Will Al Gore be drafted?

Any other Democrats feel that you could support Al Gore far more strongly in 2008 than you did in 2000? (This thread is, of course, open to Republicans, Independants, and Others as an intellectual excercise.)

His speeches, his stances, his opinions have impressed me far more in the last few years than they ever did while he was Vice-President. He has grown, both personally and politically, as well as, ermm, physically.

So let’s assume that while Clinton and Obama are fighting it out tooth and nail in the primaries, that the Edwards, Richardsons, and Bidens of the world prevent either of them from getting a majority for a couple of rounds. Delegates start scouting around for a compromise.

What do you think the chances are of a Gore draft? I think the chances would be good.

I’ve posted this before.

And I have a Republican friend over here who would very likely vote for Gore if he ran. Otherwise, he’ll go Republican.

The first question to ask is whether or not Big Al wants to be drafted. AFAIK, the answer to that on is a pretty emphatic no.

Or so the crafty bastard says. :smiley:

I would love to see him run actually. He’s much more popular now and also a better speaker to boot.

I have two colleagues who served at the undersecretary level in the Clinton administration, and they both don’t think this is an impossibility. They’ve both said that if it had no chance of happening, Gore would have made a definitive statement to this end by now. He has some pretty smooth operatives around him as well.

Thing is, I wonder if he really wants it at this point. The guy ran in '88, ran with Clinton in '92 and '96, and lost (won) in '00. That’s a lot of campaigns, and he took a lot of flak in each one. I don’t think he has the stomach to go through primaries and campaigning at this point in the game. He might feel he’s kind of above it, and I would agree. We know who Al Gore is. Why should he have to go on the stump like he just showed up at the party (in primary season)?

The next president, for better or for worse, will preside over the pullout from Iraq. It’s not exactly the sexiest historical point to be president. It will be a defining aspect of the next administration, and I suspect that if he really is on the green crusade, that will be a huge detraction from running in '08. If he is truly committed to fighting climate change he probably has more leverage and ability to do it from his current position than as president. Green stuff would only be one aspect of his job, whereas now it’s all he does, and he seems happy doing it.

As far as legacy goes… right now the man is golden. History will likely remember him as one of the most prophetic and the smartest, most qualified guy to never have been president. Look at Clinton first term and Clinton second term. Ultimately, I think he’ll be vindicated and the right-wing conspiracy will be viewed as an embarrassment to this nation, but he will always be remembered for squandering his second term in a ridiculous sex scandal instead of continuing the work of the first term. Something could happen in a Gore presidency (obviously not a sex scandal) that would make him look less fantastic than he does right now. His stock can only go down from here, unless he can destroy al-Qaeda, reverse global warming, and stick Iraq together again.

Just my $.02

Yes, definitely.

The way the primary delegates are allotted (winner take disproportionately most in each state, plus a slew of superdelegates) the likelihood of a deadlocked convention…well, I’ll believe it when I see it.

I’d be against it. I’d like to think we’re beyond the point where party elders can select a candidate who won no, count 'em, NO, delegates in the primaries. It would be quite antidemocratic.

I’d vote for Hillary while holding my nose. I’d vote for Obama while gritting my teeth. I’d vote for Edwards while applauding politely. I’d vote for Gore screaming “Hallelujah!” at the top of my lungs and breakdancing in and out of the voting booth.

I think if Gore wanted to rule it out he would have. I’m sure it wouldn’t break his heart to deny the Clintons the nomination so he’s doing the right thing, staying out of the fray and if the front runners stumble, look out!

Chalk me up as an independent that voted Bush in 2000 but regrets it. Therefore I’d be much stronger for Gore this time.

On the other hand RT is absolutely right that a draft is, for all practical purposes, impossible. The only way the convention comes around without the nominee already being known is death of a candidate or some sort of Foley-level scandal that breaks up the delegates.

Meh. If he wanted to run (and I’m not saying he does) then he should have declared by now. Heck, he could just declare, put up a website and go “here are my positions–vote for me if you want to.” If he declares before the first primary, I’ll vote for him, but if he declares after, I’m definitely not voting for him.

Treating the thread title as an poll, I’d vote “no”. The democrat side of things is chock full of high profile nominees. It would be silly to introduce one more. Any of Hillary, Obama, Richards, or Edwards could probably win against any of the Republican candidates. Al Gore is the one guy who has a remarkable skill for not getting elected, and could potentially lose it.

I think Gore will always be remembered as the guy who “couldn’t even beat Bush,” or who beat him, but not decisively enough. Remember what a slam-dunk it seemed, early in the 2000 campaign? He blew it.

At this point, I do not think that there is a physical possibility of a draft.

The old party rules are long dead. I do not think that anyone will ever be drafted again, (barring a radical change in the way parties and elections are organized).

In a period of multibillion dollar elections, the idea that three (or eight or whatever) candidates would do the massive amount of work required to raise those funds and then simply hand that money over to a person who had invested none of the same effort for some altruistic “good of the party” purpose is less than unlikely.

“Drafted” nowadays usually means pressuring a seemingly unwilling candidate to join the race before the primaries. Thus “Draft Weasly Clarke” campaign in 2004 or the “Draft Fred Thompson” for 2008.

That sort of thing seems much more likely to happen to Gore then the sort of Drafting discussed by the OP. But as others have said, I don’t think Gore particularaly wants to run again, playing movie star looks like a lot more fun.

An otherwise forgetable pundit says the way to tell if Gore changes his mind is to watch his weight. When Al starts losing weight, you should start looking for a announcement that he is running.

If this is a typo, I love it.

With the amount of money already being donated to the top candidates and endorsements secured, what’s going to be left for Gore if he waits another six months?

I don’t think he’ll be drafted, but the word bubbling up from my friends who work in areas related to both camps is that he’s gearing up to explore a run, and Hillary’s people are exceedingly unhappy about the prospect. Note that by entering later in the game, you get a chance to break late, while the rest of the candidates get bogged down in snorefests like the recent debate as well as the media’s conventional wisdom.

Right now he can do what he wants and not worry too much about pleasing people.

As soon as he starts running he’ll have to become useless “Try to please everyone all the time Al Gore” instead of “Al Gore - Environmental Maverick”.

-Joe

It wouldn’t be the party elders, though, it would be the delegates. At some point they be able to vote for whoever they wanted to, no?

I expect your other comment is right, though. There’ll never be more than one ballot again. The nomination will be settled by March.

One would hope he’s learned that lesson.

Gore is the ONLY potetnial candidate I see that I like at all and I didn’t like him in 2000.