on Political Insider

Until April 1st, there's only one game that matters in the battle for the Democratic Presidential nomination -- the donor's game. The contest to put up the biggest first quarter fundraising number possible is intense and is prone to misinformation and stunts.

Hence, James Carville talks talks and talks some more about Al Gore getting into the race. Let's boil this down to reality:

* Carville supports Hillary Clinton
* Obama is making a hard and fast play for Hollywood money
* An Al Gore entry into the race is the only thing preventing Obama from running the table on that money in this quarter.

End of story. Gore is not running. (Admittedly, I know nothing ... but neither does Carville.)

Personally, I find the Rolling Stone article far more interesting than this analysis, which focuses only on traditional donor money.  Well, that's an important factor, but it's far from the only factor involved in whether Al Gore runs or not.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but meanwhile, the possibility of Gore throwing his hat in the ring is hanging out there and affecting everyones' calculations...

I don't think anyone would be better for this country than him.  In fact I think he would do well to keep people speculating about him, keep making speeches, keep in the public eye, let the other candidates eat each other, and then in 6-8 months, throw his hat  in the ring.

I would vote for Gore over all others.

I have to agree with thegools.  Al won the popular vote.  And he will win bigger another time because he was right about the war, when most of the other candidates weren't.  He's been out  giving courageous speeches for years about the so-called Patriot Act, and its successor.  And, of course, there's his insight about global warming, and extremely substantial contributions on the subject, before most pols caught on.

Al will win if we make sure to ignore the so-called MSM and all its nasty obsession with dissing Democratic contenders (already under way).  And the pathetic reasons why the media beat up on him before pale in contrast to the problems with Bush.  Gore was right about everything, except one: He should never called W. and conceded.  And I doubt he'd ever make that mistake again.

But he needed us, and his party, behind him to fight on.  And the party, full of next-time wanna-bes, didn't have the spine to fight on.  They (incl Hillary, Kerry, Edwards) were too consumed with their next-time (2004/2008)ambitions. And all the insiders too.  We see where that got us in 04.

Just the other day I signed a Draft Gore petition.  And my bumper stickers just arrived.  So I guess I've staked my position a bit earlier than I thought I would. Gore's my first choice.  Obama my second.

...I would strongly consider Al Gore for President 2008.

He was perfect in "An Inconvenient Truth".

And, he's already won once.

Agreed; Run, Al, run.

Thanks!

Steve

from January 16, 2006 on the "constitutional crisis?"  I was actually there in person and it was powerful.  For more, see here and listen here.

...as the result of people - leaders - like Al Gore challenging the constitutionality of governmental domestic wiretaps, interception of e-mails, etc.  His January 16, 2006 speech was dead on target, and prophetic.

There's no question about Gore's courage and leadership, and had he been President on 9/11/01, I believe we would not be in Iraq today.

Problem is, we are in Iraq, and that is just one more reason why Wes Clark is the best possible candidate for 2008.

Thanks!

Steve

 

if you haven't heard it yet, listen.  I wish I had been there.  Funny, I didn't know it was happening until it was over.

I loved that speech.  Saw it on C-SPAN.  Wish I would have been able to get to NOVA to see it.  Glad you were able to.

If Al Gore runs, I will support him.  Unfortunately, I have a strong feeling that he doesn't want to.  He just seems too happy and liberated working outside of the political process.

My suspicion is that he's doing just enough to keep the speculation alive to keep his name in the news and thereby retain some coverage of his climate change advocacy.  But in the end, I think he's going to skip this race.

I think Kindler is right.  He's keeping his name in the public so that the projects he cares most about, like global warming and the environment, keep in the spotlight.

If Al Gore was to announce today, that's about what it would take for me to revive my own blog on a regular basis and show up at his campaign headquarters.  I'd be so there.

So would my husband, who was a Gore delegate to the '88 Convention in Atlanta.  Our ties to Gore go way back - Dan's a Tennessean.  Need I say more?

Gore confirmed at an AFL-CIO meeting, which my husband attended, that he wasn't running.  And Gore is a savvy enough politician that he knows you don't tell the people who most want to endorse you that you're not running unless you mean it.  Most AFL-CIO leaders are going to have to throw their support to somebody sooner rather than later.  And a lot of them would love for it to be Gore.  Why would he wait to announce until after those leaders were already committed to somebody else?

Biggest factor for my skepticism? 

Until Gore calls Peter Knight, Roy Neel, Cary and Judy Woford (Judy was his aide in his district office while he was in both the House and Senate), and others who have been with him since his days in the House, I won't believe it.  Those are the people who will know before Jim Carville will.

Thanks for the inside scoop.

because I can't think of any other candidate that could unite the party like him.  I think a good portion of the establishment would break from for him as would nearly all of the netroots. 

I'm leaning Edwards but I'd jump ship to Gore in a heartbeat.

Would others do the same? 

My choice, too, is Edwards now, but would be Gore if he runs.

I am excited to go see Obama speak at George Mason on Friday (1 pm at the Johnson Center), but if Al Gore was going to anounce I would skip and drive just about anywhere in the country to see that.

I like Gore a lot and have been hoping that he would run.  I was at that DAR Hall speech.  It was awesome. (It was also one of our great outreach moves, being there with Webb fliers)  Personally, my biggest regret of the last several years is not doing much at all (to be honest) for Gore in 2000.  I knew in 1999 that George W. Bush is a miserable piece of shit.

I further think that James Carville is full of shit.

I heard one of Hillary's kickoff meetings in Iowa.  She took questions for about 40 minutes.  It sounded like she did great.  She will do just as well with a crowd that does not fawn all over her.  She totally dropped that whole slow speaking / pause thing where it sounds like she is considering every word.  It makes me wonder if the super cautious speaking style was a set up for when she goes into high gear with the real campaign.

I think H. Clinton is going to be a formidable candidate.  She is going to disarm a lot of the base folks.

The air in the room is not likely to last long enough for Gore because Hillary Clinton has been through the wars already and she is incredibly disciplined.  I don't see anyone with the combination of experience, intellect, policy breadth and passion to challenge her......except Gore and he is going to be too late to the party.