The whispers about a compromise Gore nomination are beginning to turn into full-fledged conversations. This from Eleanor Clift over at Newsweek today:

"If that happens, the convention could turn to a compromise candidate.
Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could
head off a complete meltdown in the party. After all, he already won
the popular vote for the presidency. It was only because of a fluke at
the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel. No one
could deny that he's ready on day one to assume the presidency. "It's
the rational choice if this turns into a goddamn mess, which it
could," says the Clinton adviser, who doesn't want to be quoted
seeming to waver about Clinton's chances of securing the nomination."

---

I fully expect there not to be all too much talk about Gore and a deadlocked convention unless Hillary wins Pennsylvania in about seven weeks. If, and only if, she does that, EVERYONE is going to be talking about a deadlocked convention and the potential for a compromise candidate.

:clap: :laugh: :clap: :laugh: :clap: I just now saw that on the MSN home page and almost SOILED MYSELF!!!

Seeing it in ink makes me more hopeful that there's a sliver of a chance. At least it's exciting. :D

I squealed with excitement when I saw this!! This roller coaster is killing me!!

Eleanor Clift has always been a Gore fan. :clap:

However, I do prefer the term Unity candidate.

a week ago I did not see this being possible

I now see, baring Hillary quitting, this being a full possiblity

Though I still wonder if HIllary would quit.

What would it be?
Gore/Obama
Edwards AG
Hillary majority leader

or Obama or Hillary supreme court?

For this to work, it does need Obama's fans and "permission" so to say, more so than Hillary's, though they have to all be alright with it

AND enthusiastically support it

Sounds good to me. I would only add Bill as UN Ambassador or Head of the World Bank.

I think Obama supporters would accept it particularly the youth voters.

That'd be a great combination, ReElect!! Without Gore, I'm sure McCain is just choppin' at the bits to show how he is better than Hillary or Obama!!

And I like the "Unity" candidate better, too!! :clap: :clap:

Wow, if this could really happen, it'd be a superb ending to a 8 year horrific nightmare!! :spikey: :rolleyes:

Ugh, I imagine that Hillary would threaten some legal action if the convention is brokered to a Gore/Obama ticket.

If it were to shake down that way, no, you don't want Hillary as majority leader. She's only going to push her own agenda and block those who took "her" presidency away from her. There have to be others for that role that will work as a team. After all she's done so far, and seems ready to do no matter what, can't see her as a team player.

Edwards, my pick for AG too.

Would set up nicely maybe 16 years of a democratic president.

Next step: A woman VP when it's Obama's turn. Question is, who of the up and coming would be the right one?

certainly not Chelsea.

I don't know what kind of legal action she could threaten. It's perfectly legal under DNC rules to turn to someone who's not a declared candidate after the first ballot. And on the first ballot, to the best of my knowledge, the superdelegates could even vote for someone other than Hillary or Obama if they wanted to. Same with the uncommitted delegates. It's that first ballot we have to watch out for. If either Hillary or Obama gets the magic number or more, we have a nominee. Beyond that, though, anything can happen.

Also, if this talk about Gore as the unity candidate continues to get stronger legs, you can be sure that Hillary (and Obama) will be very aware going into the convention that Gore's name might come up after the first ballot. I'm sure the candidates will be prepared well in advance for such a possibility.

We at AGO are talking about waking our sleeping beast. There's a rally in D.C. on 3/19, and some of our people will be there with Gore buttons, etc. I'll be curious to see what the response is. After that, we're talking about starting to write letters to editors of papers across the country suggesting Gore as the unity candidate, and then, depending on how things look after the Pennsylvania primary, we'll probably start writing to the superdelegates. I can't say I'm wild about the idea of starting up again (our campaign took an entire year away from me where I did nothing else), but if it would mean getting Gore in at the convention, I will do everything in my power to make it happen. :good:

That sounds like a plan, EM. :good: I applaud all the time you've spent on making our hope of a Gore Presidency a reality. :clap: You have certainly gone beyond the call of duty. Just think, what if it could actually happen?? :rolleyes:

If this idea begins to take hold, we could all write or each write to a number of superdelegates. I could take Texas and other states as needed. Guess we'd have to gather all the addresses, etc. first. James had a good idea in starting a website or database with the addresses so we could all refer to them.

Anyway, I know nothing is definite yet, but when I think of the dialogue of the past year and Gore's words, it just seems like the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fit together. I know Gore did not plan this to happen, though he might have considered it a very slim possibility. I think he kept the door open in case the opportunity came along. And even now, with the idea of him coming in as a compromise candidate being voiced, he has not come out to contradict this idea. Just has to make you wonder... :rolleyes:

Great plan above by EM :D As I posted about Gore's comments last weekend in a different thread, the sleeping giant may be awakening.

Another mention of Gore as a possible compromise candidate is in this article:

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/20...ng_the_pol.html

Here's an excerpt...

The other option is the “…then NOBODY gets it” part, at least as far as the top of the ticket is concerned. It may be time to lean HARD on Al Gore. He could be the Great Uniter we’ve all yearned for ever since the alleged “uniter” who stole the election from him eight long years ago turned into the most divisive president in American history. Gore has already been thoroughly vetted, he’s already proven that he can win, he’s already proven – many times over by now – how well-equipped and worthy he is of the job he actually won and was denied. He’s been the 800-pound gorilla haunting the Oval Office since January, 2001. His is still the mightiest claim of all. We could then, presumably, settle on a running mate between Barack and Hillary.

Steve

Now that the word is getting out about Gore stepping in, Bill Clinton is hinting that Hillary and Obama would make a great ticket. Obama is being quiet about this. If he knows what is best for him, he will run as fast as he can away from Hillary. She would lead him around by the nose. Even if she were VP, she would take over and Obama would live behind the door.

According to this LA Times item, Obama nixed the VP with Clinton thing, at least, that is what some are getting out of it:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...asays-novp.html

Breaking News: Barack Obama rejects VP idea

"Obama was asked by a television reporter, "Can you ever see yourself on the same ticket as Sen. Clinton?"

And the freshman Illinois senator replied: "Well, you know, I think it’s premature. You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate. You know, I’m running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count."



Patsy, I think you are right. Obama would be shuffled off to the side as VP for HRC.

In my OPINION, HRC is putting this idea forward to skate on Obama's coattails. It is a strategy in a message that implies people can have it both ways. They can still have Obama as long as HRC is at the top of the ticket.

I have read elsewhere OPINIONS that HRC cannot have it both ways- attack, attack Obama, literally support McCain- and then switch and suggest Obama should be VP.

I can extrapolate one of the GOP's exploitations about that in the General, playing up the "divided" Dem ticket

Maybe Gore should enter the race now and see if he can win the rest of the states. I think he'd have the edge among disenfranchised Floridians.

:P :P

I don't even dare get my hopes up again...however I never did throw away my Gore bumper stickers.

Lets say Obama wins Mississippi and Clinton wins Pennsylvania...and the remaining small states are split up. It seems clear that no one will win 2025, and only Michigan and Florida are left.

Then there's a question...if both Michigan and Florida have NEW primaries/caucases...would that mean there was a new deadline to apply? After all, Obama was never on the first ballot...would that mean there was a new deadline that Gore could technically be a part of?

No new deadline, to my knowledge, but even if there were, the majority of delegates would already be locked up (pledged), so there wouldn't be enough for Gore to win, even if every superdelegate voted for him.

The news I heard on NPR a bit ago, suggested that Florida and Michigan might be allowed a do-over, but who picks up the tab for it is up in the air. I don't think the DNC wants to and would prefer the individual state parties pay for it.

It may come down to dollars. It is reasonable for the DNC to allow them to, I think. I also think it's reasonable for those states to pay for it. They jumped the gun early.

I heard on CNN that Howard Dean supports the idea of a mail-in redo in Florida and Michigan. I think it's a REALLY bad idea. Talk about the possibility of election fraud. How can you avoid it when it's done by mail like that?

I hate to say it, but when Florida is involved, voter fraud is the first thing I think of. :angry:

Quick reminder:

Voter fraud is individual vote fraud.
Actually pretty rare, much to the chagrin of Republicans.

What happened in Florida is Election fraud.


For too long the voting machine vendors and MSM have framed the argument for eletion fraud as voter fraud . Keeps people's attention away from the real problems. ;)

Earthmother, I really look forward to reading your posts more than most but I do have to respectfully disagree re your comments on a mail-in ballot in Michigan and Florida.

I think a mail-in ballot in Florida and Michigan is (a) looking likely and (B) good for Gore.

The only hope we have for Al Gore to be the next President is an impasse at the Convention. What would produce an impasse more than anything is if Obama has a tiny pledged delegate lead but Hillary has a tiny popular vote lead.

If there is a mail-in ballot in Michigan and Florida then this is what I suspect will happen. Hillary will win both states because (a) she won them before, (B) she has championed their interests and © the demographics favour her.

If it is a mail-in ballot the turn-out will be massive. In Oregon they have mail-in ballots and a 90% turn-out! This means that there will be a very large number of votes cast for Hillary. She will catch-up in the delegate count (but still be behind) but probably overtake Obama in the popular vote.

At that point the Democrats will simply be stuck. If they choose Obama many women wont vote. If they choose Hillary many young people and African-Americans wont vote. They will have to turn to Al Gore or ensure President John McCain.

If I am wrong I am happy to be correct.

Alpha-Gore-Omega
Gore is Inevitable.

I'm not looking at the mail-in ballots as being good for Gore or anyone else. It just seems to me that it invites abuse. I don't have a solution to the problem, lord knows. I mean, Florida went ahead and held its primary early despite the full knowledge that doing so would mean its delegates wouldn't be seated. It wasn't a secret to anyone, but they did it anyway. And the argument that it was a Rep. legislature that passed it is specious, because the Dems. didn't vote to stop it. I don't like seeing all those Floridians disenfranchised yet again, but it's not like they didn't know what was going to happen. So now, they're allowed to just do it over? It won't reflect the way people voted the first time around. Many will have changed their minds since then. The "do-over" concept is inherently unfair, which is why they didn't allow Florida to have a "do-over" in the 2000 presidential election, despite all the irregularities and problems. It just doesn't seem right somehow, but I have no idea what a better solution would be.