He denies it over and over, and it does seem improbable, but might Al Gore sneak into the '08 race sometime in the next 6 months? With Hillary and Obama creating a somewhat polarizing atmosphere, would this be a good opportunity to come in and get in between? With or without global warming, the guy is hot right now.

BTW, different party and different era, but the similarities to Richard Nixon's situation come to mind. 1960, Nixon loses a very close election, waits out '64, achieves Presidency in '68. Could Gore be the '08 version of this? Other similarities to '68: country generally wary of war, both Nixon and Gore were VP's...

There's only so much money out there to run a presidental campaign. Hillary has already sucked up a lot of it. Obama is sucking up more, and there are other candidates taking the rest of it. Gore wouldn't have much left if he decided to run in this already crowded field.

But, he's wise to never say never. For one, the press gives him more attention when there's at least a tiny chance that he might run. For another, you never know what could happen in six months. Obama could find out he has prostate cancer and drop out. Hillary might drop out because Joe Biden ran her over with his car. That would leave the field wide open.

Andrew

Andrew, you crack me up.

I gotta agree, with Hillary looking more and more like a whole bunch of fuse with an early fizzle and Obama drifting along like a balloon in a nail factory, he might as well toss his hat in there if they need it. He is kinda, well, like Al Gore, but at least he is recognized nationally and is now a movie star.

Al Gore is NOT good news for the Democrats. Had the Dems run ANYONE besides a cardboard cutout carbon copy of a person in 2000 (or 2004 for that matter), we wouldn't be talking about how much of a mess Dubya has us in because the vote would not have been close enough to either time.

Oh, well, you are entitled to your opinion, Brian, but many of us love Al Gore and think he is the smartest, most qualified leader the Democrats have today. I don't think he could enter the 2008 race now, but had he done so earlier it's possible Obama would not have run and Gore might have had a chance Too bad, I would liked to see him run again.

As for Kerry, I am glad he is not running in 2008. I still think he would have been better than Bush as president, but that's damning by feint praise...

Andrew

gore is no longer a cardboard cutout. he honed his acting skills on saturday night live (twice) and picked up an oscar nomination for his portrayal of a college professor in a documentary.

he has now distanced himself from the 2000 race (which he won by the way) and did not vote on the iraqi war.

I'd vote for Gore without hestitation if he jumps in! (Sorry Hillary)

Yeah, if my primary vote counted for anything, I'd vote for Gore too over anyone else.

I don't think he ran so badly in 2000. I loved him then too. People forget that Clinton's popularity didn't automatically transfer to Gore, who was not the incumbent president. Also, Gore got a serious challenge from Ralph Nader that changed his campaign strategy; it forced him to come to Oregon several times that fall instead of campaigning elsewhere. Kerry never came to Oregon after August 2004 because he had no need to (Edwards came a few times though).

Andrew

Gore is DOA.

The more that conservatives trash talk Gore, the more I think he has a real chance at the nomination. A Gore presidency would be a bitter pill for Bush loyalists to swallow.

I'll second that.

Would vote for the guy in a minute. He's solid, experienced, and has been out of the current mess for long enough to really bring a fresh perspective to things.

That's a big plus right now, IMHO.

Gore has found a great way to cap his career and do some good at the same time. A final run for president - an uphill climb, for sure - would be a blight on his record if added on to his resume. Instead, he can always be considered as the Guy who really won in 2000, who raised the nation's awareness of Global Warming with his movie.

Teddy Roosevelt came back in 1912 to run for president. Unable to get the Republican nomination, he started the Bull Moose party and split the vote, allowing Woodrow Wilson to win. A Gore entry into the race - money aside - could wond the eventual nominee in a similar way, in what promises to be a tough battle in 2008.

Andrew

Dreamers.

I think he needs to keep doing what he's doing, which is float around the edge, staying visible yet not making any mistakes. Wait for the others to fall, be available for a "draft", etc. Hilary has no chance, i'm thinking. I have talked to many reasonable people, men and, more surprisingly, women, who say they "don't like her" and won't vote for her. These are of course Republicans but also, surprisingly, Democrats. No, it will come down to Obama and Edwards and maybe Bill Richardson. Not without a huge fight from Hilary though. But if the Demos nominate her, they (we) are doomed to another Republican in the White House. (my leftist colors are showing again). This opinion has nothing to do with my feelings about her, just my feelings about her electability.

But hey, i've been wrong before, like the last 2 elections as example!

I agree, Warner, I've had similar feedback from Democratic friends about Hillary. They would support her but somewhat relunctantly at first, preferring another nominee.

Whether Hillary could win a general in 2008 as always depends upon several things, not least of which is, Who will she be running against? Will a 3rd party candidate emerge on either or both sides of the political spectrum? Let's remember that Ross Perot went from almost unheard of to major candidate almost overnight; he didn't announce even an intention to run for president until February 1992. A lot could happen between now and November 2008 that none of us could predict.

Andrew

Watch Hannity's America this Sunday night for some interesting information on Mr. Gore.

Well, golly, let me go out and order extended cable so I can get Fox News just so I can watch Hannity's Smearmerica. I'm sure Professor Hannity's unbiased research is going to change a lot of minds about Al Gore, and I wouldn't want to feel left out!

Andrew

Andrew-How about for once holding yourself to the same standard for which you constantly attack conservatives?

I'm talking about the claims made in Mr. Al "Global Warming" Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth."

If pollution and global warming is such a problem, why does Mr. Gore continue to burn up such a massive amount of carbon in our atmosphere with his car and airplane usage as he criss-crosses our country?

While you're at it, maybe you can also explain why Robert Kennedy Jr. does the exact same hypocritical things?

Herb

I'll give you an update. I TiVo it every day!

I'm wondering if there is even a Hannity boob tube watcher who is also eligible to vote in the Democratic Primary in ANY state.

I'm holding up 3 fingers and even that might be more than enough fingers for that tally.




I also notice deane has made a bonedheaded herb-like move. like herb, deane may be eating crow after election day.

yikes! That's one finger right there!

Herb, the individual activity of Al Gore and Robert Kennedy, Jr flying in jets has close to zero impact on global warming. That's a point that you tunnel-vision conservatives completely miss. It's the behavior of millions of people and our lifestyles, not a handful of individuals, that affect global warming.

Our government needs to create the incentives and the system to allow people to change their behavior. For example, start raising the CAFE standards for the first time in decades. Start government funding for an "Apollo Program" to develop more fuel-efficient cars and energy sources, as well as change the way we use energy in things like farming and industry. Invest in truly practical mass transit systems in American cities, where most of the pollution from cars comes from.

Robert Kennedy and Al Gore traveling across the US by bicycle instead of plane isn't going to have any impact on global warming, because it's still not practical for most of us to travel cross country without flying. Instead, we need to learn for example how to cut emissions of cross-country jets. But you and Hannity don't want to talk about the true issues of global warming - you are desperate to change the subject to pick on Al Gore, your favorite target. The truth is, if you talked about the issues instead of attacked the messengers, you would lose the argument, and you know it.

Andrew

>>>"I also notice deane has made a bonedheaded herb-like move. like herb, deane may be eating crow after election day."

How so?

How can you expect others to change their behaviour if your pals on the left not only won't do it themselves, but pollute FAR MORE than any average citizen?

You lose this one on the smell test alone, because your proponents have zero credibility.

Schuck and jive on.

Herb

"If pollution and global warming is such a problem, why does Mr. Gore continue to burn up such a massive amount of carbon in our atmosphere with his car and airplane usage as he criss-crosses our country?"

Herb, why do you keep holding "liberals" to standards that are so much higher than the rest of the world? Does everyone who recognizes global warming as a threat have to stop driving, traveling, and burning all fossil fuels, or else they are hypocrites?

Example: Let's assume that you agree that the Columbia River salmon are struggling to survive, and that dams are the primary cause of their decline. The electricity powering your computer is almost certainly coming from Bonneville Dam. Therefore, your computer use is contributing in a small way to the destruction of the salmon. Assuming you think they should be saved, does that make you a hypocrite?

No, no, Herb. READ WHAT I WROTE AGAIN. I never mentioned that people should simply change their behavior and, say, drive less or drive a Prius instead of an SUV. That in itself wouldn't be nearly enough to combat global warming.

I challenge you to actually read what I wrote above and respond to it rather than knee-jerking a reaction to what I never said.

Andrew

Good grief, what a clusterfu*k of a discussion!

We need systemic change. That takes strong incentives aimed at such changes, also takes some legislation to set time tables, etc...

If our major proponents of this stuff cut their consumption in the ways mentioned here, they would be marginalized as the infrastructure required for such behavior does not yet exist! That is in direct contradiction with the goal of getting the word out on the issue.

(This really should be obvious enough to this crowd. C'mon guys, you can do better.)

Re Hilary: Agreed on her potential spolier factor. The next few months will tell us a lot about who is really gonna end up in front. I'm worried that she won't accept the state of things and try to bully through. Honestly, I think she's got a shot, and time still.

Better to spend it getting more people to identify with her, than to spend and pray, thus putting us all at risk of another GOP president.

As for the other "how come they consume so much?" BS... Come on guys! Asking that is about as foolish as as asking why strong war supporters don't just go sign up! See how that works?

Hannity's America is not worth the airtime. I've sat through his crap a few times. It's on par with the soon to be stillborn "1/2 Hour News Hour" where solid programming is concerned.

I'll respect Hannity when he can produce programming that articluates the positives and not the negatives. Generally speaking, his productions are nothing more than Bash & Trash™ affairs that really don't add any value to the national debate as a whole.

I am dissappointed to see he has the audience he does. If only ignorance were painful...

"Does everyone who recognizes global warming as a threat have to stop driving, traveling, and burning all fossil fuels, or else they are hypocrites?"

YES. It's especially aggregious because he (1) Has a holier than thou attitude regarding global warming, (2) Doesn't practice what he preaches and (3) Is actually a far greater contributor to the problem than those to whom he finger-points.

I'd say the same thing if a conservative did it.

Herbert Milhous

Well, you would be wrong then, if a conservative did it.

And every last one of them should be, if they are to call themselves conservative by any measure.

When one is recognized as an authority on the matter, they are entitled to use more resources. It's worth it in general to get the most use out of them. Like it or not, Gore has done his homework and is adding a lot of value to the discussion.

Raising the general awareness on this issue is more than worth the resources consumed, unless you don't want it actually debated. The only serious non-debate efforts I've seen so far all come from those polluters who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

One other aspect of this whole global warming bit is that the research into alternative energy will contribute to the means by which we can address this problem.

Engaging both of these things will be good for the economy, and good for the planet in general.

Finally, respecting this little place where we live should be a non-partisan affair that all of us work hard on doing.

Dj said>>>
Gore is DOA.

As are ALL the Republican candidates so far.....

You're free to give the guy a pass.

I merely point out your inconsistency...and I'M the bad guy?

Herb

If Gore really wants to be President, 2008 may be his best shot. To be a fly on the wall with him and his advisors...

The democrats can do better than Mr. Gore.

Bill Richardson, for example.

Gore's simply warmed over.

Herb

Lets hear the Grey Gorey details then....do tell!

Gore is better than Hillary, but then that's like saying the clap is better than herpes because you can cure the clap.

Skybill, I guess we'd have to say Bush and the Republican party would be HIV in your analogy?

Andrew

Wow Andrew, *ZING* on that one. Good Bush administration analogy.

I don't question Gore's qualifications amongst the Democrats, nor do I disagree that he would have not made a better President than our current one. (My DOG would have made a better president!)

That said, I just don't know how electable he is. A lot of true Democrats (you being one of them I am assuming) would happily embrace Gore for his left-leaning stances, which is understandable. The majority of people in the middle, however, might not get past his lack of personality and his aloofness. I'm not poo-pooing Mr. Gore, even though I am not a fan of his personally, I am just calling it how I see it. It really hurt him in 2000 when he ran a campaign where he so drastically distanced himself from Clinton, presumably because he didn't want to be tied in with Clinton's scandals. Bad mistake, Clinton's record in the White House is something for ANY Democrat, indeed most all of America to be proud of, and if I were Gore I would have latched onto those coattails for the ride to victory. Gore WAS part of that administration! Imagine how much closer the 1988 election might have been had H.W. distanced himself from the wildly popular, yet also scandalous Ronald Reagan? Instead Bush used Reagan's help and it helped wipe Dukakis off the map.

I firmly believe that the Democrats would be better off with a younger, more vibrant, gregarious candidate who is more electable, even if the body of work is yet incomplete ... a Barak Obama, a John Edwards. Heck I'm with Herb on Bill Richardson, I would vote for him in a second ... but again, how electable is he?

In terms of experience brought to the job, I see Obama as a Democratic version of Bush; lots of enthusiasm for his cause, popular among the people in his base, "electability", but probably not fully up to the task.

I suspect the long buildup to the election will see Obama making some fatal mistakes. His lack of experience will allow him to step on a land mine somewhere along the road.

Brian, have you actually seen Gore speak since the 2000 campaign? I saw him give his global warming talk in September 2005 (before there was a movie) and he was much more relaxed, even funny, than I've ever seen him before. The audience of about a thousand was riveted by him. I think if he ran for president again he would have a very different style than he had in 2000.

Despite what Conservatives tell you, Gore really isn't a liberal (why the hell do you think so many leftists were going for Nader in 2000?) That's one of the reasons many of us in the center like him (I'm a democrat with a small "d" - not a member of the Democratic Party). I find that Gore get much more passionate support among progressives by far than any other candidate I could mention. While this says nothing about how he'd do in a general election, it does say how he might do if running for the Democratic Party nomination again.

Andrew

"I saw him give his global warming talk in September 2005 (before there was a movie) and he was much more relaxed, even funny, than I've ever seen him before."

Yeah, he's fine when not running and in front of fellow-travelers. Ratchet up the pressure a notch and it's the same warmed-over vitriol.

Herb

Good God! Herb and I both suggest Bill Richardson! I've got to re-examine! My world is turning upside down!

Bill Richardson appears to be a reasonable guy. That's the kind of democrat who could actually win. Not some wild-eyed, crazed Mr. Gore who screams "He played on our fears..."

Herb

Notice Herb didn't say he'd actually vote for Bill Richardson...

I haven't decided whom among the Democrats I want to support yet, but I am as yet not opposed to Richardson.

Andrew

Notice Herb doesn't know Mr. Richardson's positions yet, nor who his opponent will be in the general election.

So what you're saying, Herb, is that you heard a 12 second clip of Richardson speaking on FOX news and based entirely on that you think he's a reasonable guy, "the kind of democrat [sic] who could actually win."?

You already know who the Republican nominee is for 2008, you simply don't know which one it will be. Which one of those candidates would you *NOT* vote for in favor of some other Democrat? (ANY Democrat? And I mean a real one, not nutcase like Zell Miller.)

Andrew

Hey Warner, you are in trouble now!

I don't know anything about Bill Richardson yet. I'll have to do some digging here over the next week. If both Herb and Warner suggest this guy, he's bound to be interesting!

For me, there is no GOP option that I will vote for. Sorry guys, this is about party for me this year. Actually, that's probably not completely honest.

There are some Dems I would prefer not to see back in office. Their replacements would ideally be newcomers to the process. The Dem freshmen have so far represented themselves well. I am encouraged with their nice wakeup call to the established players, right outta the gate.

The GOP seriously needs this to happen. On that note, I would consider GOP freshmen, but only in replacement mode for existing ones.

This preference for new bodies is exactly why I've decided to only support Hilary if that's the choice in front of me. Better to bring some fresh faces to the scene.

Inexperience counts as a relative plus to me right now. I may change this, but right now it looks very good for all of us to have somebody in charge that's actually going to engage without having to manage a bunch of set expectations.

Experience is good, but only if it's tempered by not being too wrapped up in this mess. That's why Gore is extremely appealing. He's got a great combination of experience, personal growth and a fairly objective view, in terms of not being swamped with the day to day bickering.

Who, on the GOP side fits this criteria? Is there anybody?

What's funny is that among the Republicans, while Rudy Giuliani's positions are closer to mine (e.g. pro-choice), I'm actually more comfortable with John McCain (pro-life) as president. Rudy rubs me the wrong way for some reason. Not saying I could vote for McCain but it wouldn't be impossible. Depends who he is running against.

Andrew

I'm largely there too. Giuliani has some dark secrets, that I've no problem with --one advantage of being socially liberal, that make him unelectable, IMHO. Waste of time and money.

McCain is electable if he plays his cards right. I'm not quite sure where he will end up though. Once he's at the top, we will get to see more of what he is really all about. Hope we can learn more about that in the next year or so.

All of the political scrapping He's done can be spun all different ways. IMHO, it's more important to see who he really is then act accordingly.

Well, as that great American, Hubie Brown always says during a basketball game, "There's plenty of time".

Deane,

Before you came along, the troll was uttering stuff like "DOA", "Dreamers" in response to comments related to the outcome of the November elections. After the Democratic landslide, resulting in the Demos gaining control of both houses, there wasn't enough crow in the world for him to eat.

No matter how far-fetched something might seem, I suggest aquiring a taste for crow before using words the troll used before the election!

Raising money is a huge part of a candidates viability. Gore would have a great deal of trouble in this regard which would make him an unlikely possibility.

I heard an estimate recently that the candidates will have to raise $10 Million per month to stay in the race. That puts Hillary and Romney in good positions.

Gore has no chance at this point of generating the momentum that would get that kind of money. Bill Richardson will probably have trouble raising money also. Gulliani may be OK for awhile, but he could run out of steam. McCain should be OK money wise.

Hillary and Obama are sucking up so much of the capital already, there will not be much left for anyone else on the Democrat side.

Yes, Deane, I think I have already expressed most of these same sentiments above. But, we also don't know what's going to happen in the next 6-12 months. Howard Dean wasn't on anyone's radar screen a year before the Iowa Caucuses. He snuck into the race and raised money in a new, innovative way. In today's 24-hour news culture, some unknown could explod onto the scene and suddenly raise a bunch of money. Plus, the people now raising a lot of money could wind up dropping out for one reason or another. We'll see how it pans out!

Andrew

From the BBC:

"Former US vice president Al Gore has ruled out a bid for the White House in the 2008 elections and will carry on his fight against global climate change.

"I have no intention to run for president," Gore said in an interview conducted in Los Angeles and broadcast Thursday by the BBC."


I guess I'll put the ketchup bottle away.

Yeah, he hasn't completely ruled it out. I assume in his mind he wouldn't run unless something changes in the political landscape (e.g. Hillary runs Obama over with her car). It would be silly for him to say, "I absolutely will not run for president, never, ever, ever, again, not a chance."

Even Nixon said after '62 that he was done and look what happened.

Andrew

Deane Said - "Hillary and Obama are sucking up so much of the capital already, there will not be much left for anyone else on the Democrat side."

First of all, Gore is the only person who could come in late and pull this off. And I just cannot imagine a scenario in which money would be such an issue for Gore that it would factor in whether or not he can sustain a campaign. Hollywood alone would want to help.

"So what you're saying, Herb, is that you heard a 12 second clip of Richardson speaking on FOX news and based entirely on that you think he's a reasonable guy..."

Once more.

Stop lying about what I said. Keep it up and you'll join skeptical in the 'less than zero' credibility department.

I suggested that among potential democrat candidates, Mr. Richardson stands out as presidential and I've never seen any television show about him. And guess what? ONE of the reasons, which you may not be aware of, is his international experience. That's because of his assistance in our dealing with the North Koreans.

Disagree with me all you want. Just play it straight with what I say.

Herb

This just in........

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/16/070216193307.67kfaghf.html

Herb

I guess somebody missed DJ's post two hours ago (above).

If Gore were to announce, he would have immediate support from the Netroots, which put Dean in the drivers seat.

Since that time, the whole structure has evolved considerably to the point of empowering many of the new freshmen into their seats.

There are options, particularly if one of the majors stumbles.

Howard Dean came on and made a splash largely because he was so off-the-cuff and brutally honest, not polished at all, and he ran a rather grass-roots campaign for a big party guy.

He ended up cutting his own throat, Americans saw him for the screwball he is.

Maybe Al Gore learned how to be personable Andrew, that's entirely possible. I admire him for his global warming educational process, he has some very valid points. My guess is that he truly is passionate, and obviously well-versed in his current travels on global warming, and he's not out politicking and drumming up the vote, being someone he isn't comfortable with (I honestly think that is what it was.)

And for those who say Obama lacks the experience and is running on his personality and charisma, the same was said of one William Jefferson Clinton in 1992, and he was running against an incumbent President who was VERY popular at the time. Bush relaxed and thought he had it in the bag, and Clinton schmoozed into the White House. Clinton got past the baggage drug up against him with the Paula Jones and I-did-not-inhale and draft-dodging stuff and STILL got elected. What can be dug up on Obama, and how does HE get past it?

1) Gotta give credit to the Republicans for painting Gore as milquetoast, Dean as a rabid wacko, Kerry as a elitist Frenchy. They did it well. Fact is all are well educated, all served years in leadership positions in government, all have written books. I find it amazing that so many still abide by the opposition propoganda than take the time to see the real accomplishments of these men. It's just a Google away.

2) Clinton never ran with no experience, nor sold himself as having no experience (why would he?) He was a two-term governor from Arkansas before his Presidential run. He was definitely a new face, known to those in the party but not to America in general. Kinda like Bush.

Actually Clinton served twelve years as Arkansas governor: 1979-81 and 83-93. He got defeated after his first two-year term, came back to win in 1983, then the state switched to 4-year terms. I'd say twelve years as governor, getting elected on your own merits instead of because you have your ex-president daddy's name and fundraising network counts for a lot.

As for Dean in 2004, it's sort of a misperception that Dean lost because of the "Dean Scream." In truth, he was finished before the scream. Remember, he LOST in Iowa after having been annointed the front runner for weeks before that, with most Democratic leaders (even Gore) endorsing him. His nomination was supposed to be a foregone conclusion; expecations were so high that when he lost Iowa it kind of let the air out of his balloon.

The "scream controversy" was really manufactured by the media, anyway. I saw it live as it was televised and thought nothing of it; Dean was enthusiastic and trying to yell over the loud crowd. His microphone used by the media didn't pick up the crowd noise. If you watch Dean make the same speech from the crowd (it was taped by supporters from the crowd), it looks entirely different. Of course, the media played and re-played the scream (out of context) and made Dean look ridiculous. But there's a great chance that even without the Scream Kerry would still have won in the same way. The mainstream Democratic Party was less comfortable with the anti-war wing represented by Dean and more comfortable with liberal, war hero John Kerry.

Dean was/is far from a "screwball;" he's a very bright guy who governed as a conservative in Vermont. How many Democratic candidates are endorsed by the NRA the way Dean was before Iowa? That doesn't mean he had the right personality type to be president but he probably would have been a good one, especially compared to Bush.

Andrew

CNN throws this out today...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/23/schneider.gore/index.html

Probably won't happen, but what if he became the first to announce at an Oscar acceptance speech?

Anyone know how many people in Florida get to vote for the Oscars, and if they're having any trouble with the Oscar ballot?

"Oh, no! I meant to vote for 'The Queen,' but I voted for 'Jackass 2' instead!"

A lot of people voted for "Jackass 2" in 2004 - too bad he won! Now we are all the losers for it.

Andrew

If Mr. Gore runs AGAIN, will he win in his home state this time? Or will his and Mr. Kerry's perfomance make for a hat trick...three times combined, they will have lost their OWN HOME STATES in the presidential election. The voters who know these guys best don't trust them...And that now includes Mr. Edwards!

Herb

Is it me? Saw Al Gore on the Oscars he looks different to me fatter face? Just a curious mind wants to know

Gore has definitely put on some weight since his 2000 presidential run. It was noticable when I saw him here in September 2005 (he looked older, too).

If there's one thing I admire about George W. Bush, it's that he's a true fitness nut. Obviously Gore isn't.

Andrew

For anyone who missed it, here is Gore at the Oscars:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/al-gore-oscars-video/

Andrew2, He is older!!! (5 years older as all of us are too!)

"If Mr. Gore runs AGAIN, will he win in his home state this time?"

I assume by " win " you mean electoral college. Because you certainly don't judge a candidate's worthiness by, say, the popular vote.

I wish our country would put down the beer bong, gather up the dirty socks, buckle down and finally graduate from the electoral college.

Imagine being born in 2000. Now you are in grade school and you still haven't seen a President voted in by the people.

We've never had a president voted in "by the people," technically.

Andrew

I know. But you know what I mean.

Very good point, Andrew.

This is also not a democracy, technically, it is a republic.

I guess I'd better brush up on my Canadian. Did you see those Canucks took oot the Kings tonight? That's great, eh? Dey gotta good netminder.

You want a handful of big cities to control our elections?

The founding fathers were wise to insist on the electoral college.

Herb

Oh, like Miami?

Or Dayton?

The Gore bit on the Oscars WAS pretty funny. The fact that he even acknowledged the point makes me wonder if he is still thinking about it...

Please, please let Gore run, maybe he will answer why, after his sister died of cancer, he still grew tobacco on his fa?rm

YEAH! That's a HUGE issue in America that we DEMAND to know the answer about!

Finally, someone who's got the big picture and major issues in mind. Way to go NWOkie!

If the most important question Gore must address in a future presidental campaign is about when his farm grew tobacco, he would win that election in a landslide - sheesh!

Andrew

Like he did the last time he ran?
I think it points to a serious lack of corality.

Gore will spend more time explaining the last election, he wont have a chance.

On top of that you have his extremest views on global warming, that would destroy the US economy.

Gore won't have to do any "explaining" about the last election. Newspaper studies of the Florida election results show that if the state had been recounted as mandated by the Florida Supreme Court (stopped by the US Supreme Court), BY ANY STANDARD Gore would have won Florida.

It's easy to say with 20/20 hindsight that Gore should have done this or done that differently. His debate performances certainly hurt him. But unlike Bush, Gore had a serious challenge from Ralph Nader on the left and that forced him to change his campaign strategy. Also, the "liberal media" printed more negative stores about Gore than about Bush; usually the media bought into the "Gore is a liar" frame put forth so effectively by the Republican spinmeisters (even when later it turned out Gore wasn't lying - oops). All of this hurt him as did "Clinton fatigue." The media also gave George W. Bush a pass in 2000 and allowed him to present himself as a moderate even though he was an extreme conservative.

Global warming itself will destroy the US economy eventually if left unchecked. It's a shame we don't have the will to deal with it now. That would create some new jobs too. But hey, let's leave the car business to the Japanese and their hybrids. By the time GM and Ford merge and then go into bankruptcy it will probably be too late to save the US economy anyway. I hope I've died from old age before that happens, though.

Andrew

" On top of that you have his extremest views on global warming, that would destroy the US economy."

Lie.