asking Al Gore to run in 2008!
Watching and waiting . . .
Posted March 18th, 2008 by earthmother
In November of 2007, AlGore.org suspended its active campaign to get Al Gore to be a candidate iin the 2008 race for the White House. At that time, we informed all of our organizers that we were going into a dormant mode. Publicly, we remain dormant, but we are carefully watching the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. As of this writing, Obama is ahead in delegates, but both candidates continue to split the available delegates in such a way that neither may have enough to be nominated on the first ballot at the convention in August. The next (and last) major state as far as delegates go is Pennsylvania. Depending on what happens there in April, we may decide that it's time to swing into action again.
If Clinton and Obama continue to do damage to each other's campaigns, if they continue to split the delegates, if it appears that the Democratic Party will be divided rather than united going into the convention, it may become evident that the party needs someone who can unite the Democrats, and most importantly, someone who can beat John McCain in November. To our way of thinking, the obvious someone is Al Gore.
We're not the only ones entertaining this notion. There continue to be many articles written about Gore as the unity or compromise candidate. Here are a few of the more recent ones:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/al-de-gore_b_90064.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03062008/news/columnists/only_gore_can_stop_...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119851
http://www.southernledger.com/blogs/stevegill/?m=200803
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-kitman/al-gore-for-president_b_9033...
While everyone understands that there are major obstacles standing between Al Gore and the nomination, there are various scenarios that, while long shots, could come to pass. We remain realistic about the situation, but we also feel that if there's any chance at all that we can somehow make our dream a reality, we need to try, but anything we would do would have to be ethical, reasonable, and realistic, and at this point, the options for us are few.
So we watch, and we wait. We'll keep you posted . . .
- earthmother's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Be part of the Draft Gore '08 campaign!
SOOO unfortunate we never
SOOO unfortunate we never got Gore as a president
Al Gore -TIME
Is Al Gore the Answer?
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1725678,00.html
YES!!
I haven't found this posted yet, sorry if it is a duplicate.
deja vu
I wrote a post a long time ago - before the site upgrade - speculating that there was a "deal" made between Gore and the Clintons for her to be a "stalking horse." The gist of it was that they knew she would never actually win, but also knew she could keep anyone else from locking it up quickly. So they agreed she'd enter the toxic environment Gore wanted nothing to do with, have a good time duking it out with any and all comers, and when the time was right hand it over to Al.
I called it a fantasy back then. Now I wonder...
Does anyone know whether the archived version of the old site is still accessible? I'd love to dig that post out.
"Grass roots - to elect a president, and to save the planet
The Good Ol' Day's of Gore
The Good Ol' Day's of Gore.org
The archived version is still accessible here...
http://archive.algore.org/forum/index.php?board=1.0
Deja Vu? With all the damage that has been done, we won't be fooled again.
"He won it once, He will win it again." - Draft Gore
Gore 2008
I still feel what I felt 12 months ago - Gore/Edwards would be unstopable.
Remember 2004?
I would support both Hiliary and Barack in November, but let's be realistic.
In 2004 we had a war going downhill, and the Ds nominated an experienced candidate with a long and honored military service who promptly lost an election to an unpopular president with a long record of incompetence and avoiding military service. Why did that happen? Perhaps Bill Maher is right, the Ds play poker by calling, not raising while the Rs will go all in.
In any case, do any of you really think Joe 6 pack who sees TV spots of John McCain as a prisoner, as a war hero, as a legend contasted to Barack with his wife dismissing America's accomplishments during her adulthood (there actually were some...) along with his preacher condemning America (in much stronger langauge) and decide to support Obama?
I don't know if the Ds ever had a candidate with such a high profile and world wide respect not running as they do with Al Gore. I know they never had a candidate that was denied the Presidency by the Supreme Court before...
A few things to consider
1.Bush was not unpopular. That's an exaggeration. At the time of the election he had around 50% approval rating. And Kerry never was ahead of him in the polls, except right after Iowa which was just a few points, within the margin of error and the direct result of his upset win.
2. Kerry's military service was not a black and white story -- even without the whole swiftboating.
He came back and started to protest the war which many veterans considered unacceptable behavior.
This should have been understood long before the smear campaign started. But Dems in Iowa were blinded by a simplistic perception that Kerry was a war hero and that was it. Well, for many Kerry was not a war hero but someone who joined the peaceniks of the 60s. They are not particuarly popular in mainstream America.
3. Kerry was a MA liberal. More liberal than Gore or Clinton. Try that against an incumbent president any time and you will always see defeat. That's the reality that, again, many Dems failed to even recognize during the primaries let alone see it as a threat.
4. Never in our history was an incumbent president rejected by the voters during a war. Why do you think it should have been different in 2004?
5. The gay marriage bullshit hurt Kerry but it would have hurt ANY Democrat. Especially a proven liberal.
In short: Kerry had no chance in 2004 and frankly no Democrat would have.
No Democrat polled better against Bush. Not Dean not Edwards not Hillary and not Gore.
The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright's 9/11 sermon
March 21, 2008
The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon
Posted: 10:09 AM ET
Editor’s note: CNN Contributor Roland Martin has listened to several of the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Portions of the sermons have been excerpted in recent stories.
As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. I’ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.
I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.
One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.
He was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril:
“I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”
“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.
“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.
“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.
“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.
“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.
“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.
“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.
“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”
He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.
“What is the state of your family?” he asked.
And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.
His sermon thesis:
1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.
2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they won’t put me on PBS or national cable for what I’m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)
“We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,” he said.
Wright then said we can’t stop messing over people and thinking they can’t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.
“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”
3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.
By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said “God damn America.” I’m not sure which sermon that came from.
This doesn’t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.
The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.
I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.
And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.
So stay tuned.
Monster
oops posted in wrong place again
Hillary maybe our savior
-------------
Published on Thursday, March 20, 2008 by The Nation
Hillary’s Nasty Pastorate
by Barbara Ehrenreich
There’s a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she’s a lot more vulnerable than Obama.
You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that “through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as “The “Fellowship,” also known as The Family. But it won’t be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet’s shocking exposé The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.
Sean Hannity has called Obama’s church a “cult,” but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton’s “Family,” which is organized into “cells”–their term–and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, Sharlet joined The Family’s home for young men, forswearing sex, drugs and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn’t undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn’t completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners–alone.
The Family’s most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes–knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper’s in 2003:
During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa’s postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century’s most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.
At the heart of The Family’s American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe and Rick Santorum. They get to use The Family’s spacious estate on the Potomac, The Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by The Family’s young women’s group. And, at The Family’s frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already powerful.
Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family’s “most elite cell,” the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia’s notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, The Family’s publicity-averse leader, that he is “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”
Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton’s rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing “religious freedom” in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.
What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and now Hillary Clinton. She reached out to many potential spiritual mentors during her White House days, including New Age guru Marianne Williamson and the liberal rabbi Michael Lerner. But it was the Family association that stuck.
Sharlet generously attributes Clinton’s involvement to the under-appreciated depth of her religiosity, but he himself struggles to define The Family’s theological underpinnings. The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the “meek.” They believe that, in mass societies, it’s only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God’s “dominion” on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it’s all about power–cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or “cells.” “We work with power where we can,” Doug Coe has said, and “build new power where we can’t.”
Obama has given a beautiful speech on race and his affiliation with the Trinity United Church of Christ. Now it’s up to Clinton to explain–or, better yet, renounce–her long-standing connection with the fascist-leaning Family.
Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of Nickel and Dimed (Owl), is the winner of the 2004 Puffin/Nation Prize.
Why
Rod Bailey
are you hanging out here on the Al Gore site. All you seem to want to do is tear down any Democrat that is running, or may run for president. Why not take articles like the above to some John McCain site, or some right-wingnut site where such articles might be more welcome. Please!!!
Monster
Why shouldn't we expose the woman for what she is? Disgusting, revolting, hypocritical, mad. Monster, monster, monster. Right wing nuts thrill for her. Here we denounce her, if we be Gore people.
'gotta getta gun...'
Agree. Clinton is fair game.
She is a fraud, a liar, she and her husband did Gore in in 2000. Why should we promote her, of all people, here on a Gore site?
She is one of the reasons why Gore didn't have enough money in 2000 to compete against Bush' record breaking fundraising.
Cause if you would smell the roses, it's Obama or Clinton in 08
Barack Obama is the best alternative for the Democrats in 2008. That's the bottom line we have to deal with. If the Democratic Presidential Nomination run have drifted down to the two remaining candidates, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, these articles that are out there on the internet for all to see, help us make the decision on backing most likely Barack Obama for President. Al Gore will throw his superdelegate vote to Barack Obama as I see a snowball's chance in hell that you all want Hillary Clinton.
How is that to happen?
How is that to happen?
On March 20th, 2008 wanbligi said:
With all due respect to Al Gore, we have to be realistic here. The delegate and superdelegate count for each of the Democratic nominees, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are approximately at 1700 and 1500 respectively. The magic number for the Democratic Presidential Nomination is 2025.
From my understanding the delegates won from each respective state are pledged delegates meaning that those delegates are pledged according to the primaries and caucuses held to date and cannot be changed.
Now the superdelegates of which there are approximately 800 in number are the ones that can be changed anytime. The point of the matter is that Al Gore as far as I know has no delegates won in any of the states because he chose not to be on the ballot. So the scenario of the Democratic National Convention in Denver not having a clear winner at the time of the convention maybe a possibility, but for either Obama or Hillary that trail to the nomination will be very near the 2025 necessary for the nomination, whereas Al Gore would not have any delegates at the time of the convention at his own choosing to not be on the ballots in all the state's primaries and caucuses.
I know alot of us wanted Al Gore as President, but the realism is the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee will be either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Al Gore is one of the superdelegates and understands the role of the superdelegates and you can bet that Al Gore will have an impact on helping those undecided superdelegates make their all important decision on which of the two remaining Democratic candidates will get those remaining votes. All our prayers should be with the whole process as we move forward to its completion. Once that decision is made in Denver, we as Democrats need to unite around the nominee so that we can take back the White House in November 2008. Thank you.
i
Here's how
I'm not saying that it will happen this way, but people with a lot more knowledge about politics than we have are already suggesting the scenario. You're right that the pledged delegates are bound to their candidate . . . on the first ballot. And you're right that the superdelegates can vote for whomever they choose. And remember that Edwards has not yet released his delegates. For now, they remain bound to him. So, if it were to happen that neither Clinton nor Obama was able to get to the magic number of 2025 on the first ballot, then the political wheeling and dealing begins. The Obama people work furiously to win over the Clinton delegates, and vice versa. But it's been said repeatedly that both camps will have difficulty swaying opposing delegates to their candidate, which means that a second or even third ballot is a possibility. And during all the efforts to sway delegates to one camp or the other, Al Gore's name could well come up as the "compromise" or "unity" candidate, perhaps with Obama as his VP.
It's a highly unlikely scenario, and we recognize that we can't and don't want to be instrumental in subverting the will of the American people. That's why we're watching and waiting, to see how the race develops, to see if Obama and Clinton continue to trail McCain (as they are as of tonight). But watching the soap opera that is this election season, it's clear that anything can happen. Just tonight, the story broke about the breach of Obama's passport info at the state dept. Shades of Watergate? We don't know yet. But ANYthing can happen in this election season. So we will follow the events closely and use the will of the American people as our moral compass. As I said, our objective is not to take away the nomination from a candidate who has legitimately won it. But if things start to turn sour, there may be another alternative in the form of Al Gore.
http://www.karenwunderman.com
Oh yeah
by the way, Barack Obama said he is running for President not Vice President. Maybe you would suggest Gore with Clinton as a compromise?
Only if
it were that easy. The Democrats will win the White House in November 2008, we don't have a choice, it has to be? I don't know how some of you are trying to discount the total negative 8 years we have had with Bush. We do not want another Republican administration in the White House. We have to understand that. Another thing that some of us are failing to comprehend is how Hillary Clinton is working with John McCain to attack Barack Obama. We must see that and rise to the occasion and nominate the Democratic candidate that will win the White House and that is Barack Obama. We have to get over race as a hindrance. America is a melting pot of immigrants and the sooner we understand that the better off we will be. If any of you read, saw Barack Obama's speech on race recently, you would understand that America has grown enough to elect a woman or Black man to be President. After all we have been having White Presidents for ions and why should that job be only retained for one race. Get over it people. Move on and make a change and get behind Barack Obama. I think Al Gore would make an excellent Vice President under Barack Obama. Thanks.
Not easy
No one suggested that it would be that easy. In fact, what we've been saying is that it's an extreme long shot. But the possibility exists. Understand that we're not working against anyone. And don't assume that we haven't "moved on." But we can't totally ignore the possibility that the brokered-convention scenario exists and that Al Gore's name is the one that everyone mentions when discussing that scenario.
Also, don't hold your breath for an Obama/Gore ticket. Gore has flat out stated that he would only be interested in the presidency.
http://www.karenwunderman.com
Here's what I suggest
if you can get Al Gore to be the 2008 Democratic Nomination in Denver with all the history behind those primaries and caucuses that had the people vote in and delegates cast for Hillary and Obama, I would be the first to back such a Houdini in the water trick of such magnitude. If that could be accomplished I would be the first to say I was wrong and naturally back Al Gore.
I wonder how long someone can hold their breath?
Recent polls
Rod Bailey
are suggesting that both Obama and Clinton are falling behind McCain. I realize it is still early in the election cycle, but the trend is not good. I, too, think Obama gave a brilliant speech the other day on race. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it is going to convince a lot of the pick-up truck/gun rack/Reagan Democrats that may hold the key to the election in states like Ohio and Penn as well as a lot of the southern states. If current trends in the polls continue, and if Hillary and Barack keep attacking each other (I blame Hillary lots more than Barack) and if we want to ensure we get the WH back in 2009, then the Gore scenario may be the only one that gets us there. But, I agree with Karen that we need to wait and see a bit longer.
No brainer
Neither Hillary nor Obama can beat McCain at this point. The primary process has been revealed to be a total disgrace, a sham exercise in democracy and a waste of money. The system needs a major overhauling. Let's have Al Gore be our nominee, we can work it out at the convention. Gore-Obama will unite the party and beat McCain. Al Gore has a better resume than McCain, let's face it and the Republicans know it, but will never admit it.
has this been well thought through?
I was concerned about possible unintended negative consequences.
Absolutely
Your worries are well-founded, Gail, and it's precisely for this reason that we're advocating waiting. If people want to start preparing mailing lists and getting that information on their own, we can't stop them, although we have to urge extreme caution with any activities of this type. None of the draft organizations are condoning or supporting these activities, and no one should be running with anything at this point. There are matters of ethics involved, matters of timing, and it's much too soon to know if there's anything we can or should be doing.
Please trust that when/if we do take action, it will be well thought out. Until then, I was really just trying to let people know that we're still here and that we haven't given up completely. While there's very little hope of our dream becoming a reality, if there's any way that it might, we will do what we can, within the limits of what's ethical and reasonable.
http://www.karenwunderman.com
A welcome movement
Rod Bailey
As "earthmother" and others know, there has been a lot of discussion of this strategy at Democratic Underground and other places. I am personally in touch (by e-mail) with folks in about a dozen states at this point, urging them to start researching names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. for the super delegates in their respective states. I have the list nearly completed for NY and I know several of the folks I have communicated with have started gathering that information for their states. I have also been compiling a list of people in NY who would be willing to write letters to super delegates in NY.
I agree that it may be a bit premature now to start contacting super delegates, but I don't think it is too early for people in the various states to start collecting 2 sorts of information: contact information on super delegates and lists of people willing to write letters or otherwise contacting their super delegates. To that end, I think AGO could serve a very useful function and serve as a repository for the information people gather about contacting super delegates; and, I think AGO has lots of e-mail addresses for folks in the several states who have signed on in the past that could be used to start contacting possible letter writers. Again, in this phase, nothing would be done as far as contacting the supers, but we would be getting everyone ready to go if/when the time is right.
Fianlly, I definately agree that this may be the only strategy to keep the Dem. party from destroying itself as the primary season winds down. The enmity between the Clinton and Obama camps is not getting any better. The Gore solution would have to be handled very carefully, especially so as to keep the legions of new, mostly younger voters who have come into the political process this time around. To that end, my proposal (not an original one, to be sure) for the dream team is Gore/Obama.
It's time to start
I agree with nearly everything written above by earthmother and Rod. The only difference I have is that I believe it is not too early to get started. Regardless of the outcome in PA, this contest is not going to lead to either candidate having enough delegates to win on the first ballot, unless some kind of massive swing of super delegates one way or another happens.
I want to put a bug in the ear of those super delegates to remind them that we do not have to settle for either of these lesser candidates. To that end, I have already written to a handful of super delegates and advised friends to do the same. I'm also in the process of gathering contact info for the super delegates from my state.
To nominate either Clinton or Obama is going to give a great advantage to McCain in November and that is a risk we should not take. I stand ready, willing and able to do anything to advance this movement. This is the best, and possibly only, solution to the dire circumstances our country is in.
Andrea Studebaker
Won't Al just split the dems
and make it pretty positive that McCain will win, guaranteeing us a prez who thinks the forever war in the middle east is a good thing and somehow the illegal war is a good thing because it kicked out saddam, and replaced him with a much more effective genocide by international oil-puppet?
Why would Al split the Dems.
Rod Bailey
They're split already and pretty angry with each other (the groups, that is, not necessarily the candidates). If Gore was the nominee, and chose Obama as his VP and promised Hillary a Supreme Court position as soon as one is available, or the Senate leader role, I think there would be a huge rallying around the Democratic ticket.
Every vote counts! Don’t
Every vote counts! Don’t disenfranchise the voters! But lets put a guy who wasn’t on any ballot and didn’t receive any votes ahead of the 2 candidates the people have expressed a preference for because we don’t have the stomach to settle the problem on way or the other!
——Sheesh, even the Dems can’t be so stupid as to do THAT
_____________________
Submited by : Caballos
I think Al Gore would make
I think Al Gore would make an excellent Vice President under Barack Obama.