http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper...the-rescue.aspx

Al Gore to the Rescue?

Friday, February 15, 2008 3:38 PM
By Andrew Romano

Stumper's Take: He foresaw global warming. He "took the initiative" on the Internet. And he knew exactly how Iraq would turn out. Who's to say that Al Gore hasn't known all along that the Democratic race would descend into some weird state of gridlock--and that only he, the Goreacle, could rescue the party from civil war? Read on for the what if's...

By Eleanor Clift

Al Gore on the second ballot: A scenario that a few weeks ago seemed preposterous is beginning to look plausible to some nervous Democrats looking for a way out of the deadlock between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It goes like this: We love them both, but neither is a sure bet when it comes to electability. It's not about gender and race, each has more mundane vulnerabilities. Hillary's negatives will drive white men to John McCain; Obama's inexperience will require a gut check on the part of voters. What if the super delegates decide not to decide, denying either candidate the requisite number of delegates to secure the party's nomination. Democrats want to win. The new rallying cry: Gore on the second ballot.

The last time a political convention went to a second ballot was 1952, but this is a year with so many twists and turns that nothing is impossible. Gore would be tempted on so many levels. He would only have to endure two months of campaigning, not long enough for voters to remember what they didn't like about him eight years ago. Gore has sat out the primary process, refusing to offer even so much as a hint of where his sentiments lie. Years of playing second-fiddle to Hillary in the White House no doubt precluded his endorsement for her. Surely he would happily take Obama as his running mate, ending the Clinton dynasty and positioning the Democrats for a potential 16-year reign at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. A Gore-Obama ticket would be unstoppable, the thinking goes, matching the presumptive Republican nominee, McCain, on national security and experience, while embodying a powerful message of change.

The Gore second-ballot scenario isn't being seriously considered by Democratic Party leaders (as far as we know). But a number of individual high-profile Democrats are talking about it, along with any number of other ideas to end the seemingly intractable stalemate.

How could this unfold? Superdelegates are not bound to any candidate. They can do what they want, including changing their mind or withholding an endorsement until the balloting begins. Delegates won in the primaries go to the party's convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular candidate, but one of the biggest myths of the delegate selection process, according to a Democratic National Committee document, is that delegates are bound to follow that pledge on the first ballot. A delegate is asked to "in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them," a provision designed in part to make the convention a deliberative body. If Hillary's attempts to secure the nomination are seen as illegitimate, and they fail, yet Obama is not seen as a clear victor, Gore's name could be introduced. All it would take is a delegate perhaps from Tennessee, his home state, to raise a point of order, and with backing from five other state delegations, Gore's name could be put in play as a prospective nominee.

This article was already posted in the 90 Day Countdown thread, along with a bunch of others in the same vein. I'm thinking it would make more sense to move them (and the comments that go with them) to this thread, but I haven't had time to do it. If you want to, feel free.

Meanwhile, there seems to be a groundswell building for this idea. It's hard to know what to think.

this assures Obama will be the nominee

(there is no way Gore would be the nominee, he would be accused of stealing the race...

I for one would be annoyed at this late time...Obama has by all right won the delegates

he just needs to shove Hillary out of the way...if she cared at all about the party, she would have already quit the race

One can't be above the fray and neutral and then plot to overturn????No way.

Understand that if Gore were to end up somehow involved at the convention, it wouldn't be because he put himself there and suggested that he become the nominee. It would have to be an organic process that grew out of a deadlock and a need to find a person who could get enough delegates to win. In a three-person race, this was much more likely. In a two-person race, it's not nearly as likely. And even if it came out of an organic process in which Gore himself wasn't involved, it would still rankle supporters of the two candidates.

But stranger things have happened . . .

I think Eleanor is creating a bit of mischief here, IF she actually said this in this context and if she said this very recently (not a month ago)

I have not been able to google and find this in a separate place yet.

Gore being a broker between the two does not mean he will be the one...

but stranger things have happened
It does appear he has convinced Edwards not to endorse anyone

Here is the link to Eleanor Cliff article from the Newsweek site. http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper...the-rescue.aspx

It appeared just over 24 hours ago. BTW, the long New York Times article about the DEM race that mentions Gore from begining to end has been reprinted in about 10 major newspapers across America. While it doesnt say 'Gore for President' like Newsweek does, the NY Times is all about how Gore is the most important person in the DEM party.

I think it is becoming inevitable that Gore will be the DEM candidate.

I can see Hillary bouncing back from here. The Clinton's are celebrated comeback artistst and I think they have one more in them. I suspect she will do better in Wisconsin than everyone is saying and then win Texas and Ohio. So if its is deadlocked in deleagates, they go to court to settle Florida- Michian and with McCain looking like he might win, the DEMS will have to turn to a Gore-Obama ticket at the convention.

It has become conventional wisdom that if it goes to a dead-locked convention then there will be three players - Hillary, Obama and the referee Gore. So if two of those three can agree on a ticket then the decision will be 2-1 and therefore settled.

I have absolutely no evidence but it is a strong hunch - Gore knew it was going to pan out this way all along.


Alpha-Gore-Omega

If Gore knows its going was going to pan out this way, then one can't truthfully say Gore is not planning or hoping this would happen.

I think this is being stoked by people who are either
a - racists who would stop at nothing to not have a black president
b - Hillary lovers who want to deflate what is going on

You have to remember alot of the people writing this are rightwing leaners, or Hillary leaners, or those that don't want a black to be president

And you have people telling the writers things that are self-serving to those writers
too

As for independents, it appears they are going 10 to 1 for Obama over Hillary
and Obama now even has coattails (He got a Dem-lite representative defeated
the other day and a black women named Edwards became the next representative in that district in Maryland).

Seems Gore being neutral and brokering Hillary's ouster from the race should
not be taken as Gore undoing what the people wanted.
(How Bush2000 is that?)
I personally don't think it would sit right.

If Obama were down in 2nd place and it was a way to nudge Hillary off the stage it would be one thing.
But he is leading by over 125 elected delegates, and some places say he would still be leading even if you include the 3 states Hillary guarantees she will win
and Florida and Michigan too.

that being the case, he won.
And there are over 400 superdelegates now who have decided

So in the end, let's humor this and say there are some less than 400 left to decide, one would assume the vast majority of those will go to Obama, as Hillary I am sure has done all she could to get those she is sure of to already announce.

So Obama will have more than enough.

And the above says Hillary will win Ohio and Texas and PA...

Now, reading the people and also the polls, seems to me that is one hell of an assumption to make that Hillary will win all three, AND negate all 48 other states.

Reports come out of NY that in doing a recheck of the vote, there were districts
Obama got ZERO votes in the first count, they found the correct votes and Obama may pick up some delegates here and there too

And let's just say he loses the 3 states...NONE will give Hillary more than 60 percent, by the time of the vote she will be lucky to win 55 even, so the delegates
will be split a little not too many advantage

This is overly grasping at straws that don't exist...

The NY Times article in no part at all about him being the candidate.
It says IMHO that he will find a way to give Hillary the boot.
Pelosi and others in these articles say the people's vote will count

Putting someone in who didn't get one vote this time does not appear to me to
indicate anyone other than Obama.

Getting ones hope for a brand new coup'd'etat is not IMHO playing fair, if we really
did not like the coup'd'etat of 2000.

Having Obama lose by Gore, to me, is the same as having Hillary stealing it away.

Now, if Hillary were to steal it away, THEN Gore stole it from her, that would be
a different scenerio...but why would Hillary steal it away, just to have it stolen
from her? I don't get it.

And I think it's disingenuous now to Obama to suggest he only take the VP
Because the more people think he is only going for VP, the more people will
nominate Hillary.

Hillary is toast...she needs to resign from the race the sooner the better.
That is what the party elders should do for her.
And Gore should really put his super delegate to the person who gets the most
votes, which would be Obama.
If he ends up voting for himself, then to be consistent, one has to say he himself
did not vote for the person he should have, wouldn't you?

(but you know my opinion, not only should he have run, he needed to get in the race before Obama did)

The one and only scenerio that I might think would be if Gore said it would be a co-presidency with Obama, and say, Gore would lead the ticket for 2 years, then change places with Obama for the next 2 years, and Obama would run as the top of the ticket in 2012, and Gore would continue to work solely on global warming

BUT- at this late time, Gore would have to compeltely divest himself of all his interests, and I don't see that he would be able to do so legally, quick enough...
(like Current).

Gee ReElectAlGore2008, your name sure is a misnomer. FYI, until the wrong done in 2000 is finally overturned, anyone who occupies the White House will be illegitimate and that includes Obama. The people clearly chose Al Gore to be their President in 2000 and that will was clearly trampled. Maybe a brokered convention will be the first step towards restoring the peoples will? I think the thing to do now is to sit back at wait to see what happens.

I don't agree

Having Gore steal the race says 2000 was just a normal occurance

However, Gore should be the VP for Obama

How can you say a brokered works?
A bunch of old white guys deciding?
Seems un-american to me.S
Seems as phony as the Brooks Brothers riot

And being that blacks gave Gore 90 percent of the vote in 2000, to screw Black voters is not too smart

Gore is not going to be President this year
He would have to divest himself of all interests including current
And he would have to put all that aside

If he is claiming to be neutral, that means he is promising NOT to do it, much like
Howard Dean by becoming DNC head, promised NOT to run in 2008

There's no evidence anywhere that Gore convinced Edwards not to endorse anyone.

And I absolutely don't believe that he knew it would pan out this way. Everyone knew it was a possibility, but he certainly didn't sit back and not enter the race in the hopes of getting in on a deadlock.

First off, if Gore won the race by way of brokered convention, it would not be STEALING the race. It is part of the election process and while it is rare to have a brokered convention, it is not stealing. That was done in 2000 when all the votes were not counted.

There are people out there who have voted for Hillary or Obama as their 2nd choice. I know that's the case for me. I've always wanted Gore first and have basically settled for Obama since Gore hasn't been in the race, though I have begun to get more enthusiastic about Obama. I think he's a good 2nd choice.

I'm sure there would be people who feel the way you do, ReElect, but there would also be those who have wanted Gore all along, like people on this site, Al Gore Support Center.

Personally, I think it would be great if there was a co-presidency with Obama/Gore. Maybe that would make more people happy. But if Gore somehow became President to Obama being VP, at least Obama is younger and have more time to be President. Gore is almost 60 and if he is not President this time, then this is about his last chance. And there is no way Gore knew this would happen or planned to get in like this.

I don't think this is necessarily Gore's last chance - I would say, however, that this is Gore's last chance should the Democrat win in November. If the Republican wins, Gore would be a prime potential candidate come 2012. Once we get to 2016 though, he's getting up there in years for a two-term president.

I'll stoke this. And I'm not included in either group.
I would be included in a group of (I'll call it 'c'):

c - patriotic American citizens that are hoping against hope that the democratic candidate will address global warming for the EMERGENCY that that it is.
If Obama becomes VP and the THEFT of the 2000 'election' is partially
'righted,' then BONUS.

One should not say Obama should be VP

That plays into Hillary's hands and will just lead to Hillary being president,

which is worse than death or waterboarding if you ask me.

Nothing is as bad as another Clinton in the White House, stealing another election.

But I do think you all are reading this Eleanor Clift thing wrong anyhow.
She was on tv today, she did not in any sense of the word say anything about
this at all.

On MacLaughlin, all agreed (rare for the show) that this thing is going to end way before the convention.

And TexanforGore-I did want him to run in the race, and I do want him to be
President...but NOT underhandedly.
If something horrible happened, then if they call for Gore, that is one thing.

But not ripping the carpet out. I don't think the mass public would go for it either.

And polls are all showing Obama has a 12 to 20 point differential over McCain as compared to Hillary.

Lets look at #s accordingly to one blogger who hopes Gore comes in

There are 1237 delegates remaing that are REGULAR PLEDGED DEELGATES
Say they are divided in 1/2 (which is a big assumption, but lets humor all of you

That would mean 618 a piece.

Obama already has over 1200 giving him about 1900 of the 2025 needed,
WITHOUT ANY SUPERDELEGATE

Means he needs only 125 superdelegates out of 795
Say those #s are off by 100, then he needs only 225 out of 795 to win

He already has 160 according to the MOST CONSERVATIVE of estimates
Hillary has 235 (and Hillary's are most vocal, so there is not much room for her to grow)

NOW-160 means OBAMA IS OVER THE TOP without any more needed just by winning 50 percent of the regular final primaries

On what planet does one think ZERO of the remaining 380 will go to Obama?
Figure at worst, he gets 190 more of them.
He will be 200-300 over the # needed when added up

Even giving Hillary Florida and Michigan- Obama will get about 45 percent of the delegates MINIMUM (if not alot more)

Obama has this baby wrapped up...Raw numbers proove it

And the differential between Obama slaughtering McCain, and McCain beating Hillary in all the national polls will in the end win even more.

Gore should be the VP if he wanted too it is his. But to wish he steals a race knowingly or unknowingly (and does anyone here think Al Gore does not know every single facet of this race?)

Whether President Obama does or does not do anything on global warming is not the question.
Al holds in his own hands, how much it matters to him.

As said, Al should have gotten in this race himself, and done so before Obama did.
Once Obama took off, there is no way the Al Gore I would want to vote for would
deprieve history from being made. If Al Gore was not the person I have thought since 2000, then maybe he would. But I don't think so.

I didn't say this was his last chance. I said it was "about" his last chance. Like you mentioned, it all depends on whether a DEM or REPUG gets in. If a DEM gets in and stays in for 2 terms, I think it would be getting a little late by that time.

ReElect, I tend to agree that Obama will most likely win the DEM nom and I do think he'd make a great president. I certainly think he has a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary does. I get enthusiastic listening to him and in listening to his ideas about bringing more jobs and his view on NAFTA, I feel hopeful.

This brokered convention idea, it's still a long shot, but you know how we like to "speculate." Yes, Gore is still my first choice but if he won, I'd want it to be in a good and positive way for everyone. I agree with you that Gore has too much honor and integrity to just swoop in and take the Presidency from Obama. We're just talking about a lot of if's here. If the DEM race were to truly become DEADLOCKED and no side would budge, then what's a good alternative. I would much rather see Obama and Gore strike a deal, than Hillary and Gore. What the deal might be, I don't know. But Obama and the voters would have to be happy with it. And I can't help but feel Obama and Gore do keep in touch and discuss the issue. Of course that is just my opinion, but I guess we'll just have to see how all this plays out.

By the way, I don't fall under category A or B either. I am just a big Gore fan. That's all.

ReElectAlGore2008, it's the height of hypocrisy for you to call putting Al Gore on the ballot for 2008 "stealing". You claim you want justice for the theft of Al Gore's victory in 2000 and now you're opposed to the possibility that justice might happen after all. Which is it? For the record, Al Gore has said he won't take the VP spot again. He did that for 8 years. You also seem to not care about the fact that as another post has already mentioned, most of the votes not counted in Florida in 2000 were the votes of black voters. What about them? I'm also crious to know if you actually worked on Al Gore's 2000 campaign? As I pointed out in my previous post, you claim to want Al Gore reelected and now you're opposed to a possible senario for it. Can you lease explain to me how Obama could possibily be a legitmate occupier of the White House with nothing aing been done about the stolen 2000 election in whch it was black voters who were illegally removed from Florida's voting rolls by the thousands and then for those who did manage to vote, their votes then weren't counted even though the law required them to be counted? You can't now claim to want the will of the voters to previal when the will of the voters didn't prevail in 2000 and now you're opposing any effort that mght finally allow the will of the voters from 2000 to prevail. You can't have it both ways.

Reelectgore2008

The country is divided between Hillary and Obama, and there is not a clear winner. That tells me that the country is not happy with either choice. I know that I voted uncommitted because I'm not happy with the choices. I voted for Kerry in '04 because I could not vote for Bush, and I hate to have to vote again for someone because of someone else. I want a candidate that I can be proud of and that can take this country to greatest again. I do not believe that Hillary or Obama can be elected in the General Election. Hillary has too much baggage, and Obama does not have the experience to run the country at this time. What has he said or done to make you believe that he is ready for the top job of the world? Gore is, and that is that.

In an email I received from the Obama campain yesterday, (I'm on a list or something) it said,
"As you've probably heard, there could be a wildcard in the race for the Democratic nomination. "
A WILDCARD?? Wonder who they are talking about there? Hmmm.. Don't see it happening though.

HELLO, ERIN! :clap: :clap: :clap:

So good to hear from you. Hope you're doing well.

Now, regarding that thing you got from Obama . . .

WHAT THE HELL IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? :wacko:

I guess he's just referring to the superdelegates? :(

Erin-
why don't you print the entire email and see what context it was...

If Al Gore got in the wrong way, there is going to be a backlash worse than 1968
(Remember, Humphrey did not win any primaries then either).

The only legitimate way Gore could get in is if Obama did not win the delegates
but Hillary stole it, then Gore took it
That would be different

But to say you want Obama to give up if he won the delegates, the super delegates and the popular vote, that does not make sense
(And Obama is beating McCain by a wide margin, while Hillary is losing to McCain)

I see a 'hint.'
What is it that we've 'probably heard?'

Here it is in part:

"Erin --

As you've probably heard, there could be a wildcard in the race for the Democratic nomination.

We firmly believe that the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates -- the result of having more voters in more places supporting your campaign -- will be the Democratic nominee.

But to be safe, we are working to attract the support of "superdelegates" -- party officials and Democratic officeholders from across the country -- who also have a vote at the Democratic National Convention.

You may already know some superdelegates -- they include senators, governors, and even former presidents and vice presidents. But many others are ordinary people who hold positions in the state and local party operations.

While we intend to continue winning states and expanding our lead among the pledged delegates, and believe that will likely ensure that Barack is the Democratic nominee, we're also doing the work of reaching out to superdelegates and making sure as many as possible support Barack Obama."



There is more to this but I don't want to post the whole thing. It goes on to ask people to contact Superdelegates and ask them to support Obama. I took him to mean a "WILDCARD" would be none other than Al Gore. Don't think Al would even consider it IMO. Wish he would though. Obama could be VP and Hillary SOS.

ReElectAlGore2008, why do you keep touting Obama over Gore? This is an Al Gore forum, not an Obama forum. Why haen't you answered my original question which is how can Obama be legitimate if the stolen 2000 election is never dealt with? I would also point out that it's grassroots democrats who understand far better than the party leadership that the 2000 election was stolen from Al Gore and they remain angry about it and about the party leadership having doe nothing about it. Al Gore is the only legitimate person to be able to step into this. Why do you claim to want to reelect Al Gore but now you're toting Obama in an Al Gore foum? You can't have it both ways.

AL GORE IS INEVITABLE

I think that ReElectAlGore makes some compelling points - however his whole analysis is based on the assumption that Hillary is finished. I dont believe that is so. The Clinton's are comeback experts. They have done it on at least four occasions.

Jennifer Flowers in 1992.
Republican Revolution in 1994.
Monica in 1998.
Iowa in 2008.

On all occasions the pundits said they are finished but the Clintons bounced back. Every comeback expert believes they have one more in them and that is why the Clinton's will not give up regardless of how bleak things look.

Many are saying that the frontrunner of this race has been constantly alternating between Hillary and Obama. That is not true. Hillary has been the frontrunner all along - except for 5 days between Iowa and New Hampshire. Barack is definitely the frontrunner again now and so he will now get the scrutiny that comes with being the frontrunner. He has never had that scutiny before so lets see how he goes. I suspect he will have a stumble or two. This plagarism episode is just the begining.

The GOP voters like success and they tend to go with who looks successful.

Democrat primary voters tend feel sympathy for the underdog - and that is now Hillary.

For Obama to win the nomination prior to the Convention he has to win 80% of all votes in every primary until June 7. That is not going to happen and so while there is any chance for Hillary she will not surrender. Even if Obama wins 70% of all votes from here she will not surrender. She will hold out in the hope that Obama has a collapse.

Florida and Michigan is likely to end up in the courts. There are two competing principals here and both sides will claim they have justice on their side. Obama says the rules were all agreed to and Hillary will say that we can disenfranchise voters. I suspect the courts will support Hillary. The Democrat leadership will also have to realise at some point that if Florida and Michigan are not given votes at the Convention then it will really help McCain win those states.

The fight over the Superdelegates is just begining. Obama is making a mistake by trying to talk down their importance - that is going to drive them towards Hillary or at least keep them sitting on the fence and not declaring prior to the Convention.

All of this is a recipe for mega-turmoil at the Convention and that is why I MAINTAIN THAT AL GORE IS INEVITABLE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION AND THEREFORE THE PRESIDENCY FROM 2009 TO 2017.

I saw Dick Morris on Fox News a few hours ago. He said something like, 'I heard the other day that Al Gore is positioning himself as the mediator at the Convention. I know what he is up to - its not going to be a 'coup de tat' its going to be a 'coup de gore.'

If Obama does not have enough experience, then neither did Lincoln or Kennedy. That anti-Obama argument is getting a little thin. Here, again, is a site with some views on that:

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

I've also read recently, although I've not added it up myself, that in terms of actual LEGISLATIVE experience, including state and federal, Obama has more than HRC. I do not count years as the wife of the person actually in the job, as counting towards experience.

Maybe HRC includes her time on the board of Walmart?

As I said elsewhere, if you've had all that "experience" and haven't managed to really change anything, you may be part of the problem- just in the same rut with everyone else and not doing much to climb out of it.

I'm hoping that if Obama is the candidate, he hasn't been totally subsumed by the system yet. That he's chosen the red pill over the blue one. I think Hillary is firmly embedded in the system.

Hillary's "experience" actually works against her. The message of change does not stick to a candidate of the system.

I think that even in the democratic primaries, we are still faced with worse and less worse for choices. But if we keep electing the people with a track record of getting us into the mess we're in and maintaining it, we'll never get out. I think people in our country are fed up enough that they are willing to take a chance- because the other option is just more of the same. They've already "experienced" what experience has brought them.

read what you just wrote

Gore is doing this TO INSURE OBAMA WINS...

it is in black and white.

Nowhere does that email even hint that Gore is talking about himself.

NOWHERE.

JusticeForAl--After reading your posts yesterday, I suspected who you were, but now I'm quite certain. Let's just say your name rhymes with "fancy." You have been banned from this and other boards numerous times because of your habit of zeroing in on one person and attacking relentlessly. As I've said before, you will be permitted to post here only if you obey the rules of the board. Typically what happens when you post is that everyone ends up pissed off at you and the whole discussion melts down until finally we have to lock the topic. I can't even say how many perfectly good and productive discussions have been ended because of your particular style of attacking.

Please try to stick to the topic and don't make your posts personal. Other people have just as much of a right to their opinions as you do. I may not agree with much of what ReElectGore says, but as long as he doesn't violate our rules, he's permitted to continue posting. The same courtesy will be extended to you.

And as for asking why he seems to be supporting Obama now, you may have noticed that Gore is not running and that most of us have accepted the hard reality that there's virtually no way for him to get in now, even at a deadlocked convention. We don't say it's impossible, but it's highly unlikely. So some of us have moved on and are supporting another person. Others of us (like me) remain uncommitted (I simply can't support anyone else--at least not until there's a nominee, and even then). But regardless of whom we do or don't support, all of us have a right to discuss Gore as well as other candidates, particularly now that it appears Gore won't be a candidate in 2008.

I don't think there is a scenario where Gore takes the nomination in a brokered convention. I can't see a Gore/Obama pair up.

Gore has an albatross around his neck and it's called NAFTA. He and Obama seem to have some differences about that. I don't know if Gore truly supported NAFTA or if he was just the good soldier/supporting VP for Clinton's support of NAFTA. NAFTA has been part of the disaster for American workers and whatever Gore's true feelings about it, it's on his record.

I would hope, do hope, that with time and lessons learned, what Gore is doing and encouraging other super delegates to do, and apparently, John Edwards, is to wait and see what the PEOPLE want. I would like to see an end to the undemocratic super delegate system. Maybe Gore could help with that.

Here's some thought on the history of super delegates- and it seems to have nothing to do with anything but inner party control:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/18/7117/

If true, this is very elitist- and sad for the party.

Al Gore- here's another wrong you can fight to right.

If NAFTA had been run and contolled as Clinton/Gore had invisioned, it would not be the mess that it is in today. Bush took barriers off so big businesses could profit big time. We are not an island unto ourselves, and that means that we have to deal with other countries. If it had run the way Clinton/Gore had wanted, we would have more of a balance in trade.

Exit polls today in Wisconsin said 70 percent of the people felt NAFTA was wrong.

Remember, HHH ended up not winning because of his ably supporting LBJ
(and most people forget what a great liberal HHH was).

I now would advise Obama NOT to take Hillary's VP if someone tries to deal.
It might just be a dead end job. The Clinton's make sure everything they touch turns bad.

(and earthmother, I thought the same thing right from the start).

Well if you polled the population of Europe 600 years ago, I'd bet over 70% of the people would say the world was flat.

I've been hearing the drumbeat for years that NAFTA is evil, but NAFTA is a free trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and America. It has nothing to do with outsourcing of jobs to India or the moving of manufacturing jobs to China.

Can someone please tell me exactly what damage NAFTA has done and please back them up with links and statistics.

No.

The point is not that it is right or wrong

The point is that 70percent of all people who voted in Wisconsin THOUGHT it was

The blame for Gore not being president is the Clintons. Not the Bush's directly, but the Clinton's.
Sometime maybe 100s of years from now, maybe people will agree.

Had Clinton resigned, Gore would be retiring today after 10 years of the best presidency of all time.
But he didn't.

So 70% of all people have bought into a narrative that may or may not be true. That doesn't make it right. As my grandmother would say 'if everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you jump too'.

Ridiculous. Bill Clinton did nothing to warrant being impeached or to resign. That's just right wing spin. And the blame for Gore being cheated out of the presidency is directly Bush's fault. Again it is just right wing spin to say that it is not.

People who post in this forum should be prepared to defend their posts. Others have every right to challenge posts especially when those posts are contrary to the actual facts. I've raised a number of fair questions that ReElectAlGore2008 is refusing to answer. I don't understand why answering a few simple questions about a post is such a problem. I think it's wrong for a forum that's supposed to be about Al Gore being hijacked to tout other candidates. I think that's a fair point that should be addressed. I also think James pointing out that ReElectAlGore2008's blaming of the Clintons for Bush's theft of Al Gore's 2000 victory is right wing propaganda is a fair point. It's a blatant attempt to re-write history. No one should ever forget that it was Bush who stopped the legal vote count in Florida in 2000. Al Gore was the peoples choice in 2000 and no one who occupies the White House will ever be legitimate until that wrong is corrected.

Hillary Clinton once said, in perhaps the only time her and her IMPEACHED hubby ever told the truth

"There is a vast rightwing conspiracy"

She forgot to add

She is part of that Vast rightwing conspiracy

She is NOT a liberal
She is NOT a democrat
She is NOT on our or Al Gore's side at all.

The Clinton's did everything in their power to insure Hillary had an open run in 2008 to continue their dynasty which has lasted 28 years so far, going on 36

I do not want the Clinton's back in office (AGAIN)
Nor do I want Jeb.

People who claim they are for Gore, then will blindly back a democrat who never once looked after other democrats (just some richer whiter democrats) are not Al Gore fans (Jan or James).

I don't have to like the Clinton's.

But talking realistically about Obama, who won now 11 in a row(any other year, the other candidate already would have dropped out)

Stopping someone by underhanded means, would make Al part of the system he despises. So lets get real here
Either Jan, you actually care for the Al Gore you say you do, or you just are out for blood and want, like a dictator, to prop up your person in the seat, with no regard for rules of the system.

I would love Gore to be President too, but on what planet do we live on where the writing is not on the wall for 2008

Al would not necessarily win if the public thought he did something underhanded

I think my idea is a lot better for America
You think your way is.
We disagree.

At one point I thought Ralph Nader was an enemy...til I realized the God-damned system was corrupt, which is how it was stolen in the first place, and just looking at Hillary, odds are good she will steal another without the popular vote, elected delegates, # states or anthing but another pure theft.
It wasn't Nader, the butterfly, the chads, the stupid voters at all
It was the conspiracy to overthrow an election
And they stole 60,000 votes from Florida, not a few butterfly ballots.
Had it not been Nader, there would have been another state (Was Tenn. stolen? I think so,but nobody noticed that one).
they didn't waltz in and just after the fact think, oh, we can steal it.
They PLANNED IT FAR IN ADVANCE (just like 2004).

So don't go high and mighty Jan

Where were you in recount 2000? I don't recall seeing you in DC or the courthouses in Florida.

This is not an Obama board, I am just reading this email the way I read it...and Gore is saying HE WON'T LET HILLARY STEAL IT FROM OBAMA

plain as black and white if you ask me.

Translation:

Blather, blather, blather, I hate Hillary, blather, blather, BS, blather, blather, blather, twisted logic and distorted facts, blather, blather, blather, if you don't agree with me you are the enemy, blather, blather, blather, more BS, blather, blather, only I know the truth and that gives me the right to lie, blather, blather, everyone else is corrupt, blather, blather, re-written history and more BS, blather, blather, blather.

Patsy,

You've asked Clay a direct question with the hope of an honest answer. As you can see he has yet to provide one. He never will. He has a long record of lies here on this board.

Why? One simple reason, Clay is a pathological liar. That combined with a fanatical hatred of the Clintons as well as a delusional world view in which only he knows the truth makes him totally incapable of giving you an honest answer. It also provides him the rationalization to smear all that disagree with him, distort the truth, re-write history, twist logic and parrot right wing talking points.