CNN is reporting that sources close to Gore are saying that he won't endorse in the primaries. They say that with Bill Clinton and John Kerry backing candidates, he wants to serve as the neutral elder statesman.

As an Obama guy, a Gore endorsement would've been fantastic, but I really respect his decision to stay neutral - good on him.

Hmm . . . The part of me that's still in denial wonders if there isn't some other reason why he won't endorse anyone. :P

This leaves Gore able to tell Bill and Hill

GTF out of the race for party sake

(as James believes Hillary and Gore are best friends and all that Jazz.)

I really wish the personal stuff would be dropped, Clay. My recollection isn't that James has ever said Gore and the Clintons are best friends. He just said there's no proof that they're enemies and that much of that story was spun by the MSM.

:clap: :clap: :good: That's the right choice! If someone wants his endorsement, make 'em ramp up their environmental agendas. :tongue:

Thanks. I never have said that.

For future reference here is a list of the top ten things I've never said:

10. - MMMMMM Liver for dinner.
9. - Britney Spears is a really great mother.
8. - Quick turn to channel 7, the View is on.
7. - George Bush is such a smart man.
6. - Sorry Ms. Berry but I don't believe in going all the way on the first date.
5. - Christian rock is my favorite music.
4. - Hey, how about a nice game of Parcheesi.
3. - FOX News is so fair and balenced.
2. - I can't understand why they've never given an Oscar to Matthew McConaughey.
1. - Luke, I am your father!

Former President Jimmy Carter won't be making any official endorsements either (as far as I know :?: ) But this may leave Al Gore and Jimmy Carter in the position to help unite the Democratic Party in what will surely be a tough struggle later this year. We'll need a couple Nobel Peace Prize winners and professional cat-herders to help us band together again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SmgLtg1Izw


;)

I'm with you in denial Earthmother. I believe there just could be a hidden agenda here in Gore positioning himself as the elder statesman of the party.

Over the past 2-3 weeks there has been around a dozen articles in respected news outlets saying that Gore advisors say he will endorse and that he wont endorse. Some say that he likes Hillary and others say that he despises her. These leaks are all over the place - but the one message they all have in common is that Gore is the most important person in the party. The terms they use range from, 'elder statesmen,' 'most powerful Democrat' ' the king of the Democrats' etc. I believe its all about keeping Gore's name in the news and reminding everyone of his signficance so that he is the one that will broker a deal.

But what could the deal be? If he is the deal-broker then I believe it will end up being a Gore-Obama ticket. There is nothing else to broker. Both Hillary and Obama would push it all the way to the convention rather then accept the VP. They both know it would harm the Party but the DEMS are looking so strong for Nov that even with a bitter convention they will be likely to win the White House. So why settle for VP? Answer they wont.

All this talk about a brokered-deal I believe is code for a Gore-Obama ticket.

On the day Gore won the Nobel Prize and all of us felt it was certain Gore was about to announce his candidacy, the Washington DC anchors for the 3 major free to air channels and the 3 major cable news channels all said the same thing. In summary it was, 'Gore is almost certainly not going to get into to this race but if he did it would be some type of brokered convention deal or a catastrophic collapse in the frontrunner.' I believe Gore knew all this was going to unfold and that he knew all along he would get in to this race late and with Obama.

I personally would not want Gore to enter the race this way

It would be a negative

Obama is now leading the # states won, the # of elected delegates, and Hillary's delegates are starting to waver and soon after today, he will lead the # of total delegates including super delegates
AND leads over John McCAin while McCAin is either tied or ahead of Hillary.

Gore and Jimmy Carter need to shove her out of the race and do it sooner rather
than later.
IMHO of course.

Polls are showing Obama is leading the women's vote even in Maryland and Virginia

And Obama is moving to less than 10 in Texas.

I would think Obama could offer the VP to Gore.

It is disingenuous now to say obama should be VP...when he is leading.
This is the 21st centruy, people want change

The Clinton's are 20th century, old haggard wornout with no new ideas

Time to move forward and like Ted Kennedy said, time for Obama.

If Gore got in the race, he would end up being like Hubert Humphrey and even if he put Obama on the ticket, you gotta ask, WHY????
It would mean they indeed got rid of Hillary, as such, that is the important thing
and in a recent VP Poll, Gore came in at 12 percent for Obama's Presidency

Obama/Gore or Obama/Kerry or Obama/someone else

NO to Hillary...
However, I don't think Gore has the power to kick Hillary out.

She and Bill are the two most selfish people on the face of the earth.
Were she not, Bill would have quit and Gore would be retiring this year after
10 years in office


BY THE WAY-
I looked it up- did you know
BILL LOST the white vote in both 1992 and 1996. He only won those two times due to the black vote and Ross Perot, who if not in race, Bush41 would have won in 1992.

I can understand if Obama is ahead in votes and delegates, that yeah, it might not seem right for him to just hand Gore the Presidential spot. However, if neither Obama or Hillary have ENOUGH delegates on their own, and neither of their delegates are willing to switch to the other side, unless a compromise is made, then I think it would benefit Obama to bring Gore into the fray and offer him the Presidential spot. At least, he would be more likely to win. There are alot of superdelegates who are committed to Hillary that might make the switch if Gore were in. Better yet, Obama and Gore could be co-presidents. I was reading on CNN or the MSNBC that the last time the Democrats had a brokered convention, there was talk of a co-presidency at the time. Hey, why not now? It'd be the best of both worlds and we'd have Gore in there!! :clap: :clap:

According to today's NY Times major article by Healy, Hillary's delegates are already wavering and when the time is right, they will move over to Obama.

Hillary is not going to ruin her entire legacy (does she have any?) nor standing in the senate

After all, unless she quits and runs away from the senate, she could easily be
Majority leader for decades and decades

(IMHO, though, I think Hillary will shortly be out of public office altogether and go into making more money...I do not believe she could be another Teddy, willing
to stay in the Senate for decades and all that...I personally do not believe she cares about the public at all, so she will say she won't run for re-election and disappear from elected office, most likely taken in millions from lobbying and giving speeches like her husband
IMHO IMHO IMHO

But with the NY Times (and that is Hillary's paper after all) starting to say her people already see signs of the end, this thing won't go to the convention.

It will be old vs. New in November
And it will be decided very soon (unless Bill and Hill go all out for scorched earth, kill the party)
If Gore is seen as Hubert Humphrey, well, HHH didn't win in 1968, did he?

If Obama is seen as having all the delegates, do we really want some supreme court like Florida 2000 decision to put in a White guy at the expense of a black man or white woman? I think the public would be furious. It is too late for that

Gore should have listened to me 3 years ago and get in the race before Obama.
Once Obama got in, there is no way, without looking like a white man trying to stop a black man, and I believe that is the last thing Al Gore would want.

A Obama/Gore co-presidency, with Gore's sole focus on the environment would be something, but Obama would have to be on top of the ticket.
(And in a recent poll, Gore was either first or second for VP choice)...
he would be the perfect person to complement Obama
(Would Colin Powell have not lied at the UN and ruined his reputation, he would be another choice, but no longer.)

I agree that Obama is doing very well and a brokered convention may be a moot point if all of Hillary's delegates change to Obama and Hillary decides to gracefully bow out.

BUT if Hillary decides to fight to the finish and neither party gets enough delegates, and if Obama wanted Gore in the fray, maybe something could be worked out. I know, I'm still trying to find a way to get Gore in there and make it a win-win situation. But I think Obama would be a good president and make us proud. :clap:

Gore will not be VP again. He said that it would be president if he were to run.
Obama needs Gore more that Gore needs Obama. Obama is not ready to be president. But, eight years under Gore would give him the experience that he needs. This world is in such a mess that it will take an experienced person to deal with the problems that Bush/Cheney has created. As much as you like Obama, we have to be real and think of the country first.

Please, don't buy into the hype about "experience."

Here's a little blog on that issue with people making their observations about that:

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/front...04153300AAbbskI


By the experience criteria, Lincoln and Kennedy would never have become presidents.

Experience can be an asset- and it can also mean the the person with it, who is still in the system, is still there because they haven't challenged the system. The "system"- our government as it currently operates- is a total mess. Experience in that mess is not indicactive of true leadership per se. It may, perhaps, point to a survival technique that does not rock the boat and therefore, never causes any change.

Experience at what? Capitulating? Voting by convenience for your own ends later on?

It's not the amount of experience, it's the type and how you apply that experience.

HRC has "fought" the GOP machine for years. Well, if her experience at that was so great, one would think she'd have some significant victories against it. Instead, she voted with it to attack Iraq.

A lot of HRC's experience in "fighting" has been on the personal level- not for things that are important to the country, but against accusations of wrongdoing, etc. Do we need to get into that fight again?

HRC, who seems to be begging for a fight, is only transmitting that with her at the helm things will get even more decisive with a willing GOP.

No thanks.

That does not mean that Obama won't fight. But there are smarter ways to fight and HRC is telegraphing that she hasn't learned that.

If you don't fight effectively, you lose. You might make a lot of headlines, if that's your goal.

But that's my opinion.

And for disclosure, I am not a HRC fan, obviously. I would have been more inclined to towards candidates that are no longer in the race.

Clay Fact Check:

Ross Perot did not cause Clinton to win in 1992. That is a famous but untrue GOP talking point. In fact, while the election would have been closer without Perot, Clinton still would have won.

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

A good GOP friend ( one with some sense) of mine told me yesterday that Hillary would fall apart starting now, and that Gore would come in at the convention. Hillary will not give her delegates up to Obama. He will be the compromise nominee. Even this GOP wants Gore because he does not think that McCain should be president.
What do you think?

Reports have Nancy Pelosi ready to move to Obama (she is neutral so far).

This race is over. imho

Obama won the Hispanic vote tonight.

Hillary is down to Rudy's strategy and it didn't work for him, did it?

Obama got moderate democrats to vote for him.

And Ed Rendell made a major faux pas in PA today.

And a second aide to Hillary quit

and...


James- Perot is a republican. The majority of his votes would have gone to Bush.
And, besides, Bill Clinton still lost the white vote in 1992 and 1996

Gore has just put a new video clip on Current.com

I couldnt actually find it on Current but here is a link to it.

http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2008/02/...te_separat.html

Its in exactly the same format at the four other short videos he has put on since the Nobel Prize. All five are designed to appeal to DEM primary voters. I fully agree with what he says here but I cant understand what on earth he is doing.

I am starting to loose faith Gore can get into this race with Obama doing so well. I was hoping for a dead-locked convention but it is looking like a Obama coronation and so no justification for Gore to step in.

It is possible Hillary could make a comeback but I tend to doubt that the Clinton thugs have any ammunition left against Obama beause they would have used it by now.

I know Gore has ruled it out but perhaps he could be Obama's VP - concerntrate on global warming - and then run for President in 2016.

Sorry but that is just GOP propaganda. Exit polls showed that Perotís voters apparently split their preferences between Clinton and Bush nearly equally.

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

James- you believe what you want, I believe what I want.

Needless to say, you are wrong on this point.
The Clinton's are 45%ers in all races they have run.

That is one reason Hillary lost. Without a third person running, Hillary had nobody to split the vote with the other person.

The day Edwards dropped out was the day Obama sailed through and polls have
shown the 14 percent Edwards got almost all went to Obama

In Oct. Hillary had according to Rasmussen 46 to Obama 18
Now Hillary has 44 and Obama is tied with her

That means Hillary since Oct. has not gotten one more point.

With all that is happening, it is now too late for an outsider.

There will be blood if that happened now, last thing Gore would want IMHO is to steal a race, last thing the party would want is to piss off a base of new people who are signing up by the 10s of thousands for the party.

As Gore said his VP line when it was assured Hillary would be the candidate, maybe
it is quite possible he would reconsider now...it seems that will be the only
way for him to get back in line for the Presidency down the road.

Or maybe having defeated the dreaded Clinton's, Al Gore can be happy just like
he keeps saying

You keep telling me not to put words in his mouth, James...maybe we should all
just believe what Gore said and be damn happy we are going to say

President Barack Obama for 8 years :clap: :clap: :clap:

But an Obama/Gore ticket would really stick it to the Clinton's even more, wouldn't it?

That's a statement a liar makes to justify lying. It is not a matter of belief it is a matter of fact. I made my statement and backed it up with proof.

As usual you don't have any proof for the verbal diarrhea that comes spewing out of your mouth nor the integrity to admit that you've been proven wrong.

Who says Gore wants to stick it to the Clintons. You're just projecting your own feelings on to him. And as Bill Maher said:

And as far as the Gore as VP BS, you're still trying to win an arguement that you lost over 4 years ago.
Obama was asked the question directly and dismissed it.
Gore was asked the question and dismissed it.
Give it up. It's not going to happen. In fact, I'll put my money were my mouth is. I'll bet you $10,000 that Gore will not be Obama's VP. Obama won't ask him and Gore wouldn't accept even if he did. Now are you man enough to accept the bet? It's easy enough to sit at your computer and spew all this BS without having to be accountable. Do you have the courage of your convictions to bet $10,000 that you are right and I am wrong?

Betting is illegal in NJ except in Atlantic City...

wouldn't want to break the law, don'tlook good for Al Gore, would it.

I would bet Hillary won't be Obama's VP though. That's for sure.
And Joe Lieberman won't be Obama's VP either.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You made your statement from a source, but you would need to actually have let all those people vote...Bill Clinton gave voters no reason to vote for him.
Whereas in 2008, Independents are coming out by the hundreds of thousands for Obama and will do so in November.

Only way Hillary could win now is by stealing it like Bush did.

I would also bet you James, there is no way in the world Gore is going to be President nominee in 2008 now.(barring any catastrophe, in which case being a VP would be the surest way possible, wouldn't it?)

Coward!

True enough. But instead of spending time discussing fantasy why not discuss realistic possible running mates for Obama like Wesley Clark or Bob Kerrey.

Yes and the source was based on scientific analysis of exit polls taken at the time versus just parroting a false GOP talking point.

It's just not reality and you know it. Obama is not going to ask Gore to be VP and Gore would not accept. Give it up. You've been pushing this absurd theory for over 4 years now and you don't have the personal interity or maturity to admit that you're wrong. The horse is dead and buried but you still insist on beating it.

And I renew my challenge to bet $10,000 on this. And I'll even meet you in Atlantic City at the hotlel of your choice to place the bet. Are you man enough to accept or are you just a cowardly blowhard as I suspect?

We need a new president so the economy picks up, then maybe I will
have Ten grand to waste

I don't like Bob Kerrey...he was one of the decievers on the 9-11 commission

And he is pro-Hillary.

There are better choices for VP out there like Bob Graham for experience and an attack dog VP
:clap: :clap: :clap:
who got it right the first time
Or Russ Feingold (whom Gore might have asked)
Or Mike Bloomberg (why not, then there would be no money problem)

Or John Kerry (who would take it if asked and it would be symbolic too
Or Tom Daschle (he got screwed by the rightwing big time, and almost died from the anthrax)

Or how about the new Mass. governor?

(or Cindy Sheehan).

I like Russ Feingold though. Although he is not Wellstone.

And McCain should have some balls and pick Crist from Florida,but its not my job
to worry about the losing ticket.

Do you agree- Time for hillary to leave the race and unite the party...there is no way she is going to win and her Rudy strategy is just, well, bizarre.
There won't be a big enough difference in votes in any of those 3 states to bring in enough delegates to matter for Hillary and she is embarrassing any legacy
those who think she has one has left.
The voters have repudiated, IMHO both Clinton's and want something new.

Don't have 10 grand to waste. That must mean that you're pretty sure that you'll lose the bet.

Well that is the point both Kerrey and Clark are Clinton supporters and both have military experience. You unite the party and blunt McCain's biggest strength in one fell swoop.

Graham is a bit old but not a bad choice.
Bloomberg isn't a Dem so is not worth discussing.
Like Gore Kerry would never accept a VP slot after being on the top of the ticket. Daschle is old news and a lot on the left don't like him for letting the Iraq vote go through.
Feingold is a fine choice but doesn't balance out Obama.
In picking a VP you need someone who helps to balance out your weaknesses and your opponents strenghts. That's why Condi Rice is being discussed as a possible VP for McCain.
Clark or Kerrey would do that. I also heard Anthony Zinni suggested as a possible VP for Obama.

I don't think that Hillary can win at this point. The momentum is with Obama. Plus he has a better chance to win against McCain. But I still believe that voters deserve to have a choice.

I don't see Gore as VP- again. Been there, done that, already got the T-shirt thank you very much.

I would hate to see Kerry as VP. Call out the Swift Boaters and he'll push not to fight election battles as he did not fight for Ohio in 2004.

Given that Obama seems to be drawing from some right-wing types, Kerry on the ticket could nullify that.

How about Edwards? Or do you think HRC has offered that carrot to Edwards?

Who could Obama have in the VP slot that would also encourage the young voters to remain active and involved?


As for Gore, what role, if offered, would you like to seem him take in a new administration? Environment, UN, Secretary of State, Energy? That's the kind of role I can see him taking and doing the job well.

I'd like to see Edwards get the AG and kick some corporate/lobby patootie. Can also see him as a Supreme Court nominee.

But that is just my opinon.

Edwards as AG is fine long as he actually does something like investigate the last 8 years

I don't want him as VP, he is too power hungry, Obama would be looking over his shoulder

Better an older person who would not seem to be a Presidential type

That is why I like Bob Graham.
Put him in for the first term, then if they want, a younger VP for the 2nd
(FDR had 3 VP's).

It's gotta be someone against the war from the start, so they are together on that issue.
There are not many who were.

Edwards has publicly stated that he would not take the VP slot.

True but I wish he would consider taking the AG spot. We need someone like him to clean up the Justice department.

I have never heard anything that would lead me to think John Edwards would not accept the Attorney General position if it becomes available to him. ;)

ReElect -
I think you may have Bob Graham pegged wrong.
He was pretty gung ho in 2002.
The reason that he voted against the war resolution
was that he thought it was "too timid." He wanted it to be
more aggressive.

We are talking Iraq, not afghanastan
and Bob Graham, not Lindsay Graham

Right. That's why I said 2002.

Right. That's why I said Bob Graham.