Gore(’s Friends) Getting Ready (for Gore) to Run
Filed under: 2008 elections, Al Gore, Democratic party, Hillary Clinton — Michael van der Galien on April 22, 2007 @ 2:30 pm CEST
The (surprising) hero of the Democratic Party these days, and Oscar winner, Al Gore seems to be - secretly - preparing for a second run for the White House. Well, better said: his friends seem to be preparing for a possible Gore campaign.
Friends of Al Gore have secretly started assembling a campaign team in preparation for the former American vice-president to make a fresh bid for the White House.
[A]aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop.
His denials of interest in the presidency have been couched in terms of “no plans” or “no intention” - politically ambiguous language that does not rule out a run.
One of his former campaign team said: “I was asked whether I would be available towards the end of the year if I am needed. They know he has not ruled out running and if he decides to jump in, he will have to move very fast.
“He hasn’t asked them to do this, but nor has he told them not to.”
In an interview on Thursday, which touched on the prospects for next year’s presidential election, Mr Clinton commented: “You’ve got the prospect that Vice-President Gore might run.”
Gore has the name recognition, many people feel that he would have been a better President than George W. Bush who ran as a “uniter” but proved to be anything but, he has made himself incredibly popular among members of the MSM with his documentary, he will get the support from the ‘progressive base’, but centrist Democrats might feel attracted to Gore as well… in short, if Gore decides to run, the Democratic nomination becomes about just as exciting as the Republican race right now, meaning that it’s completely open.
The former Vice President’s supporters think that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination, if Gore does not run, but that she will not be able to win the presidency because too many people think too negatively about her. This is, indeed, a major handicap for Hillary. I for one, believe that she will be able to improve her numbers a bit, but a handicap it is, and a handicap it will be.
More at TalkLeft, The Impolitic, The Moderate Voice and The Reaction.
1 Jim Martin
April 22, 2007 @ 9:43 pm CESTSir
I’m in agreement with you on this.
I think it would be great to have Bill Clinton in a position of influence, but I think that if Gore is available Hillary is too high a price to pay.
It should be fun to watch.
2 mvdg
April 22, 2007 @ 9:59 pm CESTJim: I think that many Democrats agree with you on that. And, yeah, it will surely be fun to watch. I hope he enters the race, not because I agree with all of his views, but because it would make it extremely interesting. As a spectator it would be great.
3 kritter
April 23, 2007 @ 3:34 am CESTI admire Gore tremendously, as someone who has gotten his second wind and excelled in a second field. He deserves the attention he is getting now. I only wish we had gotten to see what kind of a president he would have made in 2000. America would be in such a different place. Gore was right about global warming and he was right about Iraq.
He is a forward thinker who is not afraid to look into the future and deal with whatever is coming at us. I vastly prefer Gore to Hillary, even though I still think highly of her husband’s abilities. She is an able and competent Senator- that is where she can do the most good.
4 Interested
April 23, 2007 @ 8:44 pm CESTI voted for Gore
Regretted that decision ever since.
5 C Stanley
April 24, 2007 @ 12:41 pm CESTI think that Gore has become almost as polarizing as Hillary. Being a proponent of action on AGW is one thing, but the tactics he uses are abominable and very divisive.
And he’d get crucified over some of the Clinton scandals that he was involved in, like Chinagate.
6 Nobody
April 24, 2007 @ 1:23 pm CESTGee Kritter Imagine that. You admire Gore. HEHE.
Heres one thing I bet you didnt know Kritter. I voted for Gore not Bush. Bush was not a neoconservative. He was a wannabe that shored up his base with neocons after getting elected.
Bush is still no Neocon. I on the other hand am a registered Democrat who believes in Gun Control and global warming. On the other hand I believe in smaller and less intrusive government so Its hard for me to get excited about legislation that addresses Symptoms, not causes.
Guns killing people are not because of lax laws they are because people want to kill people. Terrorists killing people are symptoms of a greater problem in the world. The problem is that the Muslims have lost control of their religion and are yielding control of it to Jihadi. The winning of hearts and minds does not occur by killing terrorists and taking over Iraq. It comes by encouraging the people themselves to take on the task of curtailing their own.
The Muslims themselves must be encouraged to end terrorism or at least end it to the point that it is a crimewave and not an international movement to dominate the world.
So Gore and the Democrats do not understand this. That is why I have abandoned them to the Republicans and my neocon beliefs since the 911 disaster.
The prayer of all Neocons is that we could somehow figure out a way to get the vast majority of Americans to understand that this war on terrorism for the next 20 years is more important then gay rights, abortion or gun control legislation. Once that has been done then I would have no problem voting for a democrat once again.
7 Nobody
April 24, 2007 @ 1:41 pm CESTWhat people really do not understand about neocons is that we are not all right wing fanatics. In fact most of the Neocons I know believe in things like Abortion, gun control and other social programs.
The difference is that we all share one thing in common. We are Christians and we are Hawkish on Foreign affairs. I am pro life, pro gun control, anti gay. Why antigay you ask? I am not against gay people or want to persecute them in any way. I just dont think legislation is needed to protect someone that already has all the rights and priveledges I have cept one. They cant get married. That should be a states right issue. If New Jersey wants gays in their state the right to be married. Go for it. We dont need to be passing major laws and setting up agencies to make sure those laws are enforced.
I know the Hawkish thing connotates bad things but what that means is simply if we are attacked. We kick ass. We make it very, very painful for you to attack the USA. Therefore the next time someone thinks of blowing up our skyscrapers they have to realize what will likely happen.
We believe in projecting power. We believe in a powerful military that PROJECTS power. Our fleets sail into harbors and people take notice. Not because its an ego thing, but because our enemies understand power. They might not like it, but they understand it.
So being a Neocon does not mean that one is a far right wing fanatic that wants to blow up everyting in sight and believes any one left of the far, far right is wrong.
It means democrats, republicans and Libertarians all sharing a couple important aspects of political reality. STrong but less intrusive government that wants to let the states have more control. Social agendas that are all over the map, but are ruled by one important perspective. Religious beliefs and a value system that accepts the need for social welfare nets but also believes strongly in personal choice and personal resposibility.
I firmly believe that if people really understood what Neocons stood for that about 70 percent of America would call themselves a neocon. Because to be a neocon does not mean you have to be Republican, Democrat or Libertarian. It just understands a belief system that lets you support an array of candidates.
In fact Neo conservatism is more flexible politically then either Conservatism, Liberalism or Libertarianism. It really does allow one to vote for more then just one party.
8 Jennifer
April 25, 2007 @ 5:49 am CESTYeah, the neocons have really gotten us in a good place in the world, haven’t they? We are spending billions on a needless war going no where. That other war, what was it again, oh…yes. Afganistan. Its slowly heading towards disaster was well. We never dealt with Iran or North Korea (our REAL problems) so they are sitting there flicking the finger at us. Nice job Neocons. Meanwhile we have mispent corrupt military contracts (that money HAD to go somewhere, where is it again?), a VA hospital in shambles, and Attorney General who can’t remember anything he did over the last few months (must be something in the water over there in D.C., Scooter Libby was suffering the same ailment). Military coverups like Pat Tillman’s death, etc. Should I mention the fact that FEMA STILL has no plan for Katrina-like emergencies. Oh, and smaller government my you know what. The government GREW under George Neocon Bush. Neocons, unlike conservatives of the past, know how to spend the people’s moola. Oh yes, they are the kings and queens of pork (not that the Dems are much better but no one in the Dem party came up with the Bridge to No Where in Alaska). So, are we really better off after 6 plus years of George Bush? I wish Al Gore had been elected. Simply for the fact that I highly doubt he or anyone else on Earth could have done such a shabby job leading the American people. Who knows who should be president now. If I was Al I wouldn’t want the job, cleaning up after Bush. 9/11 nearly killed my friend’s sister in the Pentagon. I detest terrorism and think these Muslim countries are ridiculously radical. However, I don’t trust George Bush and his “friends” to deal with this. Sorry, neocons. You messed up. We need fresh blood and fresh thinking. Time to move aside.