Skip to main content

Politics is Power. A look at the trajectory of politics in America since Yalta shows a rise of the Power Principle manifest primarily in the Republican Party; Eisenhower and Reagan on a trajectory which is likely to continue. True Democrats like Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, interspersed regularly with levity and playfulness; the yin dancing through the yang, but always in yang’s house. Some, including myself see Obama as the new JFK; some say the new Lincoln. I have a friend who says Obama is the Chosen One – the Aquarian - and will lead a movement to last 2,000 years. But in the perspective of recent history, the most likely scenario is a happy one-term affair, like the breathing space between Watergate and Reagan, a time when the Republican Party was seen as dead in the water, as it is seen today. But Watergate was the best thing to happen to the Republicans. It allowed them to dump the trash and rebuilt within a decade, to dominate the political scene for the next 25 years.

Obama can awaken the new century, but he needs to build a fully original party; one which leaves history behind entirely. And for that he needs Al Gore.

Obama is showing organizational and conceptual abilities already that are superior to any candidate in our time. Our American history is North/South, but from his perch in Chicago, he sees the world East/West as it opens up to the new millennium. But if he doesn’t fully institionalize his vision with the right team, he will fall into history’s footnotes as one of the charming ethnics; like the Irishman from Boston and the Sunday School teacher from Plains, Georgia.

For this he needs to bring Al Gore out of the shadows and on to the main stage for once and for all. Obama needs to institutionalize himself and he needs to institutionalize Al Gore, or both will be remembered as in the Woody Guthrie tune:

. . . they come with the dust and are gone with the wind.

All the talk of Republicans falling apart is wishful thinking. Some of the most prominent Republicans today really seem to be looking for a breathing space. And others like Mark Sanford, Republican Governor of South Carolina, may actually be charmed by Obama.

Surveys are deceptive. Obama is slightly ahead of McCain in national polls, but we live in volatile times. Lincoln was widely expected to lose his second election. Surveys showed him well behind, but he won in a landslide. What the surveys showed was that the country was tired of war. But they were not ready to refute the Union effort when it came time to vote. We are today in a similar pattern. The country is tired of war. But is the country ready to refute the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein? Up to 75% of those surveyed at the very beginning supported this invasion; fiercely supported this invasion in a haze of war fever. Including most of the Senate and virtually all of the top editors and reporters. The Iraq invasion could well be recalled like the Mexican War. As Grant said, it was a war of the strong against the weak, but anyone who did not participate in it would not take part in the dramatic events to follow.

Obama can’t win running as an anti-war candidate and he is not running as an anti-war candidate. Negativity feeds a beast and it is its own reward: It likes to fail. (As with the Irish independence movement 100 years since: We don’t seek independence because we hate England. We seek independence because we love Ireland. Hating England is the unfortunate by-product.)

Obama has avoided this negativity. He is one of the few and the brave who opposed the war from its very beginnings but has shown sensitivity and understanding to those Senators like Clinton and John Edwards who voted for it then changed their positions as the surveys changed. Indeed, he has shown maturity and sensitivity throughout in the face of the most childish and dishonest strategies by some of his opponents.

Senator McCain’s entire candidacy is an endorsement of the Iraq war and the Bush so-called legacy. The better way to advance this position would be to put Jeb Bush on as VP candidate and fill the slots with Mitt Romney, Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Jeb is no Boy George and is widely respected as a manager and a politician. That Quaternity would repair the Republican party pronto and with Jeb Bush running for POTUS in 2012, would give the newly Catholicized Republicans (W is widely expected to convert after his shift is up and Jeb, like many leading Republicans, is a recent convert) a permanent dynasty; possibly it would bring an end of republican government as we have experienced it on our continent,  and give us instead an American regime akin to that of the Hapsburgs.

Obama is the only chance. And Al Gore is the singular politician in the tradition who does not look to the past ("my legacy") but to the future. He is still the uncarved block and the man of ideas who sees only the future. Some Republicans with an eye to the environment, Governor Schwarzenegger for example, who hopes to build a hydrogen highway from San Diego to Vancouver, and Governor Jody Rell of Connecticut and NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who had hopes of ridding New York City of pollution, have been frustrated by legacy and tradition in both parties. They all look ahead with energy and imagination. In an extended Bush legacy they will have to ignore the feds and look to sympathetic regionalism to advance their vision of rebuilt cities and rebuilt people and fast trains and hydrogen highways from New York to Chicago and on to San Francisco. But Obama/Gore ’08 shares their energy and enthusiasm as it is part of the continuum which spirals forward from the moment, not countervails behind from it in an opposite direction. Obama could easily poach Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger as Gore’s Eisenhower and Marshall on the war of the environment and my feeling is that they would rather work for him in a post-partisan political environment of new ideas.

I’m not sure if it has been discussed satisfactorily, but on the blogs there was wide discussion of why Al Gore did not earlier endorse Obama and questions arose as to why he was the last to speak up.

The reason is simple. In late March, it was reported by Joe Klein in Time Magazine, that it looked like we were going to the Democratic Convention in a stalemate between Clinton and Obama. Some of the most prominent Democrats told Klein that if that happened, it would break the party in half and hand the ’08 election over to the Republicans. But that wasn’t going to happen, because if two went in, only one would come out and that one would be Al Gore. The delegates would vote Gore in on a second ballot.

Al Gore spoke up only this week in Michigan in support of Obama. It means the coast is clear to November for Obama. Obama has the delegates and Gore was certainly not among the crowd of Hillary’s "secret police" (Dick Morris’s phrase) hoping to undo the Obama nomination even after he had the delegates; a strategy which could have led this country to race riots or worse and a complete and permanent division between black and white in our country.

The party relied on Gore to keep those things from happening. That is because Al Gore is the most solid, responsible and reliable politician in the Democratic Party today and he always has been.

Originally posted to Bernie Quigley on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:32 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I have no doubt... (8+ / 0-)

    ...that Al Gore does not want the job.  Citizen Gore is clearly a much happier man than Vice President Gore was.

    •  Yes, and an article today agrees with you! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DH from MD, A Mad Mad World

      Don't expect Gore on the campaign trail

      Despite Al Gore’s choreographed endorsement of Barack Obama Monday, top Democratic strategists don’t expect the 2000 Democratic nominee will risk his environmental agenda by campaigning vigorously in this year’s presidential race.

      They note that the new Gore—Nobel laureate, documentarian, globetrotting advocate for environmental issues—has in recent years shied away from more partisan domestic debates.

      "[Gore] is not wholly going to abandon his profile as a Democrat but he also has his advocacy and citizen-of-the-world stature to take into account," said a Gore confidant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He’s trying to weigh all of these things because he understands the importance of the White House in solving some of these climate crisis issues and there is a difference between the candidates on that issue."

      The article states that Gore is now "an environmentalist who used to be in politics" and wants to remain as non-partisan as he can in order to serve his greater agenda.

      Gore regularly turns down requests to raise money for the national Democratic Party as well as for gubernatorial and congressional candidates—more indicators that he may be reticent about a return to the partisan rough-and-tumble.

      "If Gore had wanted influence with Obama he would have endorsed him during the primary," said a former advisor to Bill Clinton. "I don’t think there are also any hard feelings between Obama and Gore. But I don’t think Obama is thinking that Al Gore was there for me when I needed him in the way that Bill Richardson was."

      •  He's already hosted two political fundraisers (0+ / 0-)

        in the last month or so, hasn't he?

        This election has been full of surprises. Only when Barack doesn't pick Gore or he does and Gore declines is when I'll accept that Gore won't be his runningmate.

    •  However... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Gore's conviction about the gravity of climate change unequivocally pre-empts a happy ride into the sunset... for any of us.

      I have to believe that Gore would take the role and make the most humanly possible of it.

    •  It would be nice (0+ / 0-)

      to have him as our VP, but I don't think it is possible.

    •  Gore as VP???? (0+ / 0-)

      that has about as much chance of happening as Obama deciding he really doesnt want to be our nominee and releasing his delegates to HRC before the convention will happen :)

      "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" is NOT a coherent Mid-East Strategy Mr McCain

      by KnotIookin on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:50:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No to Gore as VP (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ivey476, CC Lee

    He would do fine as a member of the cabinet, as envirnment Czar or whatever, but he would hurt the ticket as VP. He should rather choose Biden or Dodd.

    Proud Hussein Liberal

    by DarkOmnius on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:39:15 AM PDT

    •  I don't think he'd hurt the ticket but he'd (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wisper, limpidglass

      upstage Obama in terms of wattage and experience.  There's no way.

      Let Gore save the world please.  We need him more and more each day.

      •  Sorry. Obama's genuine appeal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        to intellect and humanity will not be upstaged, only enhanced, by whoever he puts on his ticket.

        The electorate clearly recognizes that the issues we face in as a nation defy off-the-shelf political solutions alone and that we need wattage and experience beyond one leader's capacity to provide. So does Barack.  

    •  Right on (0+ / 0-)

      I know you wrote "choose Biden or Dodd," but all I can see is "choose Biden." To me, the choice is clear.

      "He's patriotic in sincere ways, and not in photo-op ways." - jenontheshore

      by Ivey476 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:46:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gore far and away would help the ticket the most (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bronte17, moira

      He was the most popular candidate in all polls before the primaries and handily won every head-to-head against republicans. His positives among the electorate right now are enormous--how would he hurt the ticket?

      Picking Dodd is a non-starter, that is a lost senate seat, we have to avoid that.

    •  Pfffttt... as if (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Gore is head and shoulders above any of them.  There is no comparison.  Gore has the depth of experience and a solid wisdom and he's been burnished with a fire that few could endure.

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:07:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  2 observations from an outsider (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dont Just Stand There

    I would think Gore would be a very odd choice...

    A VP should shore up the president's weak areas.. in this case Obama has the perception of being weak with the "working white" and "foreign policy"... so you're potential suggestion is a person like Gore who lost his own home state of TN with a large working white vote, and not a large foreign policy vote? I still think that someone like Sam Nunn would be best. I know he's not progressive, but he would offer appeal to both groups.

    Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?

    by BFSkinner on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:47:32 AM PDT

    •  Sam Nunn?!?!? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Collideascope, bronte17

      The guy has no constituency. He hasn't run for election since 1990 and while he's beloved by the David Broders of the world, he wouldn't bring much to Obama's ticket. Worse, his reputation as a foreign policy expert draws attention to the idea that Obama is inexperienced in foreign policy. Never mind that Obama is running on his good judgment, not on experience. Plus, do you really want a noted homophobe on the ticket? Not the greatest idea out there.

      •  Cost-Benefit analysis (0+ / 0-)

        True I am not a great Sam Nunn fan, but....

        I have thought about this a few times when thinking about VP choices for the two (Not that I plan on either McCain or Obama calling me for my opinion mind you <g>.

        Anyway, on the Nunn side.

        How many people would ditch Obama if he picked Nunn? A large number? A small number? I really do not think it would be a large number. There would be a bunch of people PO'd and the like, but by the end of the day your party unity would keep pretty much going (Unless I misread your party, Do you think I am wrong on this? I could be?)

        Now on the other side. People do not vote for Obama because he has problems (perception or reality, who knows, but in this case perception is just as good as reality) with the "working white" vote... and foreign policy. Nunn would help deliver both, in my view. Maybe not even Nunn per se, but a person like Nunn.  What would be the benefits?

        It would draw in people on the fence, GOP people and more independents who are still not convinced about Obama's foreign policy issues, etc. Obivously you cannot put a number on this but I would bet he would end up with a larger benefit than cost.

        Just my two cents.

        Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?

        by BFSkinner on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:13:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I very much doubt this (0+ / 0-)

          Unless they're incredibly popular and/or influential, VP nominees rarely bring a decent sized constituency to a ticket. Someone who hasn't faced the voters in 18 years is not going to have much of a constituency, working class or otherwise.  People vote for President and not Vice-President. So even if Sam Nunn had a lot of popularity amongst working class white male voters (which I'm deeply skeptical about), they'd earnestly wish that you could vote for Vice-President separately and would then vote for McCain. I saw the same thing happen in 1988- I knew a lot of Republicans who said they wished they could vote for Bentsen over Quayle, but still greatly preferred Bush to Dukakis.

          A running mate should be a strong advocate for the ticket who can take the fight to the other side and reinforce the message. I'm not sure how well Nunn does that.

          •  Maybe not Nunn then (0+ / 0-)

            But I would think someone of Nunn's ilk, another Blue Dog Democrat with Foreign Policy experience. I think that is what has many people still not comfortable with Obama.

            I have my own reasons why I cannot vote for him, and I am just offering what are my observations based on discussions I have had with people not happy with either McCain or with Obama and not sure who to vote for.

            Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?

            by BFSkinner on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:45:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'd also like to add... (0+ / 0-)

          ....that the number of VPs who can deliver a state have been pretty small in the past 50 years or so. LBJ probably delivered Texas for Kennedy, but I can't think of too many others. I don't think Nunn can deliver Georgia, which has changed a good bit since 1990. If Obama wins Georgia, it will be because a) Bob Barr takes a significant portion of the vote from McCain and b) African-American turnout goes through the roof.

          •  Georgia (0+ / 0-)

            I do not think Barr has that much pull in GA. From what I have read, although it is limited, I think Barr is limited and will be limited in his impact.

            In my view I think this will be a very close election, with good old Ralph and Barr canceling one another out (for the most part) and McCain and Obama being close.

            Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?

            by BFSkinner on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:47:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I think Biden would be better (0+ / 0-)

      Helps with key Catholic constituencies. Not afraid to trash the GOP on foreign policy. Great attack dog.

      The Book of Revelation is not a foreign policy manual.

      by Dont Just Stand There on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:25:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree. VP is firstly 1 heartbeat away from (0+ / 0-)

      POTUS.  He should first and foremost be the guy you trust to take over if something happens to you.  I think Gore or Edwards could fill those shoes.

  •  He's been vice-president already.... (0+ / 0-)

    been loyal to his party...

    and has already run a campaign for President...

    so I think Dan Quayle would make a great running mate for John McCain, personally.

    Let's see...the Republican Party, or my eternal soul? -- Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-MD

    by wmtriallawyer on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:00:18 AM PDT

    •  seconded (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I second a McCain-Quayle ticket. Only because Agnew is unavailable.
      For me, Gore still represents ties to the past. He was Bill Clinton's VP. Whether it is fair or not, he is still tied to the Clinton regime. Waco, bombing aspirin factories, communications decency act, defense of marriage act. Yuck! Whoever he picks, should have no ties to The Clintons. Sorry, that includes you, Bill Richardson. No senators. I am warming up much more to Claire McCaskill, however.

  •  this is just silly (4+ / 0-)

    Gore does not want to be Vice President again.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:00:18 AM PDT

  •  For the hundredth time (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, SheriffBart, Wisper

    Al Gore isn't interested in the job.

  •  You need to stop thinking. Gore isn't popular. (0+ / 0-)

    Gore isn't running or campaigning for anything. Maybe he'd take the head of EPA under Obama. He's an excellent administrator. He is NOT an excellent politician, nor is he "the most solid, responsible and reliable politician in the Democratic Party today and he always has been." (Kennedy? Biden? Feingold?)

    Check the polls. Gore adds nothing to the ticket. In early head to head matchups against Republicans, he did worse than both Clinton and Obama. He has no home base, and can carry no state for the ticket. He's VERY popular among a subset of Democrats, but that's it. Obama doesn't need the Gorebot 2008.

    •  Al Gore is beloved by many Americans (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I have the conversation constantly with people... in grocery stores and farmer's markets, in doctor's offices, post offices, law firms and insurance offices... I have yet to experience anyone who says "Gore is unpopular."   In fact, it is the precise opposite... "Where is Gore and why isn't he running?"

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:13:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just found this, if anyone cares (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bronte17, NeuvoLiberal

        As of May, this year

        Currently, 53% have a favorable opinion of Gore while 36% express an unfavorable view.

        From Pew Research

        Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?

        by BFSkinner on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:21:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  this is a great chart! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bronte17, limpidglass


          Gore, Obama and Clinton

          Gore's image is somewhat more favorable, on balance, than Barack Obama's and much more favorable than Hillary Clinton's.

          Democrats have comparably favorable opinions of Gore, Obama and Clinton (72%, 69% and 71%, respectively). But slightly more Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Obama (26%) and Clinton (27%) than they do of Gore (20%).

          Gore's unfavorable rating among Republicans, while high (62%), is substantially lower than Clinton's (79%); Obama's unfavorable rating among Republicans falls in between, at 68%.

          Although both Obama's and Clinton's # likely improved since then, this May poll shows Gore's numbers are still rather strong.

          Thanks for the link.

          "Howard, this is not about you. This is about your country." --- Al Gore.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:18:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think "beloved by many" is a stretch... (0+ / 0-)

        I mean, Hillary and Obama are "beloved by many" also. I looked at polling and I'll concede that his popularity has increased more over the past year or so than I'd suspected. (Oddly, he had very high job approval ratings in September of 2000, two months before he "lost" the election.) But I also would wager that a chunk of this popularity was related to the fact that he was NOT a candidate.

        In a Newsweek poll two months ago testing Gore v McCain, he polled three points more than McCain (49-46). Not significantly different from Hillary or Obama's numbers. Gore is not a gifted politician. He's a fine guy and an excellent administrator/executive, but he's too big a target for cheap shots and too much a symbol of "business as usual" for to be the VP candidate.

        •  LongTom, you always have a negative point to make (0+ / 0-)

          re Gore.

          And there is nothing "odd" about his high approval ratings just before the 2000 election. Gore has a lifetime of goodwill built up in this nation... regardless of what the boorish pundits say.

          And, he didn't lose the election. It was stolen. Along with our treasury, our good name and our constitutional way of law.

          <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

          by bronte17 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:39:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He's a man, not a Godhead. (0+ / 0-)

            Do I "always have a negative point to make about Al Gore" or are you unable to see the reality of who Gore is? I have a balanced view of Gore. He's a smart guy, an excellent administrator/manager and a so-so politician. He won his senate seat in TN because of his father's great popularity and influence.

            I can understand liking Al Gore, feeling bad that he didn't become President (that's kind of the same as losing, BTW), but I don't like canonizing him because he just ain't all that. He was always a fairly standard corporate-oriented Southern democrat. The reason I don't like the adulation has something to do with Nader. A lot of the people who are so enraptured with Gore now were screaming against him in 2000 that he was "too corporate."

            What was odd about his high approval ratings just before the 2000 election was that he lost the election. And please don't say it was stolen. If it was stolen, he let it be stolen. Letting something be stolen from you by someone of equal strength is the same as losing. he wasn't mugged by someone with a knife. He was more concerned about looking fair than taking over. He, or his team (it's the same thing) mismanaged that post-election scene in FL. He didn't take office, and that defines winning. It was excruciating watching him during that campaign.

            He was so eager to concede on election night, it made me sick. He then had to withdraw his concession, and it got the whole post-election imbroglio off on the wrong foot for him. He was on the defensive immediately. I'm pissed that he didn;t win, and I got the feeling that he didn't care as much as I did.

            •  And right off the bat... again... you disdain (0+ / 0-)

              any rightful respect that someone has for Gore... calling it worship of a G*dhead.

              And, yes, I recognize your name as someone often in the Gore diaries who leaves callous comments... though you presume them to be righteous or something.

              You are flat out wrong about the election not being stolen. Even more so to blame Gore for it. Your macho-ness description of "how to" lose, or not, obviously sounds good to your ears, but it's not realistic.

              His concession call was made at 3:15a.m. in the morning, after the networks had thrown their media empire into the mix by calling FL for bush. And the fight lasted almost until Christmas... December 13.  The Rehnquist Court sat King george.  It's a fact that historians will record for posterity.

              And boo to your "feelings" that Gore didn't care.

              Like I said, you are always negative concerning Gore.

              <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

              by bronte17 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:13:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, facts are best. (0+ / 0-)

                Gore conceded prematurely, this is inarguable. As I recall only one of the networks had called FL for Bush. It was like he couldn't wait to concede, and the whole thing made him look like a dope. This is from AP:

                • Between 1:30 a.m. and 1:45 a.m. CST, Gore calls Bush to concede the election. Gore's call comes after the media report that Gore is losing Florida by 50,000 votes and after TV networks call the state -- and the election -- for Bush.

                 •  Gore leaves his hotel in Nashville, Tennessee, and begins the short motorcade drive to War Memorial Plaza, where he will address supporters gathered there.

                 •  When the motorcade is about two blocks from War Memorial Plaza, traveling chief of staff Michael Feldman is paged by field director Michael Whouley. Whouley tells Feldman that only 6,000 votes in Florida separate Gore from Bush at that time, according to the Florida secretary of state, with a significant number of votes outstanding.

                 •  Feldman calls Gore campaign chairman William Daley and gives him the latest numbers from Florida. Daley informs Gore.

                 •  By the time Gore's motorcade reaches War Memorial Plaza, the difference in Florida is fewer than 1,000 votes.

                 •  Gore, Daley and other campaign advisers meet in the vice president's holding room at the plaza to discuss the situation.

                 •  About 2:15 a.m. CST: Daley calls Bush campaign chairman Don Evans.

                 •  Between 2:30 a.m. and 2:45 a.m. CST, Gore calls Bush again, and the two candidates speak for a few minutes. The conversation's "contents are private," the Gore camp says, but officials tell CNN that Gore retracted his earlier concession.

                 •  Gore leaves War Memorial Plaza to return to his hotel. He does not speak to the crowd.

                 •  Daley addresses the plaza crowd. "Our campaign continues," he says, until a winner is officially declared in Florida. The few hundred people remaining in the plaza cheer: "Stay and fight!" and "Don't give up!"

                 •  Gore meets with staff until 3:45 a.m. CST and then goes to bed.

                And I didn't say the election wasn't stolen. I said Gore let it be stolen. That, too, is inarguable. I don't disdain anybody's respect for Gore. He deserves some measure of respect. But he also deserves scrutiny of his many, many mistakes.

                •  Where did you crib the info from? (0+ / 0-)

                  I spent the entire night on this election.  And from my memory the panic mode to halt any concession, resulting in phone calls and emails didn't start until sometime after 2 a.m.

                  Regardless, your cribbed scenario does not remotely prove anything resembling definitive gutlessness, to give up and "let it be stolen."

                  <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                  by bronte17 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:55:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's from CNN. (0+ / 0-)


                    And it's the Gore team's account of what happened. You said Gore's concession call to Bush was after 3:15 a.m. Since the article gives the times in the Central time zone, it's apparent that he called Bush between 2:30 and 2:45 EST.

                    It doesn't matter what time it was, anyway. He conceded for no reason, that's obvious, since he probably won FL. He could easily have waited. The expense and importance of the campaign demanded that he wait. It was like giving up in the Super Bowl because you're two touchdowns behind with 8 minutes left to play, just because the commentators are saying you're beat.

                    Who said "gutless?" It doesn't take "guts" to wait for the votes to come in. That's what ANYBODY would do. Why Gore conceded prematurely is still a mystery. Maybe he wanted to go to bed. Maybe he doesn't have the marvelous judgment you attribute to him. Maybe it was a manifestation of his compulsion to please others. It doesn't really matter, but there's no question that there were a lot of votes left to be counted. He should have been asking, "Is there NO CHANCE that the totals might close up?" Instead, he tripped over his own schwanz in his haste to concede. It was appalling. It was bad enough calling Bush and congratulating him. Can you imagine if he'd actually given his concession speech?

    •  False propaganda (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bronte17, limpidglass

      Gore doesn't want the job. He couldn't be clear about it:

      "Vice President Gore has long since ruled out any possibility of serving in an administration," Kreider said.

      "Maybe he'd take the head of EPA under Obama."

      Nope. He's not interested in that either.

      "He's an excellent administrator. He is NOT an excellent politician"

      He won 6 elections from a state that's tough for Democrats than say, IL. He won the popular vote starting 18% down because of Clinton fatigue.

      "the most solid, responsible and reliable politician in the Democratic Party today and he always has been."

      He is one of the best Democrats we have alongside Kennedy, Feingold, Dean, etc, with more experience than HRC, Obama and Edwards combined.

      "Check the polls. Gore adds nothing to the ticket."

      Nonsense. Obama/Edwards-Gore-Clinton tickets did the best overall in SUSA polls. Again, Gore is NOT interested in the job. He is focused on his global movement on climate change.

      "he did worse than both Clinton and Obama."

      Not really. In this MI matchup, eg, Gore and Clinton were tied, but JRE did 2% better.

      "He has no home base, and can carry no state for the ticket."

      He won the popular vote. The Democratic party, clear thinking independents and moderate Republicans are his base.

      Gore is NOT interested in playing any formal political role in Obama's administration. You can stop your smearing of him now.

      "Howard, this is not about you. This is about your country." --- Al Gore.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:13:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're the best Neuvo... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

        by bronte17 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:14:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Al Gore said he'd do anything Barack wants (0+ / 0-)

        Would that not include VP?  I think he could be convinced if there was an oversight role for him.

        •  He said he'd do anything to (0+ / 0-)

          get Barack elected.

          If the unlikely situation arose that only Gore as VP would get Obama elected, then perhaps he'd agree to do it, but we have an excellent pool of VP choices for Obama (some of my favorites are Jack Reed, Bob Graham, Sebelius, Warner (though he ruled it out as well), Feingold and Dean: Reed maybe the best choice due to his active duty and foreign policy experience coupled with a strong progressive record, except for the fact that he's up for reelection for the senate).

          "I think he could be convinced if there was an oversight role for him."

          I am fairly sure that Gore would be willing to play the role of an informal advisor to Obama and especially so on environmental and climate matters. It seems quite certain that he's not interested in taking any formal roles in the administration.

          "Howard, this is not about you. This is about your country." --- Al Gore.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:37:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I get it. You love Al Gore. But I watched (0+ / 0-)

        that election in 2000. Gore's 18 pt deficit WAS a "vote" against Clinton for the shenanigans that resulted in his impeachment. What matter s is the bottom line. Gore lost. He made a lot of mistakes and lost to a neptistic cowardly idiot. He should have eaten Bush for lunch.

        Obama needs a VP candidate who's a credible stand-in as prsident, yet won't cast too long a shadow, and WHO WILL PUT A SWING STATE INTO THE BANK. Richardson fills the bill nicely, and will shore up the Latino vote also. Nelson might put FL in the Dem column.

    •  Gore is the last Democrat to win the popular vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Until someone else does that, he's by definition the most popular Democrat at the polling booths.

      "Howard, this is not about you. This is about your country." --- Al Gore.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:21:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the pew #s I give up there (point) would agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        with you, but I guess it depends on the purpose of the VP.

        More than seven-in-ten Democrats (72%) have a favorable opinion of Gore

        which obviously makes a lot of sense. He would unify your base and bring even more support to your cause. People that er.. would vote Democrat vote more Democrat?

        But what about those people that you're trying to get to vote for you? The Republicans and the "Reagan Democrats?

        Republicans' views of Gore have improved a bit but remain negative; just 29% of Republicans say they have a favorable impression of the former vice president.

        now obviously this is not the "Reagan Democrats" group since who knows for sure if they self-ID'd in this study as D or R, etc. But my point is if you want to expand the reach of the Democratic party is Gore the best person? <shrug>

        Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?

        by BFSkinner on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:34:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The 'Gore for VP' discussion is moot (0+ / 0-)

          because he's ruled it out. But, if we want to have an academic discussion, I would like to point you to my older comments on Gore's favs, unfavs etc as I had written quite a bit on it when the 'draft Gore' movement was going on.

          I do believe that had Gore run for President and did so with about two years to work with, we could've charted an approach for him to get 55-58% of the popular vote (along with a strong electoral college victory). The VP prospect situation is different because the time span is shorter and everything has to mesh with Obama's track and not overshadow him.

          "Howard, this is not about you. This is about your country." --- Al Gore.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:55:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Why would Gore want to be VP again? (0+ / 0-)

    He didn't even want to run for president? Why would he want to run for VP, a job he already had for 8 years?

    Obama voter registration buttons

  •  Gore has said no to this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    on many occasions, the most recent of which is this one.

    ...the former vice president does not want any position in a possible Obama administration, his spokeswoman said Wednesday...

    "Vice President Gore has long since ruled out any possibility of serving in an administration," Kreider said.

  •  Interesting thinking. (0+ / 0-)

    DHinMI came to the same conclusion about Gore a month or so back.

    " Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution." Sen Rob't. Byrd 10/11/02.

    by LEP on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:30:39 AM PDT

  •  Caught in the past.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Bernie, I often enjoy your essays, but this one simply doesn't work for me.  It ignores two very fundamental, situation-changing events: Iraq and, even more, Hurricane Katrina.

    Iraq is unquestionably a foreign policy blunder of the highest order.  From its conception based in equal measures of revenge and ideological fantasy, to its marketing based on lies, to its execution marred by pipe dreams of laissez fair, for-profit, privatized government, it showed that neoconservatism is a political flesh-eating virus, infecting and consuming whatever it touches.

    The good news for the GOP, in 2004, was that Iraq was happening ... in Iraq.  Far from the hearths and minds of most Americans, and with a media that could still be bribed or browbeaten into telling the story the Bush Administration wanted heard.

    But then came Hurricane Katrina, a domestic policy blunder to rival Iraq.  Again it exposed flesh-eating virus of laissez fair, for-profit, privatized government.  And it happened right here, where Americans couldn't miss or overlook it.  It proved to anyone who paid attention that not only was neoconservatism no less corrupt than any other ideology, but that it was also incapable of doing the basic tasks we expect government to do.

    And then came Iraq, Again ... and never closer to home.  The borrow-and-spend spree that was the Iraq War, coupled with the Bush Administration's vassal-or-villain approach to diplomacy, finally broke the back of the U.S. dollar.  The Chinese and others were no longer willing to buy up any amount of U.S. debt, and no longer could the U.S. and Americans go on spending as if the bills would never come due.

    And Americans began losing their homes in record numbers.  The flesh-eating virus infecting our most cherished dream, in the form of ballooning interest and foreclosure notices.

    This is not 2004, or 2000, or 1980, or Yalta.  The myth of the Conservative Ubermensch has been blown apart, exposed in all of its toxic flaws, not in a foreign land where it can be covered up or ignored, but right here in our own cities and towns and, our own jobs and homes.

    This is the underlying narrative that too many in the media have not yet grasped, perhaps because too many of them spend all of their time talking to one another, rather than listening to the rest of us.

    Barack Obama's campaign has been about inspiring, encouraging, and enabling the rest of us - We the People - to take back our government, and more than that, our nation.  To demand and work for an end to the flesh-eating virus of laissez fair, for-profit, privatized government.  However lofty that ideology might sound in a think tank, it does not work in the real world, and we've all seen that first-hand.

    You're caught in the past, Bernie.  What's happening in 2008 is not a mere interlude, a pause for breath before the Conservative Ubermensch comes back to resume its rightful place.

    There is no Conservative Ubermensch.  Americans know it.  And they want real change, not merely an institutionalized, watered-down, let's-not-be-too-challenging version of change.

    We know it's time to "ruck up, suck up, and press on," as we used to say in the Marine Corps.  We the People know there's a lot of work to be done to fix the many and manifest problems in our nation.  It's going to be hard work, and some of it will be painful.  We're not sheep following a new Messiah.

    And we're not afraid of the Bogeyman anymore....

  •  Gore ... no way (0+ / 0-)

    Does not want the VP slot and would not accept it if offered. I also think Gore in a cabinet position is a bad and silly idea. I could however see Gore as Obama's designated lead on the renegotiated Kyota Treaty coming up and heading US missions on environmental issues. It would be a perfect fit for "citizen" Gore.

    Right now the absolute best VP pick for Obama is Edwards. Noone else is close. USA Today polling showed that Edwards gave the ticket a big bounce in all the battleground states. Edwards is the closest match to Obama message wise (change) and in positions opposing corporate and lobbyist influence upon our democracy. My view is that Edwards paired with Obama offers a good chanch to have a big, big win in November and of solidifying the democratic majority in both houses. Assuming a successful presidency, Edwards also would as VP be in a string position to make that a 16 year run or progressive politics and policies. One should not ignore that of all the candidates Edwards polled best with independents consistently .... and I never understood why he had that 20% ceiling within the democratic primary voter base.

    •  Incorrect.. Donna Brazille has been hyping VP (0+ / 0-)

      for Gore and I doubt that would happen if Gore was truly not interested in the job.

      Second, he shaved and has lost some weight... these are serious signs.

      I like Edwards, I love the look of them on stage together and I'm a huge Edwards supporter. If Obama picks him, I would be very happy. However, Gore would lead to such a landslide.  And, VP would give him the ability to work on climate change on many different levels not just Koyoto, not just EPA, not just Sec of Interior or just alternative energy czar.

  •  I like this phrase (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Al Gore is the singular politician in the tradition who does not look to the past ("my legacy") but to the future. He is still the uncarved block and the man of ideas who sees only the future.

    A perfect description of Al Gore.

  •  Please stop this nonsense. HOWARD DEAN! (0+ / 0-)

    We need a tough talking, feisty governor w/real world experience of balancing the budget.

    Imagine Howard Dean and Mitt Romney in a VP debate!

    Dean would STEAMROLL over that flip flopper!

  •  Arghhhhhhh. Please make it stop. nt (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site