home

Al Gore Hasn't Ruled Out 2008 Run

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:16:21 PM EST
Tags: Al Gore (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

While campaigning for an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore answered presidential aspiration questions on the Today Show this morning.

"I am not planning to run for president again," Gore said last week, arguing that his focus is raising public awareness about global warming and its dire effects. Then, he added: "I haven't completely ruled it out."

Does he mean it? Is a Gore-Obama ticket in the wings? What would a Gore run mean for Hillary? I continue to believe Obama is going to be a vice-presidential candidate, not the Democrats' nominee for President.

< Tom Tancredo Plans "Trip Abroad" to Miami | Jeff Skilling Gets Last Minute Stay of Prison Sentence >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Al Gore Hasn't Ruled Out 2008 Run | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    boy (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cpinva on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    you really believe the nonsense you spout, don't you slado and jim? earth tone suits? now that is substantive, boy howdy! perhaps you two should be reporters for the MSM, talking about how boring gore is, discussing actual issues, instead of stammering incomplete sentences, and never actually answering a straight question, like your boy george.

    gore was right: about climate change, the war in iraq, among other things. last i checked, he had nothing to do with mr. clinton's love life. there is no "shaky science" about global warming jim, unless you're working for exxon. ask australians what they think, as they work on their 5th year of drought.

    all that said, for the very nonsense posted by jim & slado, gore shouldn't run. because, even though it is, in fact, nonsense, the MSM and the republicans will run with it, again. these would be the very same morons that brought us bush, who's been pretty much wrong from day one.

    given bush's history of total failure from birth, we all knew this, but darn, he'd be fun to have a beer with!

    i don't know that i'm particularly enthralled with obama as a v.p.; what's he done? well, um, uh, aside from being him................not much.

    hillary has her baggage, but so does anyone who's been in the public eye for any length of time, it goes with the territory.the question becomes: is that baggage too heavy to carry over the bar.

    i don't agree with every position she's taken, but overall, i'd rate her #1 in the presidential stakes, and i'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

    Believe what? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:32:46 AM EST
    Cpniva,

    I don't believe the nonsnese that Al Gore spouts.

    He and the fellow GW theorists have put out the theory not me.  The burden of proof is on them not me and so far IMHO they haven't met the smell test.

    I'm a skeptic.  Last time I checked science worked in a pattern of a theory being proven by facts and being able to predict similar results again and again.

    See gravity.

    Here's what we know.  Everytime the global warming crowd makes a prediction...worst Hurricane season, record heat etc, rising sea levels... it either doesn't pan out or doesn't live up to the hysterical predictions.

    I assume the melting ice shelf in 30years will follow suit.

    That non-believers are labled heritics and idiots sounds awfully familiar to "your either with us or against us" and not so much like science.

    See link above, that says it all from the skeptics perspective.

    Parent

    Good point there slado (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    Everytime the global warming crowd makes a prediction... it either doesn't pan out or doesn't live up to the hysterical predictions.

    British scientist James Lovelock and his warning that catastrophic global climate change is both imminent and unstoppable:
    Within the next decade or two, Lovelock forecasts, Gaia will hike her thermostat by at least 10 degrees. Earth, he predicts, will be hotter than at any time since the Eocene Age 55 million years ago, when crocodiles swam in the Arctic Ocean.

    It would be easy to view this as just another kooky end-of-the-world theory, if it weren't for the history of some of Lovelock's other kooky theories -- like the time in the late '70s when he hypothesized that chlorofluorocarbons wafted high into the stratosphere would eat great big holes in the ozone layer, exposing first the polar regions and then the rest of the earth's surface to increasingly harmful ultraviolet radiation. What a nut.


    We don't need no stinkin' facts around here, right Slado? Or a track record. F*** the kids.

    Parent
    cpinva... if you (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    you are gonna complain, please be accurate... The "earth tone suits" was a recommendation his campaign manager made because he was looking stiff.. She thought it important, you don't.  But hey, what does she know??

    Parent
    Someone has to ask (none / 0) (#1)
    by Rick B on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:53:21 PM EST
    What is the possibility of a Gore/Clinton(Hillary) ticket?

    Zero (none / 0) (#8)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:34:05 AM EST
    Gore/Clinton (Bill) on the other hand...

    Parent
    Gore/Obama (none / 0) (#2)
    by mreyn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:04:44 PM EST
    there won't be a Gore/Hilary..but Gore/Obama is working as I write.Cbama is doing a JFK circa 56, only this time it will score. Obama knows full well he is not in position to lead the ticket at this time. For lord's sake who's he beaten? Alan Keyes? All he's doing is pumping up the volume.

    Uh... (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:44:58 AM EST
    Eisenhower won in '56.

    Parent
    What would a Gore run mean for Hillary? (none / 0) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    IMO a Gore run would provide the best chance of defeating Hillary in the primaries and also would provide the country with a President that has by way of experience, intelligence and respect, the best chance of eradicating the disastrous policies of the Bush administration.

    Re: Gore believes in saving the Earth (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    Gore was prescient. For decades he has maintained that the Earth was teetering in the balance, even when doing so subjected him to ridicule from other politicians and cost him votes. By telling the story of climate change with striking clarity in both his book and movie, Al Gore may have done for global warming what Silent Spring did for pesticides. He will be attacked, but the public will have the information needed to distinguish our long-term well-being from short-term special interests.
    ...
    Perhaps the country came close to having the leadership it needed to deal with a grave threat to the planet, but did not realize it.

    Jim Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    edger (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:43:34 AM EST
    .....and Gore has said for years that in just ten years the balance will tip and it will be too late..

    The question is, when did the ten year cycle start?

    2000? 1998? 1996?  Opppps

    And how many ten year cycles do we have, Sir Algore?

    And could you please give up flying around in private jets and go commercial like the rest of us?

    Goes to image, dude... Remember those earth tone suits, eh??

    Parent

    Another insanity plea? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:51:06 AM EST
    Nobody will ever expect you to get this either, Jim.

    Parent
    Al Gore the snake oil salesman (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:50:31 AM EST
    Whether you accept the argument that our planet is warming due to us or not Al Gore's position is untenible.    He has taken the most extreme position possible in order to get the most attention possible.   He is simply overstating the case and can't be trusted.

    Plus he's a terrible politician and a dolt that can't win a national election.

    Please nominate him because McCain or Gulliani will tear him up during a national election.

    Parent

    overstating the case (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    Sure he is. Hard to see in the dark is it, slado?

    Parent
    No ice in 30 years? (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    I'll gladly take that bet Edgar.

    Are you stating that it "will" happen or that it "might" happen and we should do everything possible to make sure it doesn't.

    According to Al Gore it's too late anyway so why bother.

    It's exactly these kinds of hysterical reports that make GW skeptics like myself laugh out loud because I know you don't really think it will happen so why do you link it?

    Parent

    Go argue (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    with the US Geological Survey, Slado.

    Maybe you can answer the question Jim won't.

    "Why do you do this to yourself, anyway?"

    Parent

    Do what? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:43:16 AM EST
    If you mean why am I here?  Well I enjoy the sparing and like to challenge my views.  Blogging with a bunch of yes men is boring in my opinion.

    Also it apears that cow flatualance is the main cause of GW.

    In the words of Chick-Fil-A "Eat more chicken"

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235933,00.html

    Parent

    Never heard (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:46:45 AM EST
    the whistling sound, huh? ;-)

    Parent
    You're wrong (none / 0) (#65)
    by rothmatisseko on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:13:01 PM EST
    Gore makes clear every time he speaks that he thinks "it's not too late."  You obviously haven't seen the film or listened to him speak on the many occasions he's made this point.  

    Parent
    sorry, replied to wrong post, right poster (n/t) (none / 0) (#66)
    by rothmatisseko on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:13:45 PM EST


    Parent
    edger - Following (1.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:04:14 AM EST
    men on white horses isn't my cup of tea, and that is exactly where Algore is. Worse, I believe he believes, and that is the most dangerous type of fanatic.

    I have given up trying to point out all of the nonsense Algore and the other climate change nuts spouse, limiting myself to ask questions such as, when did the 10 year cycle start? And are there multiple 10 year starts?

    So we have shaky science, and shakier results. Yet you so desperately want to believe that you jump to sign up.

    You are always chiding me about being "scared" of terrorists, having a "terrorist in my closet."

    It seems to me that you are the one frightened. Frightened of the facts that we must fight the terorists or die, and frightened to think that man can do nothing acceptable to alter the climate.

    And for one supposedly worried about loss of civil rights, you are ready to not just accept a huge loss of rights by letting the UN tell you how to set your theromstat and when you can drive... you are ready to run forward and embrace it.

    Parent

    Dark horse (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:33:19 AM EST
    Following men on white horses isn't my cup of tea....

    Duh, don't you think we know that already now? You always like the black horse with a Darth Vader type figure on it. Is it the raw evil power that turns you on? Or is it all that glorious death and destruction that you love?

    Those for anti-war greens are way to faggy or "french" to quote a recent euphemism, for you, eh?

    You like the killers, real men, like Rove, Cheney, Bush, don't you.

    Try wearing a dress sometime. It may help you get in touch with all that built up and hateful repression and bloodlust.


    Parent

    Squeaky's Smear Machine (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    Anti-war greens? Faggy? French? Wear a dress? Anti-gay?

    squeaky, what is your point???

    Are you okay?? Oh wait, I remember.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    In the meantime, you provided no answer to my question regarding the 10 year time frame.

    No surprise there. You don't know. But then true believers never need facts.

    Parent

    hahaha (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    I love it when you bring up that lovely quote about Rove. It means you have no argument and are pinned in a corner.....something you obviously adore.

     Why else would you bring your wingnut blather to TL?

    Parent

    Keep it up (none / 0) (#47)
    by aw on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:34:56 PM EST
    Every time I see you refer to "Squeaky's smear" I'm going to point out that you are terrified of naked people.  It's about as relevant as your use of the "smear."  

    Parent
    Yep Jimmie, that's a problem, (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:20:24 AM EST
    Worse, I believe he believes, and that is the most dangerous type of fanatic.

    And, I was pretty sure Slado couldn't miss a point as badly as you can, too. But I'm not always right....

    Parent

    Just what is it we're supposed to remember? (none / 0) (#45)
    by aw on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    You even mangle the earth tones into an argument against global warming.  I guess earth tones and earth are kind of similar to you PPJ.

    Wolf flatly denied that she'd ever offered any advice about wardrobe:

    HENNEBERGER: Contradicting reports from within the Gore camp, [Wolf] also said she had not been telling [Gore] how to dress, either: not a single fashion tip, or even so much as a "Nice tie, Mr. Vice President."

    She offered a similar denial on This Week. Gore also denied the point, saying his wife picked out his clothing. According to Wolf, the pleasing tale about those "earth tones" had--alas!--simply been false.

    But Wolf's denial had no effect on the spreading story. The tale that Naomi Wolf told Gore to wear earth tones was being flogged throughout the press. Pundits simply loved the tale, which let them recite a favorite point--Al Gore doesn't know who he is. One pundit after another recited the highly pleasing point. As we'll see, Wolf's denial was almost never mentioned as one "reporter" after another recited the earth tones as fact.

    Indeed, the "earth tones" tale is a brilliant example of the way the modern press creates spin. In fact, there was never any real evidence that Wolf advised Gore to wear earth tones. The story started with a single "speculation"--a "speculation" which never seems to have been confirmed. But so what? Instantly, the "speculation" was accepted as fact, and pundits raced to recite the story, adding pseudo-psychiatric claims about what the unproven "fact" meant. When Wolf denied the pleasing "fact," her denial was almost never noted.


    Daily Howler

    Parent
    gore, obama, hillary (none / 0) (#6)
    by diogenes on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    If Gore runs it will give the nomination to obama--gore and hillary will split the votes of people who don't mind candidates with lots of baggage.

    If Obama goes for VP he'll be doing an Al Gore as VP for eight years, and look what happened to Al Gore.

    I guess no one on this site would have voted for Abraham Lincoln of Illinois either--he also had little experience and "never beat anyone".

    re: Lincoln (none / 0) (#7)
    by qwerty on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:11:25 PM EST
    I haven't looked into this comparison at all yet (and I don't have a horse in the race yet), but my first thought is that whatever Lincoln and Obama have in common, it's as important, if not more important, to compare social and political climates in the US during the two elections.  What Americans are looking for and/or drawn to may be very different, or, they may be very much the same.

    And really, I just don't even know that it's possible to compare any election form the 1800's to a modern election, given the impact that the evolution of communication has had on elections-- from the speed with which news travels to the fact that everyone knows what the candidates look like.

    So, I guess I'm going to go do a little research now.

    Parent

    No mulligans (none / 0) (#9)
    by Hermes on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:28:13 AM EST
    Gore and Kerry both whiffed on Republican election fraud.  Hillary whiffed on health care reform and teamed with Gore to enable Bill the Sex Addict, who knocked the bar further down and paved the way for Bush the Junkie.  Not one of them deserves a mulligan. Obama has little to show for his two years in the Senate.  He has no chance until at least 2016, and  even then, only gets greenlighted if racism has shriveled.

    Hillary will (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:58:59 AM EST
    win the nomination and run in 2008. There's no stopping her now. If the Demos wanted another candidate they should have never elected her the first time. Money, friends and power count.

    Gore won't try for the nomination. At some point someone will set him down and explain the real world to him.

    Obama may give it a go. He won't get past Nebraska. No experience and and when he starts facing a hostile press, he'll fade.

    A year ago I would have said that Hillary couldn't win because she has well above 50% negatives, and people vote against, not for.

    Now, I don't know. After this midterm it appears that the MSN has been successful in carrying enough water for the Demos to convince the public that national security doesn't matter.

    So it will be Rudy vs Hillary a NY vs NY match.
    And given the toughness of both, the hardest fought election in years.

    Gore (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    Q. So is it fair to say that you think global warming