MyDD :: Gore TODAY: "I may re-enter politics"

Gore TODAY: "I may re-enter politics"

by Jim in Chicago, Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 04:21:30 PM EST

also posted at Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/8/1 612/01549

Al Gore speaking in Singapore today:

"I may re-enter politics at some point in the future because I'm only 59 years old," Gore told reporters on the sidelines of a forum in Singapore.

Gore said he has "no plan" to run in the 2008 presidential election but aims to make the environment a focus of public discussion during the campaign.

"There is no single candidate that is putting forward a comprehensive argument about the environment or making climate change a priority,"

Full article here: http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i d=1&click_id=3&art_id=nw20070808 093403512C645821

Of course, Gore issued the standard denial about having "no plan" to run this year, but his statement that he may re-enter politics combined with his critique of the other candidates for not focussing enough on what he considers THE ISSUE not just for America but for the entire world, suggests his thinking on the race is evolving.

Strategically, it would probably be a mistake for Gore to announce any earlier than September/October. Those who believe he needs to enter should do what they can to show Al he can count on our support. For information on Gore efforts in your area, I recommend the Gore Hub site.

Also today, I came across perhaps the best, most succinct Draft Gore site yet: http://www.rundammit.com

Finally, please consider signing our petition to get DFA to include Gore the next time they run a Presidential pulse poll (at least on a second round if/when the first round among declared candidates proves inconclusive like the last one -- in which "other" came in 3rd):

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/al-go re-dfa-poll/

Poll

Votes: 45
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Al Gore, 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 31 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Gore TODAY: "I may re-enter (none / 0)

Great news for Gore supporter!..Gore will enter the race.

snark.

by JaeHood on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 04:25:43 PM EST

Gore did no such thing (re Murdoch) (3.00 / 1)

Gore did NOT endorse Murdoch's purchase, he merely, truthfully acknowledged that Murdoch is usually honorable in his business dealings (as opposed to, say, Donald Trump who likes to "renegotiate" before paying, after the other Party to a contract has performed).

And none of the other candidates have come up with plans that can REMOTELY be considered "comprehensive" (the word Gore used). Obama even sponsored research into CTL technology! Edwards comes the closest, but he's still light years behind Gore -- and WE DON'T HAVE YEARS to deal with this issue. The next President has to deal with it practically on his first day in office.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:10:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's clearly not fair (3.00 / 1)

to say no candidate makes climate change a priority. You go to (e.g.) Edwards' website, global warming is the first item on his list. He is telegraphing it as a priority. This is a good thing. And Gore deserves great credit for his part in prompting the public and many in the political world to view this issue as a priority. Gore could debate the details of Edwards' energy policy - and maybe or maybe not illustrate that it is "lightyears" behind Gore's own ideas - but to assert that no candidate views this issue as a priority is mere polemics. Of course, since he's a great activist for this cause, I expect him to often get polemical. But it honestly wasn't a fair remark.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's clearly not fair (none / 0)

Agree - in fact, John Edwards has the most comprehensive plan - and can rattle off those figures faster than any other candidate. John Edwards KNOWS the devastating effects of global warming- and the solutions needed.
Perhaps Gore is showing his Centrist face? He'd probably never endorse Hillary, but negating other candidates is so Murdochy.
Also - notice these Gore articles continue...

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop trashing everyone other than Edwards (none / 0)

"Perhaps Gore is showing his Centrist face?"

Stupid nonsense. WTF is "centrist face" about giving his opinion about what the candidates are doing about issues of his interest including global warming.

"but negating other candidates is so Murdochy."

Al Gore will issue his opinions regardless of how some jingoistic supporters of other candidates feel about those opinions.

Talking about Murdoch, Edwards was in cahoots with Murdoch and his war mongering Fox nutwork apparatus when he hawked the war left, right and center: How Edwards sold the war.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:53:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop trashing everyone other than Edwards (none / 0)

Wow! you're so desperate to silence the most Progressive candidate that you even use Fox News journalism to do it.
Where is your diary about Hillary refusing to apologize for her vote - while asserting she'll promote diplomacy throughout the middle east?
Refusing to apologize for actions resulting in death and destruction - goes straight to character.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 04:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore TODAY: "I may re-enter (3.00 / 1)

The fervor is still there, it is untapped though wait a month or two and we'll talk again.

by Abraham Running For Congress When I Turn 25 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 06:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore TODAY: "I may re-enter (none / 0)

Gore did not endorse Murdoch purchasing the WSJ. Gore said Murdoch kept his word.

Two entirely different things but of the same parcel.

by bronte17 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 06:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore TODAY: "I may re-enter (none / 0)

He is trashing the democrats who are in the running, and is playing games. I don't respect Al Gore anymore.

Dude, get over yourself. Gore stated his opinion. That's "trashing"? WTF? Had too much Edwards Koolaid for breakfast eh?

I don't think he has a prayer of winning.

Hmm. Let's see what the latest gallup poll said:

USA Today/Gallup
08/03 - 08/05
With Gore:

HRC: 42
Obama: 19
Edwards: 10
Richardson: 3
Gore: 18

Without Gore:

HRC: 48
Obama: 26
Edwards: 12
Richardson: 4

2008 polls with and without Gore

Ergo, Edwards is sucking with and without Gore being in the polls. And, Gore is in a near statistical tie for second with Obama, without even running. Indications are that he'll be squarely in a tug of war with HRC, if and once he enters the race, and will likely carry the nomination should he run.

He if wants to do the democratic party some good he could stop playing these word games.

Gore was born a Democrat to someone that stood up for civil rights and opposed the Vietnam war and lost his senate seat as a result. Gore is one of the most loyal and ardent supporters of the Democratic party.

Edwards was apparently not even registered to vote, much less a Democray, until he entered politics to run for senate in 1998.

It sounds like to me that he is missing the attention.

Hogwash. Gore is likely the most respected American political figure around the world at this point. He can walk into the offices of just about any world leader (as he continues to do, if you follow news about him). He is missing/lacking "attention"?? Again go easy on the Edwards Kool Aid (EKA) in the mornings.

If he wants to really do some good, why don't he go to New Orleans or Biloxi and help raise money to rebuild the wetlands and help make sure that the levees are bing rebuilt correctly.

Dude, within a day or two after Katrina, Gore chartered two planes (at a good cost), pulled enough strongs, to save several hundred lives by flying them out and getting them medical attention. And he did that explicitly avoiding media attention.

Sure, Edwards likes to use the Katrina tragedy by using N.O. as the background for his campaign over and over. if he really cares, he should shun cameras and reporters and go there to help out just for the sake of helping out.

He could go help average working americans get a living wage.

Nonsense. During Clinton/Gore two-step min. wage increase was given in 96/97. Gore promised another increase in 2000, and would likely have given several more approaching living wage now.

While Edwards was in the senate, no min. wage increase was passed. When the Dems had control of the senate from 2001.5-2002 (when Jeffords switched), they could have passed a bill and sent it out. They didn't. One of the likely reasons being that war hawks like John Edwards were busy hawking the war (How John Edwards sold the war) INSTEAD of going over and beyond signing on as cosponsors of bill (which almost all Democrats routinely do) and having the bill themselves sit there laying eggs.

I think Al Gore has become too Hollywood, just like the Clintons.

Jealousy much? If Edwards could find supporters in Hollywood, he'd hag around hollywood.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So Bill Clinton should not have declared in Oct 91 (3.00 / 1)

right?

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 06:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"nothing different?" Gore has it ALL (none / 0)

Al Gore is leadership. Al Gore is vision. Al Gore is a breath of fresh air.

And, we have 15 months until the election. Bill Clinton didn't enter the race of '92 until October 1991.

And it's not like Al Gore is sitting around twiddling his thumbs. The man rather busy. Doing more than just hitting campaign stops.

Leadership. Al Gore.

by bronte17 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 06:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "nothing different?" (none / 0)

Bill Clinton was clearly running for president before October 1991.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 06:56:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was almost 17 years ago. (none / 0)

Almost a generation. We are in a different world today with different needs and different problems to solve. There has been tremendous damage done to the image of the United States around the world by this administration.

Al Gore has said he will not run a typical campaign. He has not been sitting around twiddling his thumbs nor simply running back and forth to campaign stops. He has been restoring our alliances through alternate channels and he has been engaged with the world.

Former US Vice President Gore recently received an environmental award from the United Nations for his efforts in putting climate change on the radar with his Oscar-winning global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. As the keynote speaker of Global Brand Forum 2007, Gore shared with delegates how corporate social responsibility is one of the key ingredients to creating leader brands.

According to Karthik Siva, Chairman of the Global Brand Forum, "Brand leadership today is not about market share or size, but rather about taking the 'high road' and looking at growth in a meaningful and sustainable way. That's why we are so fortunate to have Al Gore participating in this year's Global Brand Forum 2007. He is a rare leader who has not only taken the high road, but has also successfully branded the world's response to global warming."

One of the highlights of this year's Global Brand Forum was the first "Global Brand Forum Brand Icon of the Year" award ceremony. The inaugural award recognizes individuals for their outstanding achievements in the area of global branding and Al Gore was its first ever recipient.

Therefore, you cannot say that Al Gore has not been busy with gravitas nor that he is not ready to step into a campaign. He's already there. And he's in his prime and fit as a fiddle.

He's that "rare leader..."

by bronte17 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That was almost 17 years ago. (none / 0)

What has he done for average americans in the United States? Has he helped working americans get a living wage?? I am not knocking his global initiatives, but americans want to know what is he doing for us???

Clinton-Gore economic accomplishments

- 22 million <u>net</u> new jobs

lowered unemployment from 7.5% to 4%

real wage growth of 6.8% (after adjusting to inflation)

turned record deficits into record surpluses

record low African American unemployment

lowered unemployment among Hispanics from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 5.4 percent in April 2000 (lowest rate on record)

lowest unemployment rate for women since 1953

increase in manufacturing jobs by 391 thousand

increase in IT jobs by 1 million (roughly half of which survived even the Bush's "economy."

a two-step minimum wage increase in 96/97 from $4.25 to $5.15

- lowered poverty rate from 15.1% (1993) down to 11.8% (1999)

Gore promised another increase of $1 in minimum wage, and would have probably given a few more, now approaching a living wage.

Gore also called for a review of all trade deals with the objective of improving labor and environmental protections, and called for incorporating these protections in the text of agreement itself (for better enforceability) in 2000.

Got that? The Clinton-Gore economy actually lowered poverty rate by around 20%. Edwards can talk all he wants about poverty. Gore has actually helped lower it dramatically. He was considered by many to have been a key decision making figure in the economic policy of the C-G admin.

As I said above,

While Edwards was in the senate, no min. wage increase was passed. None. Nada. Zilch.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore TODAY: "I may re-enter (3.00 / 1)

This is important because it represents the slow shift in wording Gore has been forecasting, from "I have no expectations to run" to "I have no plans to re-enter politics, but I haven't ruled it out" to now "I may re-enter politics sometime in the future because I'm only 59." AND, what's also important is that he is saying yet again that the other candidates aren't making the climate crisis an issue - this can be used as his reasoning for jumping into the race.

Netroots for Gore

by NYPopulist on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thankfully Gore won't run (none / 0)

Gore is unlikely to run and if he did I don't think I would be positively inclined towards him. He ran a horrible campaign in 2000, was involved in the NAFTA mess while he was VP and already has very high negeatives. The only good thing about him is his work on global climate change, but almost all the candidates are good on that issue too.

People need to stop reaching back to the Clinton years in search of a standard bearer and look to the future. Some progressives wanting to reach back to Gore is very similar to those that are reaching back to Hillary rather than looking forward.

by Quinton on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:32:18 PM EST

Al Gore (3.00 / 5)

Al Gore won in 2000 by 543,895 votes. He had an extremely hostile media and no blogosphere.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Al Gore (none / 0)

The field would be weaker and he's more experienced now as well. He'd be a good candidate and and a welcome addition.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Al Gore (none / 0)

Exactly! Nothing more really needs to be said. the man would win.

by alipi on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Al Gore (3.00 / 1)

Gore would win. And set up Warner or Obama for 2016. But if he gets in, it becomes Gore v Hillary and could be divisive. But maybe not. I think that in a one on one with her, he would win a solid majority of popular support, and probably sweep her out ofIowa and almost certainly New Hampshire. At any rate, the nominated Democrat will defeat McCain i do believe rather easily. As I predicted, the establishment is coming to his rescue. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/0 8/08/mosbacher_joins_mccain_campaign.htm l

by Todd Bennett on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 08:37:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it's the clintons that divide the party, not gore (3.00 / 2)

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but (none / 0)

my point is that a one on one would be quite the battle and sides would be chosen.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:43:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankfully Gore won't run (3.00 / 2)

We need Great leadership. Not just Good or so-so. I am glad Al Gore hasn't given a Sherman Statement, if he had ruled out running he would do that.

by Abraham Running For Congress When I Turn 25 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 06:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankfully Gore won't run (none / 0)

I think that's right, but I'm finding it hard to be convinced that we have a true progressive running this time.

by justinh on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:29:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankfully Gore won't run (none / 0)

"He ran a horrible campaign in 2000,"

Gore started as an 18 point underdog because of the scandal/impeachment circus/fatigue (Clinton should not have been impeached, but he should NOT have been selfish and reckless with his behavior in the first place). Gore gained 18.5% to win the popular vote. No horrible campaign turns around an 18 point deficit and wins. The 2000 Presidential election: A Synopsis

NAFTA needs to be fixed. Gore called for reviewing all trade deals to fix them in order to make them better incorporated labor/env protections. Edwards copied Gore and said the same thing in a post-WI primary debate and opposed repealing it. In fact, Edwards is against repealing NAFTA as of now, as he just said in the AFL CIO debate:

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES PARTICIPATE IN A
CANDIDATES' FORUM HOSTED BY THE AFL-CIO
AUGUST 7, 2007

OLBERMANN: Senator Dodd, thank you. Senator Edwards, you touched on this before, but please take 30 seconds. Scrap it or fix it?
EDWARDS: It needs to be fixed...

Interesting facts about NAFTA:
- for every dollar we import from Mexico and Canada, we export about 75c back to them. The ratio is far worse for non-NAFTA trade: we export only around 50c for every dollar we import from non-NAFTA countries.

- Mexico imports close to 10% of their GDP worth from the US. US imports only about 1.5% our GDP from Mexico. Similar numbers for Canada.

- Mexico would have likely gone bankrupt had it not been for NAFTA and the $20bn bailout, and the immigration problem would have been FAR worse in that case in addition to much chaos and hardship for a large number of people in Mexico.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:41:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankfully Gore won't run (none / 0)

Gore ran a bad campaign insofar as he lost the media.

by justinh on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:24:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankfully Gore won't run (none / 0)

Part of the attacks (internet etc) began before he even had a campaign to respond adequately and forcefully.

In some cases, it is hard to fight co-ordinated attacks by the media, unless we have a broadbased movement like the netroots.

On the internet meme:

Net builders Kahn, Cerf recognise Al Gore

But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

which was released before the election.

While I do wish that the Gore campaign was more aggressive and timely in fighting the attacks, they apparently did do may things right in order to recover from huge deficits that were handed to Gore before his campaign got underway (even before the internet meme, Gore was trailing by 18 points in 3/99 in some polls).

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 02:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore is waiting (none / 0)

"at some point in the future"

I got that distinct feeling the last time I saw him, he is waiting till a future election.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:02:37 PM EST

When it comes to solving the Climate Crisis (3.00 / 2)

There is NO "future election". There is only this one. Gore knows that.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:09:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore is waiting (none / 0)

The only problem I have with that thinking Jerome (and it too has entered my mind) is that Gore must know that if he doesn't run this time around, he'll likely have to wait until 2016 before he's given another opportunity. While he wont be too old by political standards, 2016 is a loooong ways away.

Netroots for Gore

by NYPopulist on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore is waiting (none / 0)

Jerome, I dropped a note to you from "Contact us" form. Please check. Thanks.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.