T Nation

Gore Getting In?

Gore campaign team assembles in secret
By Tim Shipman in Washington, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:59pm BST 21/04/2007

Friends of Al Gore have secretly started assembling a campaign team in preparation for the former American vice-president to make a fresh bid for the White House.

Al Gore is third favourite for the Democratic nomination

Two members of Mr Gore’s staff from his unsuccessful attempt in 2000 say they have been approached to see if they would be available to work with him again.

Mr Gore, President Bill Clinton’s deputy, has said he wants to concentrate on publicising the need to combat climate change, a case made in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won him an Oscar this year.

But, aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop.

His denials of interest in the presidency have been couched in terms of “no plans” or “no intention” - politically ambiguous language that does not rule out a run.

One of his former campaign team said: "I was asked whether I would be available towards the end of the year if I am needed. They know he has not ruled out running and if he decides to jump in, he will have to move very fast.

“He hasn’t asked them to do this, but nor has he told them not to.”

In an interview on Thursday, which touched on the prospects for next year’s presidential election, Mr Clinton commented: “You’ve got the prospect that Vice-President Gore might run.”

The most recent opinion polls show Mr Gore as third favourite to take the Democratic nomination, on about 17 per cent support, only a whisker behind Barack Obama, 45, who is aiming to become the first black US president, and ahead of John Edwards, 53, the senator whose wife was recently diagnosed with cancer.

Vice-President Gore’s allies believe that Hillary Clinton, 59, the frontrunner, is unable to win the presidency. The most recent poll shows a growing number of voters think negatively of her, in contrast to Mr Gore, who enjoys far greater popularity than when he lost the 2000 presidential race despite polling more votes nationally than the eventual winner, George W Bush.

The second aide approached by Vice-President Gore’s allies said: “There is no love lost between Gore and Hillary. They don’t think she can win and they’re probably right. If Gore runs, he’s got a really good chance of getting the nomination. And he has a good chance of pulling off the election, too.”

Gore-watchers believe that a new book he is publishing next month on the state of US politics will keep his name in the public eye. Many of his supporters helped to run the unsuccessful presidential campaign of John Kerry in 2004. But since Sen Kerry abandoned his presidential aspirations this year, many of his leading advisers have yet to align themselves with any of the other candidates.

They were expected to join the campaign of Sen Edwards, who was Sen Kerry’s running mate last time.

The former aide, who has himself signed up with Sen Edwards, said: “The question is: where have all the Kerry people gone? The answer for most of them is nowhere. Now ask yourself why.”

Among the senior officials not yet committed is Michael Whouley, who was national field director for the successful Clinton-Gore 1992 presidential campaign, national campaign manager for Mr Gore when he stood for re-election as vice-president in 1996, and then a senior adviser to Mr Gore in 2000.

Considered one of the most talented Democratic “ground war” experts, he masterminded John Kerry’s political resurrection in the New Hampshire presidential primary three years ago, putting him on course for the nomination. Last year, he oversaw the Democratic victory in the mid-term elections.

Two months ago, a former Gore aide, Elaine Kamarck, convened a group of former aides in Boston to consider the possibilities of a Gore campaign.

James Carville, President Clinton’s former strategy chief, suggested last week that Mr Gore, who has piled on the pounds, could shed weight over the summer to make himself more media-friendly for a White House run.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if he lost 15lb or so,” said Mr Carville. “And I think if people thought he could get us out of the mess we’re in with Iraq, they wouldn’t care how fat he is.”

A poll of leading Democratic and Republican strategists found that one in four thought Mr Gore would emerge a strong contender. “He already has emerged - he just has to announce,” a Democrat told the magazine Opinion Journal.

A Republican said: “Gore could be the toughest Democrat to beat.”

At least eight websites are campaigning to “Draft Gore” into the election. More than 70,000 people have signed an online petition, and more than 120 groups of Gore supporters meet each month around the country to promote the case for a Gore presidency. One website offers the chance to download a song called Run Al, Run!

Who knows exactly what Gore’s plans are, but I suspect that his defeat in 2000 never sat with him well, and if a significant number of Democrats are pining for him, he will run. Any candidate would love to be the “people’s choice” - the guy who might otherwise sit at home, but who is being asked to serve his country.

Also, there is huge concern that the frontrunner - Hillary - will go down in flames in a general election. Gore could leverage his experience, a nearly won election, and his newfound personality to capture national attention fast.

He is more electable than Hillary, he can talk rings around Obama (although, who can’t, really?) and, well, he isn’t John Edwards. He could get Bill Richardson on the ticket as veep.

Thunder,

What a bloodbath of a primary that would be!!!

He’s seen her up close. He has the dirt on the clinton’s. He’s angry at billy who he blamed for 2000.

Imagine me rubbing my hands, and saying: EXCELLENT!!!

Oh, imagine the Republicans showing the al “brown-shirt/armeggedon” gore clips from 2000-2008.

Run gore run!!!

Finally, the only guy who I fear in a general election is Richardson. He seems like a good man.

JeffR

I don’t have the specifics, but I get the distinct impression that a presidential campaign of the likes to beat Clinton and Obama isn’t even close to being carbon-neutral.

Gore is more electable than the rest but he is still a divisive figure.

I don’t think Richardson stands a chance of winning the nomination but he would be the best president of the bunch.

A Gore Richardson ticket may be palatable to much of America in a way that the others are not.

I’ll bet Gore regrets some of his goofy rants because they will be used against him to good effect.

Very interesting.

Wonder if he dislikes Hillary enough to run as a Third Party candidate?

Kinda doubt Gore is going to run. There’s been rumblings about this for a while, and the primaries are getting closer. And what about the money? I’m sure he has a long list of donors to call on, but many are already committed to one of the other candidates I imagine.

I think you’re all selling Obama short too. He’s now tied with Hillary in the polls, and is the only candidate from either party whose percent of likely voters who say they’ll vote for him equals the percent who say they won’t. Everyone else, both parties, is a net negative. He may be a lightweight, but so was Reagan to some extent, and so was George W. Bush, no question.

I really don’t think he will. I think a lot of his friends really want him to run, but I just don’t think he has it in him to be humiliated again.

He should just stick to chasing Manbearpig.

You can’t run for president if everything you’ve talked about for the past 4 years has been sensationalist talk on a scientific subject (especially when one is not a scientist).

A majority of people are already on board with Gore’s global warming message. Pollution is bad, clean air and clean water is good. That sounds like a winning message. People trust the Democrats on the environment… they always poll high on that issue. The Republican party polls lousy on the environment. That is a fact.

Gore can definitely win. With the tidal wave of ‘buyers remorse’ over Bush, I bet a lot of voters would welcome a do-over in 2008.

But Clinton can also win, Edwards can win, Obama can win, and Richardson can win.

Who can win on the Republican side, seriously?

Fred Thompson can win. But he hasn’t even declared his candidacy yet. He’s losing ground every day he sits out. Other than Thompson, I can’t see any of the current GOP candidates winning, no matter who the Dems run. You have a bunch of clowns running on the GOP side.

And Bush and his Iraq boondoggle will make the GOP candidates toxic for 2008 and probably beyond.

[quote]bradley wrote:
A majority of people are already on board with Gore’s global warming message. Pollution is bad, clean air and clean water is good. That sounds like a winning message. People trust the Democrats on the environment… they always poll high on that issue. The Republican party polls lousy on the environment. That is a fact.

Gore can definitely win. With the tidal wave of ‘buyers remorse’ over Bush, I bet a lot of voters would welcome a do-over in 2008.

But Clinton can also win, Edwards can win, Obama can win, and Richardson can win.

Who can win on the Republican side, seriously?

Fred Thompson can win. But he hasn’t even declared his candidacy yet. He’s losing ground every day he sits out. Other than Thompson, I can’t see any of the current GOP candidates winning, no matter who the Dems run. You have a bunch of clowns running on the GOP side.

And Bush and his Iraq boondoggle will make the GOP candidates toxic for 2008 and probably beyond.
[/quote]

Hello, bradley:

Quick question: Which Southern state can hillary win?

Without the South, how exactly can she win?

None of the others are serious candidates.

Rudy’s going to win. Get used to it.

JeffR

Hillary can’t win. Most people will not vote for her. Looks like Obama will split the vote with her. She may not even carry NY. Would she accept a VP to Obama? That’s doubtful. Obama is weak on issues and would likely not generate a big vote outside of NY, Ill and maybe CA. Doubtful he would carry much in the South…maybe but doubtful.

Gore may be the Candidate in a brokered convention.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
A majority of people are already on board with Gore’s global warming message. Pollution is bad, clean air and clean water is good. That sounds like a winning message. People trust the Democrats on the environment… they always poll high on that issue. The Republican party polls lousy on the environment. That is a fact.

Gore can definitely win. With the tidal wave of ‘buyers remorse’ over Bush, I bet a lot of voters would welcome a do-over in 2008.

But Clinton can also win, Edwards can win, Obama can win, and Richardson can win.

Who can win on the Republican side, seriously?

Fred Thompson can win. But he hasn’t even declared his candidacy yet. He’s losing ground every day he sits out. Other than Thompson, I can’t see any of the current GOP candidates winning, no matter who the Dems run. You have a bunch of clowns running on the GOP side.

And Bush and his Iraq boondoggle will make the GOP candidates toxic for 2008 and probably beyond.
[/quote]

Wow, you’re sounding as removed from reality as JeffR on the other end of the spectrum. Hillary Clinton, with all the hatred she inspires, is going to be the next president? John Edwards?! John Edwards, in 2000, didn’t beat Bush in his home state, his home town, or the town he was born in. That takes some doing. And he’s going to win a presidential election.

The Republicans have some good candidates, McCain if he can get his message straightened out, and Mike Huckabee scares every Democrat who knows anything about him.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Hillary can’t win. Most people will not vote for her. Looks like Obama will split the vote with her. She may not even carry NY. Would she accept a VP to Obama? That’s doubtful. Obama is weak on issues and would likely not generate a big vote outside of NY, Ill and maybe CA. Doubtful he would carry much in the South…maybe but doubtful.

Gore may be the Candidate in a brokered convention.

Hedo,

I think it’s fascinating watching the new york times pillory hillary.

Does anyone know what the clinton’s have done to cause such angst in the nyt?

It may just be that they know her for the vile opportunist that she is.

However, I wonder if there is something more.

You’d think that liberal rag would be all for her.

Doesn’t seem to be the case. Add on billy boy’s recent whining about their coverage, and you have an interesting scenario playing out.

Imagine the nyt endorsing obama for the Presidency?!?

Fascinating.

JeffR

[quote]gDollars37 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
A majority of people are already on board with Gore’s global warming message. Pollution is bad, clean air and clean water is good. That sounds like a winning message. People trust the Democrats on the environment… they always poll high on that issue. The Republican party polls lousy on the environment. That is a fact.

Gore can definitely win. With the tidal wave of ‘buyers remorse’ over Bush, I bet a lot of voters would welcome a do-over in 2008.

But Clinton can also win, Edwards can win, Obama can win, and Richardson can win.

Who can win on the Republican side, seriously?

Fred Thompson can win. But he hasn’t even declared his candidacy yet. He’s losing ground every day he sits out. Other than Thompson, I can’t see any of the current GOP candidates winning, no matter who the Dems run. You have a bunch of clowns running on the GOP side.

And Bush and his Iraq boondoggle will make the GOP candidates toxic for 2008 and probably beyond.

Wow, you’re sounding as removed from reality as JeffR on the other end of the spectrum. Hillary Clinton, with all the hatred she inspires, is going to be the next president? John Edwards?! John Edwards, in 2000, didn’t beat Bush in his home state, his home town, or the town he was born in. That takes some doing. And he’s going to win a presidential election.

The Republicans have some good candidates, McCain if he can get his message straightened out, and Mike Huckabee scares every Democrat who knows anything about him.[/quote]

gdol,

I can tolerate just about everything you throw my way.

However, comparing me to bradley was pretty mean.

It’s over the top, gdol, and I’d appreciate an apology from you.

Thanks,

JeffR

The Democratic Party is very racist (see Byrd of Virginia) and very sexist. To ensure thier chances, they will run a Caucasian male.

Gore, Richardson sounds like about it. Hillary’s lock is gone.

Gore will then reinvent the earth in his image! :smiley:

[quote]hedo wrote:
Hillary can’t win. Most people will not vote for her. Looks like Obama will split the vote with her. She may not even carry NY. Would she accept a VP to Obama? That’s doubtful. Obama is weak on issues and would likely not generate a big vote outside of NY, Ill and maybe CA. Doubtful he would carry much in the South…maybe but doubtful.

Gore may be the Candidate in a brokered convention.

I agree. Hillary wants it very badly - hell, she wanted to be a co-president - but is a known commodity, and one that drives people up the wall.

Obama smacks of a neo-Woodrow Wilson - and will have a hard time connecting with Main Street, USA. He is in this race because he trades on the shallow things the coastal elite want to see in a candidate. Seems like a nice enough guy, but the Presidency is too-big-a-britches for Obama.

I think Richardson is the most viable candidate - which is why the Democratic party is putting zero money or energy behind him. The pragmatists of the party are still the drowned out minority, and good candidates like Richardson suffer. But I also suspect he could jockey for a VP spot, which could be a long-term plan for the Presidency.

Gore may be the Democratic “people’s choice” - and he might get the nomination should he declare. But he has an awful lot to overcome and explain since 2000 - “digital brownshirt”, etc. - to make inroads with voters whose minds he needs to change.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Rudy’s going to win. Get used to it.

JeffR
[/quote]

He might win the nomination. The republicans have shot themselves in the foot with Iraq. Yes, I realize that the majority of Democrats backed the Iraq war, but right or wrong it will always be labeled as a mistake by the Republicans (Bush).

I’d be surprised if the Republicans get near the presidency for eight years.

Dustin

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
A majority of people are already on board with Gore’s global warming message. Pollution is bad, clean air and clean water is good. That sounds like a winning message. People trust the Democrats on the environment… they always poll high on that issue. The Republican party polls lousy on the environment. That is a fact.


[/quote]

This is a joke. Bush and Clinton were about equal on the environment. Some good, some bad.

Bush’s big downfall is opening federal land.

Bush has had success in clean air and water.

He actually implemented the arsenic removal regs that languished on Clinton’s desk for years.

Bush loosened the regs on improvement to sulfur scrubbing systems and power plants are now spending a fortune upgrading their systems.

Under Clinton they were not allowed to upgrade their systems unless they were brought into full compliance. Instead they kept getting fines which they usually never paid.

Now they are spending the money on incremental improvements and the air is actually being cleaned instead of a fine being levied.

Clinton’s big downfall is allowing the SUV to become a major force in America.

He had an opportunity to require better gas mileage for these vehicles but he never did. He did require improvements for cars however.

Bush did the opposite. He ignored cars and bumped the mileage for SUV’s.

Clinton protected more land than any president before him. Bush has tried to undue some of this but Bush has also protected some big areas as well.

The public perception of the parties environmental records is totally wrong.

You might be interested to know that evil Rick Santorum has done much to protect the Chesapeake Bay.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Hillary can’t win. Most people will not vote for her. Looks like Obama will split the vote with her. She may not even carry NY. Would she accept a VP to Obama? That’s doubtful. Obama is weak on issues and would likely not generate a big vote outside of NY, Ill and maybe CA. Doubtful he would carry much in the South…maybe but doubtful.

Gore may be the Candidate in a brokered convention.

I agree. Hillary wants it very badly - hell, she wanted to be a co-president - but is a known commodity, and one that drives people up the wall.

Obama smacks of a neo-Woodrow Wilson - and will have a hard time connecting with Main Street, USA. He is in this race because he trades on the shallow things the coastal elite want to see in a candidate. Seems like a nice enough guy, but the Presidency is too-big-a-britches for Obama.

I think Richardson is the most viable candidate - which is why the Democratic party is putting zero money or energy behind him. The pragmatists of the party are still the drowned out minority, and good candidates like Richardson suffer. But I also suspect he could jockey for a VP spot, which could be a long-term plan for the Presidency.

Gore may be the Democratic “people’s choice” - and he might get the nomination should he declare. But he has an awful lot to overcome and explain since 2000 - “digital brownshirt”, etc. - to make inroads with voters whose minds he needs to change.[/quote]

Agree with most of this, but I think you’re underrating Obama. Guy lost the small shot he had with me with his cowardly comments after the partial birth decision, but I think his charisma and story would resonate with a lot more Americans than you think.

The war keeps going badly, which is highly likely at the least, he will be in great shape, having been against it from day one. I think policy-wise he may well be a lightweight, but the current White House occupant has proven that’s a surmountable obstacle.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

Guy lost the small shot he had with me with his cowardly comments after the partial birth decision…[/quote]

Gdol, I missed this. Do you have a link to his comments? I will search, but if you have them, I’d appreciate it.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Guy lost the small shot he had with me with his cowardly comments after the partial birth decision…

Gdol, I missed this. Do you have a link to his comments? I will search, but if you have them, I’d appreciate it.

[/quote]

"I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.

I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

So much for a new kind of Democrat who’ll appeal to churchgoers…