Al Gore's "other plan"

It is time to settle this once and for all: Al Gore is not running for President in 2008. Why? Because Gore knows from the numbers that if he were to comply with efforts to draft him, he'd be nothing more than the new Wesley Clark. What Gore will do is endorse another candidate in the early stage of the primary season, political conditions permitting.

Anyone not planning to vote for Hillary should go ahead and choose now whether they will support Barack Obama or John Edwards - the only two men who have any chance at all of competing with and prevailing over her - because those campaigns need your help now, not later. Iowa is going to be the only competitive, 3-way race of the season, and the support people are giving to Richardson there should really be reconsidered. As slim as Edwards and Obama's chances are in beating Hillary in the other states even if one of them wins in Iowa, a post-Iowa-victory-Richardson could definitely not compete against Hillary in the remaining, early states, even if he got 100% of the Iowa vote (and that won't happen). And once the Iowa Caucus is over, the responsible thing to do will be to get behind just one of them, depending on who wins. If Edwards wins, Obama is finished and should end his campaign and endorse Edwards. If Obama wins, Edwards is finished and should end his campaign and endorse Obama. If Clinton wins, both men are finished unless Edwards endorses Obama.

If Obama and Edwards can cut this deal, it'll be good for America. Especially if Gore is in on it too and also endorses Hillary's remaining, top-tier rival. It is safe to assume that Gore will not endorse Hillary and surprise us. But this confluence of Gore/Edwards/Obama post-Iowa strategy is the only scenario in which the race can remain competitive leading up to February 5th - otherwise it'll be a Clinton sweep for sure, and as boring and banal as you can imagine.

Nominay October 1, 2007 - 8:43pm

Nominay's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Analysis | USA: Campaign 2008 )

Oh, well...

...at least she'll be better than the other Republicans.

tjfxh October 1, 2007 - 10:45pm

The Democrats' disregard of the left

will probably give us the likes of a President Romney.

I wouldn't vote for someone who has promised to continue this war if it was the last vote I ever got to make-- and at this rate, it might be. If Hillary is the best we can do, I say why not a Repug? Hasten the collapse! I'm ready to skip ahead to the nationalization of industries, trials of former political leaders, and ratification of a new constitution.

Nobody who owned an SUV gets to vote, OK? The ayes have it.

chalo October 2, 2007 - 1:35am

This is why I voted

This is why I voted Libertarian in 2004 and Green in 2000 ... BUT I see the Democratic primaries very differently than the general election. Get involved.

Nominay October 2, 2007 - 2:40pm

The Agonist 2008 Presidential Candidates Forum

This thread has been indexed in:

The Agonist 2008 Presidential Candidates Forum

quiet Bill October 2, 2007 - 1:47am

parties, shmarties

I agree with the views of the other replyers above.
A truly good candidate is pretty much unelectable.
The Machine has pretty much taken everything over.
That can be changed. (Nothing is impossible.)
Are we seriously to balance the merits of the likes of Obama and Edwards?
Left vs. Right wing is moot. Democratic vs. Republican likewise.
On one side are candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich while on the other side are the rest.
Gore has his reasons for not running, and I'm almost scared to know why. Yet he writes the sort of books he writes while Bill Clinton writes the sort he writes. Gore is not disingenuous, but simply has little to really reveal despite the conspicuousness of all that's hidden. It almost suggests a level of informedness just above Kucinich or Paul. It almost suggests they have a certain necessary amount of naivete to be running as they do at all.

Some major frankness and candor is called for.
Beyond Alan Greenspan level of supposed candor and revelation [that he backtracked from anyway].

We are at a major turn. What we, you and I and all of us, do now matters critically.

Gore is a capable, good, and nice man but he lacks the gravitas. Personally I'd rather see Sen. Patrick Leahy run rather than Chris Dodd, and I believe he'd stand a better chance of winning than Dodd if he was explosively revelatory, which ain't his way -not on the level required. It's not just a matter of gravitas.

We need someone ready to rant and rail and rage against ALL the abuses, from the use of depleted uranium to the rape and torture to pilferage and cronyism and encroaching military culture perverted into total Dominator culture, Blackwater, surveillance, lack of habeas corpus and other Patriot Act constitutional abuses, That Executive Order of last july, loss of Net Neutrality, governement code in our OSs (that will likely be hardwired into our processors some day), the sub prime rate mortgage hedge funds rape, etc. -the entire litany!

John Carpenter's Escape From New York is here now, as is Orwell's 1984, and Gibson's Neuromancer as well, not to mention the original Rollerball... The time is now.

Much like Ian Welsh said earlier;

http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071001/the_next_hoover

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/28/roosevelt-or-hitler/

it's a pivotal time. In every sense. Politically, culturally, economically, militarily, diplomatically, the soul of worldwide goodness cries out, demands, and deserves virtually Martin Luther King himself to run...

Next year we have RealID to face and blog registrations to contend with. The time is now. To do far more than we're doing. Even if we can't, like Randall Patrick McMurphy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest tried to lift that marble counter and failed, we have to to be genuine and committed and ready to leap beyond this crap of elections as usual through whatever window can be opened.

A really novel approach is needed. Elections? Our voting structure itself is suspect!

We need our own union. We, the decent people of any and all political parties need more than parties at this point, we need unite.
A union.

Freedom! Freedom from power, pirates, and the machine. Now!
Man, I am so weary of politics, I just want to write silly stories and draw silly drawings, but I can't in any good conscience ignore all this -plus I wish to die a free man in a decent and honest America....

(Lastly, when I think of Roosevelt, I think also of Teddy Roosevelt and how much of this empire building began with him, and have to wonder how much that influenced FDR with any sense of familial guilt....)

The national discourse as it is is raw bullshit. That must be addressed first and foremost, immediately. Chalo's reply above may be most spot on; better leap over nitpicking over Dem candidates and force the real issue.

Hyperbole is not much a danger these days. Think of it; this time a year or two hence, some of us here may literally be yanked out of bed at 2am and incarcerated for our views. Disappeared Persons as an issue is not far off at all.

Chalo may be even be more correct than I can imagine.

Zuma October 2, 2007 - 4:23am

So why not

vote for Kucinich? He does it all. I am tired of hearing people say "he can't get elected". Why not just vote for him anyway? I am.

jtruett October 2, 2007 - 11:03am

Me too.

Although it'll be March by then.

_{"Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity."}

Raja October 2, 2007 - 11:10am

Because Kucinich is an

Because Kucinich is an illusion. It's a vote that helps Hillary at the expense of candidates who actually do have a chance in Hell of beating her. As I wrote above, voting for your first choice (Richardson or Kucinich) instead of your second or third choice (Edwards or Obama) will lead to the nomination of your last choice (Clinton). So if you dislike Edwards and Obama less than you do Clinton, then you should reconsider your vote for Kucinich. But if you are not in one of the early states, especially Iowa, then the sad reality is that your vote doesn't matter anyway.

Nominay October 2, 2007 - 1:10pm

You aren't working to get someone elected,

you're working to pry the hands of crazy people off the switch. Keep that in mind. Anything you get, any of the Dem candidates, will be better than demonstrably crazy.

"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch October 2, 2007 - 11:40am

Elaborate if you will, as

Elaborate if you will, as I'm not sure I get your point. I personally am working to get someone elected - I'm going to spend 2 months in Iowa, for Edwards. I'm not telling people to vote for him neccessarily, I'm just saying "This is your real choice; it's one of these two guys or Hillary gets in." That's the reality of it and I am addressing Hillary dissenters. Anyone who is on the fence should seriously consider supporting Edwards or Obama. No matter what, Hillary is going to remain competitive and lap up many victories. It's just a question of can someone else do that too. It's not healthy for a Democracy to have runaway landslides to the nomination unless we have an exceptional candidate, which Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000 were not. A Bill Clinton comes once every generation, and it's not acceptable that Hillary can pass herself off as her husband in drag. More than one esteemed observor has noted that her strategy has been running on the Rove 2000 campaign playbook. Anyway, even a Kucinich supporter wrote this - I agree with the main point, which is to stop Clinton. Ian was right in his earlier post - there are important differences between the candidates, and if you don't want a conservative President, try to stop Hillary, because she'd love nothing more than you giving money to and voting for a Kucinich or a Biden.

Nominay October 2, 2007 - 2:30pm

It's good to be involved, and I commend you.

Work to get Edwards elected, but two things -

1) Win or lose the primary, the winner is the person you then support. The issues on the table are far too important to play games with or hold grudges about.

2) Don't get caught up in the fervor of the immediate political battle to the point where you inadvertently stick a knife into the odds of getting a Dem in power. Think twice about scorching the earth in the heat of battle.

"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch October 5, 2007 - 3:48pm

I respect people who voted

I respect people who voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 even if they were drawn more to Nader or Badnarik. But I have at least as much respect for those who voted 3rd party, as I did. On a note of contradiction however, I don't necessarily see it the same way on an emergency state basis. Prior to the election in '04 I got into a big fight with the person heading up Nader's Ohio organization. I was making the case that just for this one state, encourage the Nader supporters to vote for Kerry, but it ended badly. And until the last day, I personally gave campaign and strategy advice to Kerry's staff, David Wade most of all. Had they taken it they would've been better off, but they had a whole bunch of people who didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground like Stephanie Cutter and Mary Beth Cahill and Bob Shrum.
Ultimately, I believe that the strategy to Democrats winning is not putting up an Al Gore, but a Bill Bradley ... putting up a Howard Dean, not a John Kerry. And putting up a John Edwards, not a Hillary Clinton. And until that happens, I have little sympathy for the ignorant masses who inevitably suffer from buyers remorse.

Nominay October 5, 2007 - 6:21pm

A voice of sanity.

“I despise idealogues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007

Mark October 2, 2007 - 3:12pm

What to do?

I've been giving this much thought. The comments above are all accurate. It's out of control. The Donkeys won't do it. Gore won't help us. It's too late to start a third party now. Write-ins won't be counted. The election process has been corrupted beyond confidence. Non-violent protest will be met with detention, extraordinary rendition, torture and death. The only thing that keeps coming back to my mind is to hit them where they live - money. A general strike. A big one. Cancel Christmas, stay home. Two full days of sick time. Think that would get some attention? Comments?

BC Nurse Prof October 2, 2007 - 11:43am

This isn't about who you

This isn't about who you want to be President, it's about mitigating your displeasure at who becomes President. Just a thought.

Nominay October 2, 2007 - 2:39pm

just another thought

The US can't really tout the president as "leader of the free world" (sic), and interfere in the security and governance of other countries, as well as breaking international treaties to which the US is signatory at will (cf NAFTA, softwood lumber dispute, not to mention Geneva Convention)...

...and then have much grounds left to question why citizens of "the free world" perceive a stake in who winds up American president.

Just another thought.

Shaula Evans October 5, 2007 - 3:37pm

no disagreement there

Nominay October 6, 2007 - 7:30am

A Lot of Scattershot on this Thread

I think the post here was about a Gore endorsement.

First of all, lets consider Gores 'Endorsement' just prior to the primaries in 2004. Remember that one. Gore endorsed Howard Dean about a month before Dean crashed and burned in Iowa. As in AAAAAIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!! Don't see how decisive that turned out to be

So what will Gore do this time? After all HE will remember last time if no one else does.

First of all, if he's holding back, then he is not about to endorse Hillary, because that WOULD be a lock for her. So why not just do it now. No he is holding back because he has - potentially - something else in mind.

He also says he has been advising some of the candidates, but won't say who. Now the fact is Obama, Edwards, Richarson would all love to get that endorsement. And it would, or could help - a little. Endorsements hit big at first, then fade. A reality that is perfect for the compressed primaries. It especially helps the young candidates, ie. Obama or Richardson, getting the nod of the old hand. Edwards, is not really helped by a Gore endorsement, and I don't really see that either because he actually dissed Edwards, aka Kerry, in 2004.

So there is no evidence a Gore endorsement helps anyone but Hillary right now, very little likelihood he would endorse Edwards. He is going to do it BEFORE the primary, so what is he going to do??

He has to be careful. He was a Vice President of Bill Clinton after all. A diss of Hillary is at high risk, considering they could be the ones who end up in the White House. And fact is Gore's endorsement really means less to Obama. In other words a Gore endorsement cannot tip the scales alone. He will wait, he has to. So . . . IF Obama surges, and looks likely to win. He will jump on that bandwagon, add whatever energy he can. If Hillary holds her own, and appears to be headed for a win - THEN he will endorse Hillary.

Gores endorsement comes before Iowa. Edwards big race is South Carolina, Edwards is off the radar. Richardson has no chance, he is off the radar. So . . .

A) he won't endorse anyone until the race is effectively over

and B) when he does it will be a break for the winner, even Hillary if she is the one.

I do not believe he wants ANOTHER tag of irrelevancy tied to his 'endorsement.' It is another reason Iowa is so important to Obama. If he can get organized, stay on message, spend his money smart and surge to a victory - he gets a Gore nod as well. If not, then it is Hillary all the way. And Edwards, I am skeptical of a Gore nod no matter what.

As far as Edwards goes, he should be minimizing the importance of Iowa and refocusing his energies on places he can win. But his organization follows a pattern that is hard to understand - If he really wants to be President that is. HIS state is South Carolina.

My two cents.

Scotjen61 October 2, 2007 - 2:49pm

I distinctly remember the

I distinctly remember the moment when Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean. I put my hands up to my face and went "Oh no." I knew right then, for the first time, that Dean would lose Iowa and not become the nominee. Why? Because it meant Dean's campaign had peaked and would only go downhill from there. He suddenly became a sitting duck, a target if you will, and that he'd be brought down was inevitable. I yelled internally at Gore and Dean, "5 weeks! 5 weeks! You have 5 weeks untl Iowa! How can you do this?" 5 weeks is a lifetime in politics. How they could do that was a testament to their ignorance. Had the endorsement come 1 week before the Caucus, the other campaigns along with the corporate media would not have been able to recover and sharpen their knives.
Also, Gore of 2007/08 is not Gore of 2004. He's more influential now. Although he would not win the nomination if he were to jump in now, his numbers would be sandwiched between Edwards and Obama's, which is respectable, and most of those are undecideds.
As long as Hillary is not batting 50% in any of these states, she can be stopped by a remaining opponent, with union backing, Gore's endorsement, and the endorsement of the opponents other, former, chief rival ..... but they will all need to cut that deal to make it happen.

Nominay October 2, 2007 - 3:08pm

Bingo

There you go. Possible?? Yes.

The coordination of three of the currently, most off message people in the history of politics. Gore-Obama-Edwards. Cross your fingers.

It'll be like herding cats, but stranger things have happened. But, between the three of them, one can squeeze past Hillary in Iowa.

Scotjen61 October 2, 2007 - 3:24pm

This is about post-Iowa, not

This is about post-Iowa, not pre-Iowa. Edwards and Obama each deserve the opportunity to win without Gore's endorsement, unless one of them really starts bottoming out and leaves a vaccum in their wake. Probably not even the 2nd-tier candidates will drop out before the voting there begins. These guys all have a lot of pride. So let them have their chance. But it's really about can Edwards or Obama win anything else other than Iowa?

Nominay October 2, 2007 - 3:41pm

I realise

The momentum of Iowa though can be a wonderful thing. Obama gave a great speech the other day by the way.

Scotjen61 October 3, 2007 - 8:53am

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Al Gore's "other plan"

Comment viewing options