Al Gore or Wesley Clark in 2008...

Does anyone know if Al Gore or Wesley Clark are planning on running for president in 2008? I originally supported Al Gore. I still support him, but since 9-11 a rough and ready soldier like Wesley Clark has an appeal to me too. In any event, I am hoping the Democrats will retake the White House somehow. And I know they can’t do it without a moderate. Does anyone know what their plans are for 2008?

Thank you in advance to all who reply :slight_smile:

I believe Gore is interested.



I have a better chance at the Dem nomination than Gore has. He ran in 2000, he lost. No matter how bad Dems wanna believe that the election was stolen, he just plain couldn’t deliver the goods.

Now, in 2008 when the Dems are going to be rabid with desire to win, are they going to go with someone who has already lost one Presidential bid, or are they gonna go out there and find themselves a fresh faced Golden Boy?

There’s going to be too much money (and pride) at stake to let Al have another chance. He’s dreaming.

Gore is a fine choice for 2008, as is Kerry. The 2000 election was stolen. Gore can run for reelection in 2008 and get my vote.

It doesn’t matter if the 2000 election was stolen or not; Gore lost, and he lost at least in part because he ran a lousy campaign. Why would you want to nominate a loser?

Gore hasn’t been acting terribly presidential lately. He seems to be spilling the pent up rage of a lifetime every chance he gets.

Pissed-off Democrats may enjoy this now, but those clips can be used to devastating effect in the future. Indeed, the Republicans already did this once, in a web ad.

But the post-election Gore is a much more passionate person.

Pretty strong stuff (from the 5/26/04 speech). If Kerry had dipped into his passion, even the crookedest voting machines in Ohio wouldn’t have been enough for Bush.

I can’t imagine Gore would get very far in the primaries. I think the reason he’s been balls-out this last year is that he’s defining his role as a bomb-thrower with no further electoral ambitions. A useful guy to have around to say the emperor has no clothes.

Clark could make another run but if he keeps it as general as the last one he’ll have the same problems. He should shoot for a governorship or something and get some policy experience first.

I’m beginning to think that Hillary is going to make a run. Edwards will definitely make his own run again. He came out of 2004 as the best Q-Rating national democrat. I’ve seen the smile up close. It’s blinding.

Obama will still be needing some seasoning.

Boxer might well give it a go, as might someone like Bill Richardson.

My money’s on Richardson. Experienced Southern Governor. I hear the Xian Coalition gave him a rating of zero, but I imagine they ranked Bubba about the same, and he won two elections, so I see no reason why Richardson couldn’t also succeed in the South and SW if he’s everyman enough.

Didn’t Nixon lose in 1960 (after being a Vice President for 8 years, like Gore), and then ran again and won in 1968?

And the 1960 wasn’t the cleanest loss, either. I agree. Don’t count Gore out just yet. Yes, he has a lot of baggage to toss to do well in the primaries, nevermind the general election, but he has years to do it.

I’d say his chances are slim, but better than just about anyone else in the Democratic Party, save perhaps HRC and Edwards.

Kerry, now there’s a loser for you.

Another point in Gore’s favor, or at least I would assume it would be: Dean as the head of the DNC. Gore endorsed Dean, and while it did him little good then, I would imagine that action could be reciprocated down the road.

Unless Dean and Gore had some falling out I either missed or forgot about.

None of the above. I’m sick of everyone.

The Democrats need fresh blood for 2008. The 2000 election was stolen because Gore allowed it to be stolen with bad decisions. I maintain that if he had simply asked for a full-state recount immediately instead of cherry picking the counties he wanted recounted, then the Bush campaigns biggest line of attack would have been neutralized and he would have won. Probably–I’m sure Jeb would have found ways to gum up the works.

Gore has been much more valuable in the last few years speaking his unvarnished mind. And I’m sure he’s more comfortable in that capacity.

Evan Bayh is definitely running, too. The one thing I found rather confusing, though, was his vote against Condi and how that fit into “the plan”. He does refer to himself as being primarily a governor rather than a senator, which certainly makes sense for someone who is running.

I agree that Wes Clark would do himself good by getting some experience as a governor first. It’s been a long time since we elected someone from the military with no elective experience at all.

Al Gore-- no way. He might try, but he’ll never get the nomination. What some call “passion” will be turned against him (even by fellow Democrats) as darn-near-loonacy. The Dems aren’t going to nominate a screamer…

I’d like to see Richardson run, but thats mostly because he’s a friend of the family and that I’d like to see a hispanic in the white house (well, doing more than cooking, cleaning or setting the tables). I think he’ll make a run, but don’t think he’ll make the cut unfortunately…though I have hopes he’ll at least be a contender for the VP slot.

Gore? Well, after seeing the Dems select Kerry, I wouldn’t be surprised if they give him another nod. I don’t see him winning, but then the Dems don’t seem as concerned with winning elections anymore…just looking good and being true to their vision. If thats the case, Gore would be an excellent choice for them to make in '08. He won’t win, but he’ll score plenty of points with the Dems and they can then sit back and say how dumb the majority of the US voters are again for not voting in their choice.

I actually do think Hillary is going to make a run. I think she is (wisely) trying to position herself as a moderate centrist, and a Dem who supported the war and pretty much maintained that position. She has a lot of baggage, but I think she can overcome that if she runs smart, runs centrist (i.e. takes a page from her husbands book), chooses a good running mate (like Richardson perhaps…first woman/hispanic ticket :)) and gets Billy boy to come out strongly for her. I know that many Dems here think that Hillary running is Republican Porn, but I think she is a serious contender.

Clark: I wasn’t impressed with him in the last election and my opinion hasn’t gotten any better. Still, might be a decent choice if he runs a better campaign next time.


The Dems need to realize the US is predominantly conservative…

Does anyone realy think Bill Clinton would have won, if Perot didn’t take away votes from Bush Sr.? No Perot, 8 years of Bush Sr…

I wonder who would have succeeded Bush Sr. if he had 8 years as the President? Maybe not Quayle or Bush Jr. Maybe Bob Dole.

The Dems really have no chance to win the Presidency again for a long, long time., especially when they embrace gay marriage and abortion.

Americans will continue to elect Republican Presidents and they will win healthy majorities so long as the US is engaged in the “war on terror.”

Any Dem who runs for the White House will have to do so hoping to end up in some position of advantage since they will know that they can’t win.

You know, I think you’re right. However, I have a question:

Has Wesley Clark ever killed anyone, preferably with his bare hands, in combat?

I think if the answer to that is “yes”, especially “several times”, and he has all the bona fides, the pro-lifers might overlook his abortion rights stand. Kissy queers may still be a dealbreaker, but if he can harp on “no gays in the military”, he might make that problem go away too.

I’d say Al Gore’s time has passed. If he had run in 2004, he might have made a credible showing but by skipping that election he lost his momentum.

Clark and Edwards will be strong contenders in 2008. But both will face the same kind of campaign that Gore and Kerry did.

But I think Hillary Clinton will be the strongest candidate in 2008. She has a major advantage over any other contender; conservatives cannot invent an image for her. They’ve already used all the weapons they have against her; negative attacks will have to reuse stuff that cam out 10 or 15 years before. And Clinton has shown she can fight back effectively.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that more people voted for Gore in 2000 than Bush? Especially when the largest group of swing voters were voting to the left of Gore?

I’d call it a split decision. The Republicans have taken a clear position on gay marriage but are waffling on abortion. Meanwhile the Democrats have taken a clear position on abortion but are waffling on gay marriage.

Wars can turn against parties. Look what happened to the Democrats between 1964 and 1968. At some point the majority of Americans are going to start demanding victories in the “war on terror” and hold incumbents responsible if they aren’t produced.