feel like it was 2000 all over again
(come on, even if Gore is the one they picked, we would inside feel they stole a race)

Do you really think at this point, if Obama is the clear leader that he would
step down?

I DON'T

As Edwards said when he got out, time to let history happen.

Now, if its a tie or Hillary is slightly in the lead, then it would be another story

But there is no way in Hell one should think Obama should stand down
That is just nuts

IMHO of course James.

:tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

RESIGN HILLARY...YOUR POWERS ARE NOT WORKING HERE...

Another good article below from Daily Kos this time.

The reason why Obama should step aside for Gore is because, as much as I love Obama, he will be a much better President if he has been Al Gore's Vice President for 8 years first. I think Obama is enough of a man to realise that very obvious fact.

Why Obama should endorse Gore
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/10/184348/744
Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:05:58 PM PST
I think McCain has actually helped the odds of a Democratic Deadlocked Convention.

The question that’s going to arise for the party is who is electable against him.

When this is the focus you then realize the formable task ahead; Clinton’s high negatives and baggage are certainly a problem but Obama’s limited experience and upcoming slum lord trial fit into the same equation.

Whomever one might support, it’s coming down to a possible stalemate at the August convention.

Clearly the momentum is on Obama’s side now, but his immediate problem is the DNC infrastructure as well as super delegates in place that favors Clinton for the nomination. Obama can continue to win states but ultimately lose and the odds are that is going to happen.

So, if you were Obama what would you do?
You could possibly be the VP running mate which some pundits call the “Dream Ticket” with Ms. Clinton. (I think just the opposite, that you are guaranteeing a Republican Victory, but they might be “forced” into it).

Anyway, let’s say Clinton/Obama win.
What happens next is you will probably have to compete with Bill Clinton in the White House, and the possibility exists you not get a “crack” at becoming President for some time to come.

Is there another option? Yep.

Obama needs to talk to Gore about throwing his support to him in a deadlock scenario.

This would be accomplished by Obama stepping aside with Gore at the top of the ticket and Obama as his running mate.
If this happened, the likelihood of Obama eventually being president would increase after a Gore administration left power.

Can you imagine the same events taking place after Clinton leaving? Unlikely.

Now, let’s go back to the issue of getting elected. With Gore experience wouldn’t come up as a liability in a race and Obama would also be “shielded” from the Reizo thing.

It’s hard not to believe Obama, and his handlers have not considered a move like this if they eventually want to see him as “President Obama.”

:o Is there still a slim chance of a Gore-Obama ticket after all? :!:

Actually, Clay in this case I'm in 100% agreement with you.