Al Gore will be a candidate for President in 2008.
When asked to make a Sherman statement:
"Look, I'm not inviting such questions. I appreciate such questions,'' Gore said on CNN's Larry King Live last night. "I am not thinking about being a candidate, I have no plans to be a candidate, but yes it's true, I have not made a so-called Sherman statement and ruled it out for all time. I see no reason to do that.''
"I'm one of those who doesn't like to see the Christmas goods put in the stores right after Halloween,'' Gore told King. "I don't think Americans are well-served by having an endless campaign... Why close up the field and say, 'OK, place your bets.' I don't have to play that game.''
Gore ruled out serving in a cabinet post:
He was willing to flatly rule out one thing, however: The prospect of serving as secretary of state or in some other Cabinet post for a new president. "No,'' Gore said. "I have zero interest'' in that.
Gore not phased by loyalty to Clinton's on '08 run:
"I feel loyal to Bill Clinton, but that has nothing to do with my thinking about not being a candidate,'' Gore said to a question about New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's candidacy for '08. "She is running a very forceful campaign,'' Gore said, dancing carefully around any sort of endorsement for the former boss' wife. "It's way early to assess how these candidates are shaping up.''
Gore defends Carter:
Asked about Carter's own declaration about the Bush administration, since qualified, Gore said: "He has earned the right to say what he thinks and let the chips fall where they will... As to whether or not he later decided that was a breach of protocol with former presidents... I'm for him saying whatever he wants to.''
Gore defends Congress:
"It's like taking the wheel of the car in the middle of a skid... We're already in serious trouble, headed for worse,'' he said. "They have created this situation where there are really no good choices. We have to choose the least worst choice,'' said Gore, calling for a removal of U.S. troops "as soon as possible'' while honoring "a moral obligation not to make a terrible situation even worse in the manner of our leaving.''
What would Gore do as President in '09:
"I would grab hold of the situation and make an immediate assessment of what the best options were to manage this situation,'' he said, asked how he would confront the problem if he were becoming president in January 2009.
Lowell and I are gonna duke it out. ;)
Al Gore '08!
1. He is enjoying life in his current role (climate change point man)
2. He has been part of 4 presidential races, at least: one prior to Clinton's election, two with Clinton, and the 2000 race. Or is it 5? It's a lot. He's had his turn.
3. He doesn't need a job.
4. He doesn't need to take any more crap from the mainstream media. It's his turn to dish it out, like he does in his new book.
5. At this point he would be way behind in raising funds and support for a campaign.
6. If he is diverted from climate change onto the all the other issues of the campaign (abortion, immigration, Iraq, etc.), who is going to be able to fill his role on climate change?
7. Why would he want to become President just to have to spend four years cleaning up after W?
8. He has a new book to sell.
9. It would hurt the Democratic party. There is already a strong field of Democratic candidates and future leaders; why jump into the race and put them all through an even more grueling fight for the nomination?
10. He doesn't have to talk like a politician anymore, and with that freedom he can play a very constructive role. See #1.
He won the popular vote in 2000, true, but he chose not to run again in 2004. Why?
And what has changed now? He hasn't been in elective politics since 2000. He has publicly stated more than once that he is happy to have found other ways to contribute.
To me it seems likely that he cares more about doing something about global warming, than about being the next President. And I respect that.
If he wanted to run this time, why wouldn't he have jumped in early, to keep others from running?
He is, in fact, selling a new book designed to try to raise the level of political discourse (which I'd like to read), which partly explains why he was on Larry King.
I'm not thrilled with the experience levels of the frontrunning candidates, especially in foreign affairs, and this country has got some serious problems to work through. I have doubts about Hillary, Obama and Edwards on those grounds. I like Richardson's resume, in terms of having the skill-set needed for the job, but I haven't been impressed yet by what I've heard of his speeches.
In hindsight could he have done better than Kerry? Probably. But looking at it from outside it was an uphill battle and he'd come out bloody, win or lose.
Why hasn't he jumped in yet? He doesn't have too. He's got plenty of time and plenty of fundraising ability to get in darn near whenever he wants.
Selling a book? Pffffft. None issue. By this fall he'll be off the book selling tour and can do anything else he wants.
Weither he gets in or not, IMO, will depend on how the field pans out. If Hillary is getting her ass kicked come the end of the year, he'll get in. If Hillary is a strong front runner this fall and the rest of the field is sucking wind, he'll just move along.
As far as entering early, reread Dave Montoya's post, it contains a Gore quote on this.
What happened to the "strong field of candidates and future leaders"? Now you're not so sure about them, huh. And you still haven't given a reason how it hurts the Democratic Party (which it doesn't at all).
As for the Democratic party being hurt, all I can say is that trees don't grow to the sky. There's a finite amount of money to be raised as political contributions. Burn it up in the primaries and there will be less for the general election, less for candidates for lower offices.
So you have to listen to what the man has been saying.
It's still early, but it doesn't seem like the present Democratic candidates are really taking each other on, directly. True, they probably will have to eventually, to a degree. So maybe it's already destined to be a brawl at some point.
I think if Gore got in, the point when they have to take each other on directly, will come much sooner. I'm not implying that Gore would lower the tone. However, he is an excellent debater and would definitely take the others on when it comes to the issues. And they would have to take him on if they want to win.
That's probably how it should be for the system to work properly, but there would be bodies left strewn along the way, so to speak.
Having too many candidates for the nomination generally seems to be a negative for either party. For example, in the 1988 race, during the primaries the Democratic candidates were Dukakis, Jackson, Gore, Biden, Hart, and Gephardt. Casualties included Hart and Biden for sure. Jackson and Gore split the Southern vote, and a weakened Dukakis got the nomination, and lost. So that's what can happen. Gore lived the 1988 campaign, so it is hard to imagine that he would not take that into account.
As for Gore's book, I was just assuming that he has contractual obligations for a book tour, with all that entails, that's going to keep him busy for awhile. I suppose he could renegotiate that if he wants to run. So it would not prevent him from running necessarily, that's true.
(By the way, is the book any good? Why don't you post a review?)
Here's another take on the Gore speculation, complete with fiery comments, for anyone who can't get enough of it.
http://dickpolman.bl...
Odds are high he will not run.
I do not think that anyone can convincingly argue that there is a better candidate available. Overall, I think he'd be a great President. This is partly because of the circumstances that create opportunity. Beyond that, he simply has more to offer the country at this point in time than any other candidate.
His biggest challenge (after catching up in primary season) will be winning over the rust belt. A green economy will generate lots of jobs, but he has to explain it to the public.
His biggest advantage is that nobody owns him. That is a terrific advantage, especially now that we've made so much progress in decentralizing power in our electoral process.
I'm still supporting Obama because we have to assume that Gore will not run till we hear otherwise. I am enthusiastic about Obama, but it is hard to deny that it would be nice if had more experience.
I love Al Gore, but I don't think he's running because of the Clinton factor. Just a hunch, 8 years is a long time to spend with someone only to play political trashin' games.
All I can gather from this is he's running because despite ruling it out he's still not completely ruled out the possibility of thinking about the fact that there may be a time when he might like to think about the possibility of there being an opportunity to possibly think about changing his mind just to think about the possibility to give some thought into the idea that there may be a chance that he might just want to give the possibility of being a candidate a chance. Whew.
;)
Gore/Obama '08
The "GO" Ticket. Let's GO!