Carville and Begala say Gore will announce...

[K.C.]

<p>late this year, around September. </p><p>The strategy is to avoid the nastiness of all this pre-primary campaigning like that between Hillary and Obama. </p><p>They also say people close to him believe Gore would be the instant front runner if he announced. </p><p>Discuss. </p>

[AgnosticJihad]

<strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><p>late this year, around September. </p><p>The strategy is to avoid the nastiness of all this pre-primary campaigning like that between Hillary and Obama. </p><p>They also say people close to him believe Gore would be the instant front runner if he announced. </p><p>Discuss. </p><p>I don't personally have any problems with Gore, save that he is not exactly as pro-environment as many people believe. I do, however, have a problem with his wife, Tipper. She is incredibly right-wing and very much pro-censorship. In my opinion, having her as first Lady would give her a platform to further censor music, TV, film, or whatever else she chooses to attack. As someone who believes very strongly in free speech, I cannot support his candidacy.</p>

[Marc with a c]

<p>carville and begala are hacks!! </p><p>morning zoo bullshit.</p>

[Furtherman]

His bloated global warming scare is not enough to run on, and that's all I ever hear about him.&nbsp; I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision.&nbsp; As of right now?&nbsp; No way.

[angrymissy]

<p>I will never be able to take Gore seriously after the &quot;Manbearpig&quot; episode of South Park.</p><p><img src="http://www.morethings.com/fan/south_park/photo_gallery/al-gore-is-manbearpig.jpg" border="0" width="320" height="240" /></p>

[Wallower]

I have two vintage telephone poll posters from when his dad was running for senate. If he gets elected my prices will go up instantly as well.

[epo]

<strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><p>late this year, around September. </p><p>The strategy is to avoid the nastiness of all this pre-primary campaigning like that between Hillary and Obama. </p><p>They also say people close to him believe Gore would be the instant front runner if he announced. </p><p>Discuss. </p><p>That's interesting that they say that now.&nbsp; Today I just had the same conversation with a co-worker that if Gore wants to run that he can afford to let Hilliary &amp; Barack beat each other up, then enter the race late.&nbsp; (Because of the established name recognition.)</p><p>And I definitely believe that Gore is the heavy favorite for the presidential win (not just the nomination) if he chooses to run.&nbsp; </p>

[K.C.]

<strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br />His bloated global warming scare is not enough to run on, and that's all I ever hear about him.&nbsp; I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision.&nbsp; As of right now?&nbsp; No way. <p>He was right about Iraq...he gave bloated warning after bloated warning about that before the war. </p><p>He'll probably run on a lot of the stuff he ran on in 2000 since it's still applicable today...saving Social Security by cancelling the richest 1% tax cut, paying down the debt, cutting middle class taxes,&nbsp;joining in on the Kyoto Protocol...and I'm sure Global Warming will be a part of it. </p><p>I think if he decides to run, he's easily the favorite, Democrat or Republican, to be sitting in the White House come 2009. </p>

[ShowerBench]

<strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><p>He was right about Iraq...he gave bloated warning after bloated warning about that before the war. </p><p>He'll probably run on a lot of the stuff he ran on in 2000 since it's still applicable today...saving Social Security by cancelling the richest 1% tax cut, paying down the debt, cutting middle class taxes,&nbsp;joining in on the Kyoto Protocol...and I'm sure Global Warming will be a part of it. </p><p>Yep and he already has a record of success&nbsp;winning the presidency on those issues:&nbsp; by some&nbsp;500,000 votes nationally -&nbsp;not to mention&nbsp;having Florida stolen for Idiot Son by the Supreme Court.</p>

[cupcakelove]

<strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br />His bloated global warming scare is not enough to run on, and that's all I ever hear about him. I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision. As of right now? No way. <p>He was right about Iraq...he gave bloated warning after bloated warning about that before the war. </p><p>He'll probably run on a lot of the stuff he ran on in 2000 since it's still applicable today...saving Social Security by cancelling the richest 1% tax cut, paying down the debt, cutting middle class taxes, joining in on the Kyoto Protocol...and I'm sure Global Warming will be a part of it. </p><p>I think if he decides to run, he's easily the favorite, Democrat or Republican, to be sitting in the White House come 2009. </p><p>I was reading some pole that came out today or yersterday that put him in fourth place, far behind Hilary and Obama for the Dem nomination.&nbsp; I don't believe that he's going to run. </p>

[J.Clints]

GORE SUCKS

[Furtherman]

<strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br />His bloated global warming scare is not enough to run on, and that's all I ever hear about him.&nbsp; I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision.&nbsp; As of right now?&nbsp; No way. <p>He was right about Iraq...he gave bloated warning after bloated warning about that before the war. </p><p>He'll probably run on a lot of the stuff he ran on in 2000 since it's still applicable today...saving Social Security by cancelling the richest 1% tax cut, paying down the debt, cutting middle class taxes,&nbsp;joining in on the Kyoto Protocol...and I'm sure Global Warming will be a part of it. </p><p>I think if he decides to run, he's easily the favorite, Democrat or Republican, to be sitting in the White House come 2009. </p><p>Hell, even I was right about Iraq.&nbsp; But Iraq and global warming are different.&nbsp; One is a reality, one is a bloated flase scare.&nbsp; Like I said, I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As for the Kyoto Protocol - looks good on paper, but if every country would to reduce emissions by what it called for tomorrow (hypothetically of course), it would actually reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere in a decade by less than -1%.&nbsp; The Earth will raise and lower that on it's own&nbsp;much more in the same time.&nbsp; It does look good on paper though.&nbsp; </p>

[K.C.]

<strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br />His bloated global warming scare is not enough to run on, and that's all I ever hear about him. I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision. As of right now? No way. <p>He was right about Iraq...he gave bloated warning after bloated warning about that before the war. </p><p>He'll probably run on a lot of the stuff he ran on in 2000 since it's still applicable today...saving Social Security by cancelling the richest 1% tax cut, paying down the debt, cutting middle class taxes, joining in on the Kyoto Protocol...and I'm sure Global Warming will be a part of it. </p><p>I think if he decides to run, he's easily the favorite, Democrat or Republican, to be sitting in the White House come 2009. </p><p>I was reading some pole that came out today or yersterday that put him in fourth place, far behind Hilary and Obama for the Dem nomination.&nbsp; I don't believe that he's going to run. </p><p>That's because nobody believes he's running. </p><p>In fact, if I remember correctly, I don't even think he was a choice in the poll...he fell under the 'other' category they offer...although I could be wrong about it. </p><p>But a lot of people are acknowledging if he decides, he'd easily pull head to head with Hillary, if not surpass her by quite a bit (depending on how Hillary vs. Obama shakes out). </p>

[zentraed]

<strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<p>He was right about Iraq...he gave bloated warning after bloated warning about that before the war. </p><p>He'll probably run on a lot of the stuff he <strike>ran</strike> <strong>won</strong> on in 2000 since it's still applicable today...saving Social Security by cancelling the richest 1% tax cut, paying down the debt, cutting middle class taxes, joining in on the Kyoto Protocol...and I'm sure Global Warming will be a part of it. </p><p>I think if he decides to run, he's easily the favorite, Democrat or Republican, to be sitting in the White House come 2009. </p><p>I've been asking people about Gore for the past few months. If he were to ever run again, this would be the best year to do it. He wouldn't run against a Dem incumbent in 2012, and I'm pretty sure he'd like to be President one day.</p>

[cupcakelove]

<strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br />His bloated global warming scare is not enough to run on, and that's all I ever hear about him. I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision. As of right now? No way. <p>He was right about Iraq...he gave bloated warning after bloated warning about that before the war. </p><p>He'll probably run on a lot of the stuff he ran on in 2000 since it's still applicable today...saving Social Security by cancelling the richest 1% tax cut, paying down the debt, cutting middle class taxes, joining in on the Kyoto Protocol...and I'm sure Global Warming will be a part of it. </p><p>I think if he decides to run, he's easily the favorite, Democrat or Republican, to be sitting in the White House come 2009. </p><p>I was reading some pole that came out today or yersterday that put him in fourth place, far behind Hilary and Obama for the Dem nomination. I don't believe that he's going to run. </p><p>That's because nobody believes he's running. </p><p>In fact, if I remember correctly, I don't even think he was a choice in the poll...he fell under the 'other' category they offer...although I could be wrong about it. </p><p>But a lot of people are acknowledging if he decides, he'd easily pull head to head with Hillary, if not surpass her by quite a bit (depending on how Hillary vs. Obama shakes out). </p><p>&nbsp;No, Gore was a choice, because it broke it down with Gore as a choice, and without Gore as a choice.&nbsp; Most of the people that were for core went for Hilary without him as a choice. </p>

[K.C.]

<strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br />His bloated global warming scare is not enough to run on, and that's all I ever hear about him.&nbsp; I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision.&nbsp; As of right now?&nbsp; No way. <p>He was right about Iraq...he gave bloated warning after bloated warning about that before the war. </p><p>He'll probably run on a lot of the stuff he ran on in 2000 since it's still applicable today...saving Social Security by cancelling the richest 1% tax cut, paying down the debt, cutting middle class taxes,&nbsp;joining in on the Kyoto Protocol...and I'm sure Global Warming will be a part of it. </p><p>I think if he decides to run, he's easily the favorite, Democrat or Republican, to be sitting in the White House come 2009. </p><p>Hell, even I was right about Iraq.&nbsp; But Iraq and global warming are different.&nbsp; One is a reality, one is a bloated flase scare.&nbsp; Like I said, I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As for the Kyoto Protocol - looks good on paper, but if every country would to reduce emissions by what it called for tomorrow (hypothetically of course), <font style="background-color: #ffff99">it would actually reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere in a decade by less than -1%.</font>&nbsp; The Earth will raise and lower that on it's own&nbsp;much more in the same time.&nbsp; It does look good on paper though.&nbsp; </p><p>That is disputed, and in fact, most scientists state that human's contribute to about 5% of total CO2. </p><p>Regardless, Kyoto has never been intended as a final solution, only a first step...I've looked at the protocol&nbsp;extensively in studies and it has flaws, but still is an overall good first step. </p><p>Besides, it&nbsp;only takes a&nbsp;small change in&nbsp;averagae temperatures in the arctic regions to&nbsp;wreak environmental havoc. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[K.C.]

<strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br />His bloated global warming scare is not enough to run on, and that's all I ever hear about him. I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision. As of right now? No way. <p>He was right about Iraq...he gave bloated warning after bloated warning about that before the war. </p><p>He'll probably run on a lot of the stuff he ran on in 2000 since it's still applicable today...saving Social Security by cancelling the richest 1% tax cut, paying down the debt, cutting middle class taxes, joining in on the Kyoto Protocol...and I'm sure Global Warming will be a part of it. </p><p>I think if he decides to run, he's easily the favorite, Democrat or Republican, to be sitting in the White House come 2009. </p><p>I was reading some pole that came out today or yersterday that put him in fourth place, far behind Hilary and Obama for the Dem nomination. I don't believe that he's going to run. </p><p>That's because nobody believes he's running. </p><p>In fact, if I remember correctly, I don't even think he was a choice in the poll...he fell under the 'other' category they offer...although I could be wrong about it. </p><p>But a lot of people are acknowledging if he decides, he'd easily pull head to head with Hillary, if not surpass her by quite a bit (depending on how Hillary vs. Obama shakes out). </p><p>&nbsp;No, Gore was a choice, because it broke it down with Gore as a choice, and without Gore as a choice.&nbsp; Most of the people that were for core went for Hilary without him as a choice. </p><p>Ok...I thought I heard differently. </p><p>I wouldn't read too much into that, anyway...generally when pollsters poll on candidates who haven't declared, they do poorly. </p><p>When they declare, they get an enormous bump. It would almost surely happen to Gore. </p><p>Even Wesley Clark, who polled at less than 2% before he declared in 2004, jumped into the lead nationally for a few weeks after he declared. </p><p>And Gore is immensely popular in Iowa and New Hampshire. </p>

[Dan 'Hampton]

<strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br />His bloated global warming scare is not enough to run on, and that's all I ever hear about him. I'd have to hear the rest to make a decision. As of right now? No way. <p>He was right about Iraq...he gave bloated warning after bloated warning about that before the war. </p><p>He'll probably run on a lot of the stuff he ran on in 2000 since it's still applicable today...saving Social Security by cancelling the richest 1% tax cut, paying down the debt, cutting middle class taxes, joining in on the Kyoto Protocol...and I'm sure Global Warming will be a part of it. </p><p>I think if he decides to run, he's easily the favorite, Democrat or Republican, to be sitting in the White House come 2009. </p><p>I was reading some pole that came out today or yersterday that put him in fourth place, far behind Hilary and Obama for the Dem nomination. I don't believe that he's going to run. </p><p>That's because nobody believes he's running. </p><p>In fact, if I remember correctly, I don't even think he was a choice in the poll...he fell under the 'other' category they offer...although I could be wrong about it. </p><p>But a lot of people are acknowledging if he decides, he'd easily pull head to head with Hillary, if not surpass her by quite a bit (depending on how Hillary vs. Obama shakes out). </p><p> No, Gore was a choice, because it broke it down with Gore as a choice, and without Gore as a choice. Most of the people that were for core went for Hilary without him as a choice. </p><p>Ok...I thought I heard differently. </p><p>I wouldn't read too much into that, anyway...generally when pollsters poll on candidates who haven't declared, they do poorly. </p><p>When they declare, they get an enormous bump. It would almost surely happen to Gore. </p><p>Even Wesley Clark, who polled at less than 2% before he declared in 2004, jumped into the lead nationally for a few weeks after he declared. </p><p><strong>And Gore is immensely popular in Iowa and New Hampshire</strong>. </p><p>&nbsp;So isn't screwing sheep. </p>

[JohnWC]

<p>Hmmm. Gore/Obama ticket anyone?</p><p>I keep hearing how the early candidacy of Clinton and Obama can only hurt their campaigns.. so maybe Gore has the right idea to wait it out. I personally think he could easily beat any of the major GOP candidates.<br /> </p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by JohnWC on 2-28-07 @ 10:20 PM</span>

[FMJeff]

<p>I would vote for Gore/Obama. I don't think this country is ready for a black president. Vice president, yes...I think so...</p><p>these things need to happen in baby steps...</p><p>Plus Obama is just too young and inexperienced to run a country. I'm sorry. Smart man, good man, but resume's kinda short. </p>

[Kevin]

<strong>FMJeff</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I would vote for Gore/Obama. I don't think this country is ready for a black president. Vice president, yes...I think so...</p><p>these things need to happen in baby steps...</p><p>Plus Obama is just too young and inexperienced to run a country. I'm sorry. Smart man, good man, but resume's kinda short. </p><p> I kinda think Gore would really stay away from risky VP candidates. After Lieberman (Jewish) which prob cost him a shit load of votes. Stupidly so, but it did. I do not think he would go that rout again. Obama being black and having the Muslim background would probably hurt Gore once again. He would probably stick to a safe white Christian Candidate this time. </p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Kevin on 3-1-07 @ 1:26 AM</span>

[K.C.]

<strong>Kevin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>FMJeff</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I would vote for Gore/Obama. I don't think this country is ready for a black president. Vice president, yes...I think so...</p><p>these things need to happen in baby steps...</p><p>Plus Obama is just too young and inexperienced to run a country. I'm sorry. Smart man, good man, but resume's kinda short. </p><p>I kinda think Gore would really stay away from risky VP candidates. After Lieberman (Jewish) which prob cost him a shit load of votes. Stupidly so, but it did. I do not think he would go that rout again. Obama being black and having the Muslim background would probably hurt Gore once again. He would probably stick to a safe white Christian Candidate this time. </p><span class="post_edited">This message was edited by Kevin on 3-1-07 @ 1:26 AM</span> <p>I don't think Lieberman cost him at all. If anything I think Lieberman helped him, because he made Gore seem more conservative. Lieberman is fairly socially conservative and kisses up to a lot of the indecency watch groups like the Parents Television Council. </p><p>As for Obama, that could go either way...the thing about it, though, I think Obama would only hurt Gore in states he wouldn't win anyway. </p><p>Edwards is probably the other choice, although I wonder if Edwards would take on a VP nod again, after running for President twice, presumably losing the nomination twice, and being asked to play second-fiddle again. </p><p>The best choices would be either Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, or Evan Bayh, senator of Indiana. </p><p>Richardson&nbsp;has a lot of sway with&nbsp;Latinos in the Southwest, and would almost guarantee him New Mexico, and may even help him in Arizona.</p><p>And Bayh is hugely popular in Indiana and would give him a good shot at winning that state, which Democrats traditionally don't win. </p><p>I'd say Richardson's the better bet, though. </p>

[Kevin]

<strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Kevin</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>FMJeff</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I would vote for Gore/Obama. I don't think this country is ready for a black president. Vice president, yes...I think so...</p><p>these things need to happen in baby steps...</p><p>Plus Obama is just too young and inexperienced to run a country. I'm sorry. Smart man, good man, but resume's kinda short. </p><p>I kinda think Gore would really stay away from risky VP candidates. After Lieberman (Jewish) which prob cost him a shit load of votes. Stupidly so, but it did. I do not think he would go that rout again. Obama being black and having the Muslim background would probably hurt Gore once again. He would probably stick to a safe white Christian Candidate this time. </p><span class="post_edited">This message was edited by Kevin on 3-1-07 @ 1:26 AM</span> <p>I don't think Lieberman cost him at all. If anything I think Lieberman helped him, because he made Gore seem more conservative. Lieberman is fairly socially conservative and kisses up to a lot of the indecency watch groups like the Parents Television Council. </p><p>As for Obama, that could go either way...the thing about it, though, I think Obama would only hurt Gore in states he wouldn't win anyway. </p><p>Edwards is probably the other choice, although I wonder if Edwards would take on a VP nod again, after running for President twice, presumably losing the nomination twice, and being asked to play second-fiddle again. </p><p>The best choices would be either Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, or Evan Bayh, senator of Indiana. </p><p>Richardson&nbsp;has a lot of sway with&nbsp;Latinos in the Southwest, and would almost guarantee him New Mexico, and may even help him in Arizona.</p><p>And Bayh is hugely popular in Indiana and would give him a good shot at winning that state, which Democrats traditionally don't win. </p><p>I'd say Richardson's the better bet, though. </p><p>Liberman did cost him votes. If you remember, The religious right were kinda down on Bush. I think something came up on Bush and his recent past back then of him drinking or drugs. If you remember he was an alky and a drugy. They would&nbsp;have for Gore if he had a White Chrisitian candidate.&nbsp; They did not even vote for any one becaue they did not want to vote for Bush, and Gore had a VP can that they did not like. Bush Showed through his next for year that he was a &quot;better christian&quot; and he got those voters back,and blew the doors off Kerry. Those votes in 00 would have put Gore over the edge.</p>

[SinA]

<strong>K.C.</strong> wrote:<br /><p>late this year, around September. </p><p>The strategy is to avoid the nastiness of all this pre-primary campaigning like that between Hillary and Obama. </p><p>They also say people close to him believe Gore would be the instant front runner if he announced. </p><p><strong>Discuss.</strong> </p><p>you don't have to say &quot;discuss.&quot;&nbsp; it's implied in the first post in every thread.</p><p>but anyway, as someone who voted for gwb in 2000, i think i owe gore an apology and&nbsp;my vote.&nbsp; he was clearly the better choice then, and gets the benefit of any doubt that he's better than __________ in '08</p>