Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Gore/Obama '08

1

I could vote for Gore. But I cannot not get even slightly gay for him.

Posted by eclexia | March 7, 2008 4:58 PM
2

Why does anyone like Gore? He blew the 2000 election. He'd blow this one, too. I think either Clinton or Obama would have a much better chance of winning in the fall, especially after ~40 states showing such excitement for both. And Gore is more centrist (on everything other than the environment) than either Clinton or Obama. ?!?

Posted by Big Sven | March 7, 2008 5:00 PM
3

Dan, given all has happened this year; I say the delegates should say Obama and Clinton are too damn childish and nominate Gore:

Can we force the nomination on Gore? Will Tipper help us? Is Al annoying her around the house? Cause we have a way to get him out of the house!!

Gore/Obama for America!!!

Posted by Andrew | March 7, 2008 5:00 PM
4

I didn't vote for Gore the first time, and have seen nothing in the ensuing eight years that would make me want tn vote for him this time.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 7, 2008 5:04 PM
5

What is this, the 31st "Draft Gore" red herring you've tossed us to chase down the garden path?

No. Gore doesn't want to run. Mainly because he doesn't want the wrath of the House of Clinton on his back, and on his family's back, for generations to come.

Posted by raindrop | March 7, 2008 5:04 PM
6

@1: Gore was eye candy in the 70's and 80's.

Posted by raindrop | March 7, 2008 5:07 PM
7

I think Gore would make a great VP - Obama/Gore 08 sounds good, as does Obama/Dodd 08 or Obama/Richardson 08.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 7, 2008 5:09 PM
8

ps- he couldn't defeat a moron even running on eight years of peace and prosperity.

And don't whine "but he DID win!!!" He shouldn't have needed a few thousand hanging chads. He should have won the way GHWB won in 1988.

Posted by Big Sven | March 7, 2008 5:10 PM
9

I doubt there will be enough enthusiasm from Obama and Clinton supporters to help Gore win in Nov. Besides, Clinton would not allow Gore to be chosen over her.

Posted by Fitz | March 7, 2008 5:10 PM
10

Gore was NEVER eye candy of any sort. He was more like that dork kid in seventh grade everybody laughed at.

In fact, he still comes off that way.

Posted by Wolf | March 7, 2008 5:11 PM
11

No. The election is in November. Most people will have had time to reflect and cool down and do the right (left) thing.

To become president you have to want be willing to do the things that will make you become president. Gore does not have that drive. Clinton obviously does. Obama, possibly, does.

Posted by umvue | March 7, 2008 5:14 PM
12

Wishful thinking, dumbass Dems! None of your candidates will win.

Posted by McCain/Crist 2008! | March 7, 2008 5:19 PM
13

Gore doesn't want this. He's living life like a movie star right now. Why fuck with that? Plus, he was branded as a big-time loser in 2000. His present fame has eclipsed that, but if he were to run and lose again... he'd be a living punchline for the rest of his life. Again, why would he do that? Life is good for him right now.

And no way in hell would he be VP again. That's like going back to live with your parents.

Gore supports Obama. The fact that he hasn't lifted a finger for the Clinton campaign suggests this, but it would be a conflict of interest to go against his former boss(/current friend?). It would be great for him to speak up about it, but he really can't without alienating certain people. And there's that whole comfortable lifestyle that he doesn't want to fuck with.

Plus, just like with Clinton, some of us don't want to go back eight years and run the country with the same group of people. We want someone new.

Posted by JC | March 7, 2008 5:21 PM
14

Gore has better things to do. Sorry.

Posted by cassadra | March 7, 2008 5:25 PM
15

Gore strikes fear in the hearts of many. Watch.

AL GORE! Boo! Gore/Obama! Ahhh!

That's right. Run you bastards. Run like the scared little bunnies you are.

Posted by elenchos | March 7, 2008 5:26 PM
16

I voted for HRC but would definitely support Obama over Gore. I think there is about a 0.0001% chance of this happen.

Posted by Julie | March 7, 2008 5:33 PM
17

In other crazy wishful thinking, maybe fairies will appear from neverland and stuff ballots for the Democrats.

Posted by David Wright | March 7, 2008 5:38 PM
18

Gore? GORE? AL GORE? After all this brouhaha about which delegates count for what, you want some guy who hasn't even been a significant part of the Democratic Party for almost eight years to waltz in take the nomination? And you think Obama, Clinton, and 4500 delegates are going to be cool with that? "Hey, guys, thanks for campaigning and working so hard, but we're going to go with the philosopher here".

Right.

Posted by Fnarf | March 7, 2008 5:40 PM
19

White men are coming to save the day

Posted by johnnie | March 7, 2008 5:42 PM
20

Wow, Johnnie, you truly hate men. Was it something in your past? There is help for your condition.

Posted by Bitter much? | March 7, 2008 5:44 PM
21

Umm, I like Al and all, but was he really that strong of a candidate in 2000? why is everyone all starry eyed over him now?

OTOH, The though of eight years of Gore followed by eight years of Obama does in fact give me an erection.

Posted by markinthepark | March 7, 2008 5:46 PM
22

This is idiotic.

Posted by duh | March 7, 2008 5:50 PM
23

Line of the day by JC @13: And no way in hell would he be VP again. That's like going back to live with your parents.

Also, I agree with Fnarf @18. The Al Gore deus ex machina scenario is just a little too far-fetched.

If this thing goes to the convention and has to be resolved by some arranged marriage, then Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama are possibilities. If Obama holds his leads in pledged delegates and popular vote, then Obama/Clinton is far more likely.

Posted by cressona | March 7, 2008 5:56 PM
24

The last time Gore ran for office, I voted for Nader. Just sayin ...

Posted by Mahtli69 | March 7, 2008 6:01 PM
25

Obama/Clinton ain't happening either. If Hillary were VP, I think Obama would have to worry less about an assassin's bullet than a knife in the back.

Posted by JC | March 7, 2008 6:04 PM
26

@7: Have you been living in a cave? Gore WAS VP - or is your short term memory methylated by Obamania? Why would Big Al accept such ignominy? and explain the thought process taking you there.

Let's see: best-selling author, Nobel-prize, Oscar & Emmy winner, second banana to (by comparison) an arriviste. Yes - that makes sense if you're a political cretin.

Posted by BELMONT PLACE | March 7, 2008 6:15 PM
27

Gore reminds me of the tin man from Wizard of Oz. Right at the spot where Dorothy finds him, and he's so frozen solid that all he can say is "oil can," but you can't really understand that all that well either. And, cue the music, he hasn't got a heart.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 7, 2008 6:23 PM
28

@20. Probably was.

Posted by johnnie | March 7, 2008 6:34 PM
29

I can't see wide support for Gore as a candidate. His prissy pedantry was off-putting in 2000, and since then he hasn't done much to lose that image.

Posted by CG | March 7, 2008 6:44 PM
30

Al Gore has done some good in the last eight years by helping raise awareness of the dangers of global warming. I think he would do much more good continuing his present work. If he does show an interest in returning to politics, maybe next year President Obama can name him Secretary of the Interior.

Posted by RainMan | March 7, 2008 7:19 PM
31

Nah, Gore has all the "above politics" aura of an ex-President right now. Well, the aura ex-presidents used to have. Bill Clinton has pretty much sullied that bit....

Posted by Jason | March 7, 2008 7:42 PM
32

Nah, Gore has all the "above politics" aura of an ex-President right now. Well, the aura ex-presidents used to have. Bill Clinton has pretty much sullied that bit....

Posted by Jason | March 7, 2008 7:42 PM
33

I don't understand how Gore isn't a multi-trillionaire by now... shouldn't he be collecting royalties on every website ever created since he invented the internet?

Posted by GS | March 7, 2008 7:48 PM
34

not going to happen.

time to let go.

Posted by Brian | March 7, 2008 8:07 PM
35

This is going to drive me crazy--can anyone confirm that Obama could, in this scenario, just "throw" his delegates behind Gore? I ask because Slate tells me that delegates committed to candidates who have dropped out of the race are free to support whomever they choose--it doesn't have to be the person their candidate endorses:

http://www.slate.com/id/2183326/

If the same thing applies at the convention, then it wouldn't simply be a matter of getting Obama to agree to support Gore, but of getting his nearly 2000 delegates to support Gore. Why wouldn't 100 or so of them simply support Clinton, hand her the nomination, and earn her political gratitude?

Oh, and this is a terrible idea to begin with, feasible or no. (See @18)

Posted by Stephen in Chicago | March 7, 2008 8:16 PM
36

I think that both Hill and Obama would be better candidates and presidents than Gore.

Posted by Tim | March 7, 2008 8:42 PM
37

You think that the Dems will win? You have no idea just how all those electronic voting machines work.

Sure, think you will win; we have already divided your party against itself while McCain has time to unify the GOP out of the media spot light.....

Posted by McCain is Going to Win | March 7, 2008 8:49 PM
38

Aside: Gore is not at fault for losing the election. It's the American people's fault. Nobuddy to blame but us.

How does giving the vp'ship to Obama solve the contest between Hillary and Obama? This is an asshole, condescending Obamatron thing to say. This is the kind of thing that drives the non-Kool aid drinking variety of Dems up a wall. So Hillary and her supporters should just step aside for a Gore/OBAMA ticket? THAT should make them happy? Shouldn't it be a Gore/CLINTON ticket? Otherwise, Hillary would still be the LOSER, Obama would be the WINNER, bc OBAMA WOULD BE THE ONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE STUPID.

Posted by onion | March 7, 2008 8:57 PM
39

Ah, so Mahtll69 is to blame for the last 7 years of disaster.

Just sayin'

Posted by elrider | March 7, 2008 9:03 PM
40

Gore is the new Nader.

Posted by ugh | March 7, 2008 9:53 PM
41

@39 - Who won Washington state in 2000 again? Just sayin'.

@40 - Gore doesn't want to run, but people keep trying to convince him that he should. This would seem to be the exact opposite of Nader.

Posted by Mahtli69 | March 7, 2008 10:00 PM
42

I like Gore, but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Here's what will happen: Obama or Clinton will be the nominee. Republicans will get lower in the gutter than they've ever been before. The media will suck McCain's dick while he slaps their face with baby back ribs. The election will be too close to call.

Posted by Erik | March 7, 2008 11:54 PM
43

@2 and @8 - we all know that Sen Clinton sucked all the administration donors and help out of the White House to get here campaign win in NY, it's not really fair blaming President Gore for only winning by a million votes in the 2000 election.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 7, 2008 11:59 PM
44

@33: that Al Gore/Internet joke is beyond tired (and still just as untrue as it always was).

Posted by Andy Niable | March 8, 2008 12:16 AM
45

You must be joking, Mr. Savage. Really.

Gore/Clinton makes sense -- as a list of two people who will not be running the executive branch for the next 4 years.

By the way: Hillary's not a monster. She's a cockroach.

Posted by doctiloquus | March 8, 2008 12:47 AM
46

What is everyone's hard on for Gore? Can we not remember the 2000 election that was his to lose - and no matter what the popular vote total was - he lost it. I mean, he was not exactly someone people were EXCITED to vote for - I don't think exciting and Al Gore have ever been mentioned in the same question. Sure - he's done some great work and cool things since blowing the election against a moronic, chimpanzee of an oaf - but he's not the answer. Get over it. He's not coming back. We don't need him. And non-delusional people don't want him.

Posted by Andy | March 8, 2008 8:28 AM
47

Like Clinton, Gore-the-politician represents the past. We need to move on and let Gore grow into his new role as the anointed monarch and sage guru of the New Left but get fresh minds to go for elected office.

Posted by Simac | March 8, 2008 8:50 AM
48

Al Gore has already said that he doesn't like campaigning and isn't very good at it. If he was interested in being his party's nominee, he'd have started running last October.

Posted by nabridie | March 8, 2008 9:16 AM
49

Are you Gore fixated - what is the therapy? Beating off with a Gore doll on your tummy?

Al is a dish by the way. But, international fame about saving the planet is far more interesting than that presidential stuff.

And, I bet pays well. High peaker fees and royalties anyone ...

Send him to the UN for sure. And the EU ... but he does have a big voice in the Dem. party right now if he chooses to use it.

Posted by John | March 8, 2008 9:22 AM
50

This is the dumbest idea ever. I'd rather vote for Clinton.

Posted by Cascadian | March 8, 2008 9:59 AM
51

Will in Seattle@43:

we all know that Sen Clinton sucked all the administration donors and help out of the White House to get here campaign win in NY, it's not really fair blaming President Gore for only winning by a million votes in the 2000 election.

You know, WiS, I've always respected you. Disagreed with you about RTID, yes, but generally thought you were one of the grownups around here. I'm reevaluating my position.

The two parties spent $405m on the 2000 Presidential election. Clinton spent $30m on New York. So your argument is absurd on the face of it. In an election where $3b was spent on all elections nationally. Yes, she sucked a whole 1% of the money out there (maybe 2% of the Dem money)- to defeat Giuliani/Lazio, I might add. Shocking!

And then to add the "but he won the popular vote" flourish at the end, well, that's just stunningly irrelevant.

Are you going to get worse the closer we get to the nominating convention? Can I look forward to a Vince Foster comment some time in the near future?

Posted by Big Sven | March 8, 2008 11:42 AM
52

ps-

WiS, I assume that since you're such a big fan of the popular vote, you agree that when we get to the convention that the supes should support whoever's in the lead for the popular votes cast, right? Because if MI and FL have do-overs that will probably be HRC.

Just checking.

Posted by Big Sven | March 8, 2008 12:16 PM
53

Staff Sgt. Jerald A. Whisenhunt

Hometown: Orrick, Missouri, U.S.

Age: 22 years old

Died: February 8, 2008 in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Unit: Army, 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

Incident: Killed when his vehicle encountered a makeshift bomb in Taji.

Related Links:

Soldier from Missouri killed in Iraq (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb. 13, 2008)

Posted by DW | March 8, 2008 6:48 PM
54

Will needs some clear and sober time

Posted by John | March 8, 2008 7:35 PM
55

@51 - it's fairly common knowledge what happened between the Clinton machine and Gore's candidacy, even if you seem to have missed it.

But, hey, live in your delusions if you must ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 10, 2008 12:35 AM
56

WiS@55-

Since I did you the courtesy of actually backing up my opinions with a fact or two, could you possibly cite a reference for your claim? I mean, if it's "fairly common knowledge", there must be oodles of data, right?

Posted by Big Sven | March 10, 2008 9:39 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).