On October 24, Let's Draft Al Gore
Can a doughty band of BlueOregonians, through a semi-guerilla action in October 2006, help determine the identity of the next President? I think we can. Smarter and more important people agree with me. And with your help, on October 24, we will throw some of the first pebbles that will start the avalanche that will convince Al Gore to run for President in 2008.
What’s October 24? That’s the date that Al Gore brings the latest in-person version of “An Inconvenient Truth” to the Rose Garden. The show starts at 8.
Who are the smart important people who agree that we should take advantage of this opportunity to call on Gore to run? So far, I can name State Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo, developer and civic leader John Russell, political consultant Mark Wiener, and BlueOregon’s own Leslie Carlson and Kari Chisholm. And soon, I hope, we will be able to say that hundreds of other BlueOregonians have authorized us to use their names as well ... either because you have commented on this blog to that effect, or have emailed me at cica (*at*) mindspring.com to say “use my name.” (Yes I know we should have a separate “draft Gore” web site and maybe we will soon, but I’ve been too incompetent to do that yet.)
What exactly are we going to do? Well, at a minimum we will put out a press release on October 24 (or maybe the day before) with a list of “Gore ‘08” supporters. My current thinking is that we should throw together some signs and do some marching around the entrance to the Rose Garden and yelling that evening, as well – if some of you are willing to help make signs and march around and yell.
Why might our actions make any difference? Because Gore, so far, does not seem inclined to run … but he is deeply committed to the cause of fighting global warming … and perhaps he can be persuaded that the best weapon against global warming is President Gore. Because Gore seems to be a man with a strong sense of duty … and perhaps a true, grass-roots “Draft Gore” effort will convince him he has a duty to run. And finally, because … well … don’t people like to be asked?
Why is Gore the best candidate? Well, I can speak only for myself; the motives of my co-conspirators are probably slightly different from person to person. But here is a smorgasboard of reasons, from the pragmatic to the sublime:
Do you think Hillary will have a hard time winning a general election? Well, who do you think has the stature and fund-raising potential to take the nomination from Hillary?
Do you think only a strongly anti-war candidate will be able to able to avoid the hopeless “for it and against it” quagmire of a position that John Kerry found himself in? Gore was against the war from Day 1.
Do you (as I do) find Hillary (electability aside) distasteful, partly because of her position on the war; love John Edwards (as I do); but think that (even if Edwards can beat Hillary) the American people will have a hard time electing someone without foreign policy experience to lead the so-called “War on Terror”? Gore has that experience, and the American people know it. Like Nixon in ’68, he is a reassuringly familiar figure in troubled times.
Do you believe that history repeats itself? Are you even remotely superstitious? In 1960, an incumbent Vice-President with a notably “stiff” public persona lost a close and possibly stolen election. In 1968, in the midst of an increasingly unpopular war, he came back to win.
Do you believe that global warming is the greatest threat human beings have ever faced? Then -- who but Al Gore should take the lead in facing down that threat?
Do you believe that Americans like the comeback, and sympathize with someone who wuz robbed?
Do you have a better idea?
Let’s do this thing. Let’s make it happen. Give us your names, give us your support, pledge us your lives, your fortunes, and your sacred honor.
On October 24, let’s draft Al Gore.
|
October 1, 2006 |
Steve Novick | Comments (86 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: 17yearoldwithanopinion | Oct 1, 2006 9:51:57 PM
has he improved his speaking skills since 2000 because he was pretty poor at it in 2000.
Posted by: Jack Bog | Oct 1, 2006 10:16:49 PM
Like Nixon in ’68, he is a reassuringly familiar figure in troubled times.
Reality check here.
Posted by: activist kaza | Oct 1, 2006 10:26:18 PM
I backed Wes Clark in 2004 (the candidate the Bushies most feared) but agree that Gore would be a compelling choice in 2008...he's come a LONG way from 2000. Assuming McCain is the R nominee, I'd go so far as to say I think only Gore or Clark has a real chance of winning the general election.
But do you really think Al will take on Hillary? I don't...and if she doesn't run, it will only energize the rest of the field. With Nevada and South Carolina featuring in the front-loaded nominating process along with NH and Iowa, can anybody run that table???
I don't know, but I think I like Clark's chances better this time around. So who's your number two when Al passes on the draft, Steve?
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Oct 1, 2006 10:33:18 PM
Gore...Lieberman? I may even have a few bumper stickers left from last time.
Do you believe that history repeats itself?...in 1968, in the midst of an increasingly unpopular war, (Nixon) came back to win.
That was because the Democratic Party establishment ran a candidate who supported that unjust, immoral and pointless war.
Do it again, and you'll see history repeat itself.
Posted by: Levon | Oct 1, 2006 10:40:30 PM
If he receives the GOP nomination, does anyone see McCain losing?
Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, John Edwards, Wes Clark.......none of these people can beat McCain.
Sad but true.
Posted by: no gore in 08 | Oct 1, 2006 10:56:19 PM
I'll be with the Democratic nominee.....but please let it not be Gore. The guy simply doesn't connect well with people ordinary folks. You can't win the White House with wonkish people skills...
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 1, 2006 11:14:40 PM
That was because the Democratic Party establishment ran a candidate who supported that unjust, immoral and pointless war. Do it again, and you'll see history repeat itself.
Um, Frank? Al Gore was one of the first to oppose the war. He also endorsed Howard Dean when the entire establishment was lined up against him.
Posted by: ERose | Oct 1, 2006 11:16:52 PM
Someone better make some bold moves. I for one would be tickled to draft someone with an eye to the big picture....someone with high intelligence, compassion & yes....humor. When did Gore get funny? Where was that last time around?
Lately all I see & here is senseless bickering about red and blue yard signs, showing us that even if nothing else has been accomplished in the past 6 years, the media has succeeded in giving us color-coded labels that stuck. All of us know deep down what the big problems are. Solve a couple of those, get some self esteem back. Instead we are petting the sweaty stuff.
Will we argue over mole-hills while we're rolling down mountains...until it is too late? SOMEBODY start something meaningful.
Gore? You betcha. A while back I thought Wesley Clark would be a good candidate....but these last few years have put me clear off anyone from the military.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 1, 2006 11:28:52 PM
As for using my name above... My mother thinks I'm smart, but I'm pretty sure I'm not important. Just another political hack.
Do I think Gore is the most compelling candidate our party has to offer? Yes. Do I think he's going to run? No. Do I think we can change his mind? Yes.
And the most important question... If Gore chooses not to run, can we win the presidency? You're damn right we can. There are quite a few folks that I believe can go all the way - including some who are planning a run, and many who are not.
My list includes (in alpha order): Senator Evan Bayh, General Wesley Clark, Senator John Edwards, Governor John Kitzhaber, Governor Bill Richardson, Governor Brian Schweitzer, Governor Kathleen Sibelius, and Governor Mark Warner.
Posted by: Margery Bare | Oct 1, 2006 11:42:34 PM
I'm on board!!
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Oct 2, 2006 12:21:03 AM
I'm all for Gore. He's so different than he was in 2008-- he seems much more relaxed when speaking in public, connects better with people, and is often times damned funny. I'd love to see him run again. I wonder if those few hundred balloons we have at the office say just Gore, or do they say Lieberman as well? ;)
I must say that Edwards is definitely not on my list. I had a run in with their campaign in 2004 that left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I don't know that I can ever support the man.
My list would include Gore and Richardson. I'm a big Deaner, but I'd like to see him continue building our party right now.
Posted by: LT | Oct 2, 2006 12:24:15 AM
Sorry, I supported Al Gore as far back as 1988. But he seems to speak better (give more rousing speeches) when he is NOT running for President than when he is.
It is time to give newer faces a chance, those who haven't run before or only once before: Dem. Gov. of your choice, Biden, Edwards, Wes Clark, some others.
We need a rousing debate in this country based on newer ideas. It will be an out and out open process in both parties because there is no heir apparent. Besides, I didn't like the way he treated Bill Bradley in 2000.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Oct 2, 2006 5:10:12 AM
Um, Frank? Al Gore was one of the first to oppose the war.
"The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which THE PRESIDENT DESERVES CREDIT, just as he DESERVES CREDIT for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. But in the case of Iraq, we have suffered enormous collateral damage because of the MANNER in which the Administration went about the invasion. (Al Gore, August 7, 2003, remarks to Move-ON, emphasis mine.)
I think that's a little too nuanced to be called "opposed the war". Dontcha' think?
Look, I still have my Kerry poster in our front window. I think of it as a talisman...I want public proof that the jackass in the White House isn't my president. (And, hey, why not draft Kerry? I'm sure he's ready to report for duty again. And he's the only one situated to outspend the Republcians?)
I just don't think the same old, same old is going to create the energy the Dean campaign did. And that's what it's going to take to beat a McCain. Something really different, someone speaking CLEARLY and articulating a message that's understandable to the American people. Enough with the flip-flopping, mealy-mouthed, poll-driven, inching to the middle, trying to figure out what democrats stand for. And, frankly, Gore cut and run when he should have stayed in the fight for the presidency. He owed that to us; he owed that to us to not let this country be taken over by thugs...who he later "credits" for this insane war that's putting America at risk, killing our kids and National Guard, and not doing so much for the Iraqis either.
And, OK, I was being sorta snotty about the Gore-Lieberman thing...but it was Lieberman on the ticket, and we've seen how he turned out? Is the Democratic Party just going to be the Republican Party...only not so much? You ain't gonna stir up the masses with that one.
Posted by: politmuse | Oct 2, 2006 5:14:01 AM
Many of us have been working for a long time towards the same end.
Please sign Draft Gore's petition asking Gore to run in 2008. Almost 12,000 people already have.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/algore2008/
And join our effort. Visit http://www.draftgore.com
Posted by: Timothy | Oct 2, 2006 6:04:38 AM
"Has Al Gore completely lost it? The former veep on Thursday used his time before an assembly of UN diplomats to warn them of the dire impact of cigarette-smoking on the environment."
I think Al has slipped over the edge; so, in a sense, he would be a candidate who is REALLY "different" and "unique" (sarcasm here). Unfortunately, I think the 2000 defeat was more than his psyche could bare. I think it would be a big mistake to retry Al in 2008.
Posted by: james caird | Oct 2, 2006 7:47:38 AM
re-elect Al Gore
Posted by: paulie | Oct 2, 2006 8:18:15 AM
I'm incredulous. I just drove across the county and back. While the other driver was at the wheel I read local newpapers from small, mid and large cities...NONE of which even mentioned Gore as a candidate.
Whom ever started this draft Gore idea has seriously been duped! We need a dump Hillary campaign a heck of a lot more than a draft Gore campaign.
Our country is ready to leave Iraq. The only candidate who can do it with his diplomatic skills and return the military to its proper level, who can't be swiftboated, the candidate who appears not to owe special interests, or the inside beltway folks is Wes Clark.
Posted by: Singh T. Junior | Oct 2, 2006 8:19:03 AM
Al Gore is the most qualified person to be the president. His re-election is imperative for the state of affairs both nationally and internationally. He has shown wisdom and foresight in entire gamut of issues, be it technology, environment, investments, education or entertainment. He is the Swiss-Army-Knife of politics.
Posted by: Jan | Oct 2, 2006 8:49:02 AM
I think that using his important movie to suit your own political agenda is disrespectful to him and his conviction on this issue. As Al Gore stated on Larry King, drafts do not happen anymore, especially in this current corrupted political environment where the majority of people are brainwashed by media and political soundbites. I think personally that it is time to move on and join him in this more important cause for our planet, and let the man think for himself regarding anything else he wishes to pursue in his life. The climate crisis is also not a political issue. Haven't you even been following his interviews? I notice you didn't even mention in this article what you plan to do to join in this most important fight to save our planet. Do you think perhaps that supercedes your selfish political desires at the moment?
What this world now faces is so much more crucial than the fervor to see a political bloodbath match between Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, which is really what this is all about. Just the same old political sound bite business as usual that Mr. Gore himself has stated is toxic and tomfoolery.
We only have a ten year window that assures us a sustainable planet. Al Gore knows what the stakes are as do some of us who really support him, and have faith that he knows what he is doing and is prescient enough to see the future and what it will look like if we continue on the present course. He is now doing great and important work on this and other issues FREELY and it really is sad to see so many who think holding up a sign for him to save them is the extent of the energy they can muster to help him in this cause and we cannot wait until 2008 to face.
Too bad Hillary Clinton wasn't a threat to so many in 2004, then maybe all of those who couldn't step up to the plate then to keep Bush out would have done so instead of abandoning this country and Constitution they all of a sudden quote for their political ends.
Bottomline: Mr. Gore is going to get more done on this issue of the climate crisis from out here as a FREE thinking and speaking man inspiring the grassroots on a GLOBAL scale than he could EVER get done from the confines of a corrupted, military/industrial complex, status quo, bought and sold, DIEBOLD vote counting, toxic beltway that already kicked him to the curb once and ignored his pleas on this issue for the last THIRTY YEARS. The fact that so many can't or won't see that just tells me that this issue that is most important now is just a political talking point to those who only now use it for their own political ends.
Al Gore knows what he needs and wants to do in his life now. I say, let him do it. And here's a novel concept, how about actually doing something to join him in that besides holding up a sign?
Posted by: Harry | Oct 2, 2006 9:08:23 AM
Gore is good. I like Gore. He could beat McCain. Can he beat Hillary?
Hey, how about another Clinton/Gore team? Al has lots of VP experience, and Hillary would need a sharp, experienced VP.
Posted by: Former Salem Staffer | Oct 2, 2006 9:18:22 AM
paulie's right. Al Gore got as close as he was going to get. The same Republicans who were completely indifferent towards John Kerry all HATE Hillary Clinton with a passion. Her entry into the race would ensure a 100 percent Republican turnout.
That being said, Wes Clark has the resume to get it done. National security will continue to dominate the political debate for the immediate future, and the Democrats need a candidate who is credible on defense issues. There is no way any Republican would be able to claim that Clark is weak on defense.
Some of the other people that have been mentioned here--like Gov. Richardson-would also make compelling candidates. But what the party needs the most are fresh faces, not the same guys you've run for the last two cycles.
Posted by: Ben Richards | Oct 2, 2006 9:23:17 AM
Is this right?
Democrats think illegal immigration is NOT a problem
but Global Warming is the biggest problem?
By all means nominate Gore and Global Warming as your banners to victory in '08.
Can't hardly wait!
Posted by: carla | Oct 2, 2006 9:41:36 AM
Personally, I'm more in favor of Clark than I am of Gore. The next President is going to inherit a mess with our military and our reputation. Clark has the foreign policy and military expertise to rebuild.
I would certainly support Gore should he win the nomination, however. He's smart and he's grown alot in the last eight years.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, I think a lot of people in the Dem establishment underestimate how much women (many of whom are on the left) dislike her. I have spoken with numerous women who share my feeling that she stayed with her husband after intense public humiliation in order to be next to power. If she'd do that, she'd do anything.
I recognize that wanting to be President means wanting to have power. But if you're willing to sell yourself out to that degree--you have no business having it.
Posted by: Steve Novick | Oct 2, 2006 9:43:53 AM
HELP! Some of you have said arguably ambivalent things and for others I dont have your full name -- if I can use your name, please state your full name and say "yes, you can use it." Singh, Jenni, ERose, I need clarification from two of you and a full name from ERose ... THANKS!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 2, 2006 10:15:03 AM
We need a dump Hillary campaign a heck of a lot more than a draft Gore campaign.
Same thing, my friend. At least for now.
Posted by: Jan | Oct 2, 2006 10:17:02 AM
Why do you think you need to draft him when he already has the connections, money, and ability to run whenever he feels like it? He obviously doesn't have the inclination to (frankly because it is obvious the man has a conscience and morals) and right now believes that what he is doing along with his investment firm and TV station is the right course for the longterm. Why do people then insist on harrassing the man? To then think you can take credit for "persuading him" for your own political self aggrandizement?
He refused a draft in 2004, so what makes you think he will actually accept one in a system he himself has called toxic? And really, after seeing how ALL of us in this country have betrayed this Constitution by allowing Bush to get as far as he has even now to the point of suspending Habeus Corpus, don't you all find it a bit arrogant to think you can just call on the man who warned us about all of this but was ignored even by his own Party to clean up OUR MESS just because all of sudden you all think it is "easier" to do so?
I think Mr. Gore hit the nail on the head. This political system as set up now is nothing but tomfoolery, and unless you all have a bigger plan to REALLY stand up and to make the status quo system in the beltway fall like the Tower of Mordor in Lord of The Rings, you are simply spinning your wheels.
Posted by: Jan | Oct 2, 2006 10:19:06 AM
We need a dump Hillary campaign a heck of a lot more than a draft Gore campaign.
~~~~
Same thing, my friend. At least for now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, so you really are just using Mr. Gore? I thought as much.
Posted by: Jan | Oct 2, 2006 10:25:01 AM
Carla said:
I recognize that wanting to be President means wanting to have power. But if you're willing to sell yourself out to that degree--you have no business having it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SO true. And having the Presidency of this country means having to sell your soul. And that is something I do not believe Al Gore will do, and frankly, I respect him immensely for it.
Posted by: Zak J. | Oct 2, 2006 10:35:04 AM
Why not draft someone who can actually win, AND whose shown that they're willing to fight back when Republicans steal their victories? Gore didn't show any ability to control the spin about him during of 2000 campaign--he never responded that he was living in a fantasy land where he invented the Internet, was the inspiration for Hollywood love stories, and could leap tall buildings in a single bound. Moreover, he knew he had won Florida, and he gave up. He's a quitter.
He also has the charisma of a turnip. Or did you forget? That tends to matter in a national election.
I'm holding out for Bill Richardson, a man who's shown he has what it takes to be top executive at the state level and for national bureuacracies (Dept. of Energy).
Posted by: Jan | Oct 2, 2006 11:01:43 AM
Posted by: Singh T. Junior | Oct 2, 2006 8:19:03 AM
Al Gore is the most qualified person to be the president. His re-election is imperative for the state of affairs both nationally and internationally. He has shown wisdom and foresight in entire gamut of issues, be it technology, environment, investments, education or entertainment. He is the Swiss-Army-Knife of politics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Same old sound bite speech...Then why wasn't his "reelection" imperative in 2004 to your website and others? Wasn't he good enough to fight for then? You think he is doing all of this now just to give political operatives fodder? How many more years will he be expected to give "Sherman" statements to appease everyone? 2012, 2016, 2020? You all really don't see the higher ideals he is fighting for now and how we all fit into that now, do you? You think he really is the kind of man who would sell himself out by using these issues? Especially when noone would stand to get for him what he won in 2000? Is this "draft" then really being done because people have a sincere reepect for the MAN, or because you think it pennance for the inability to stand up and support him when he and this country needed it the most? In my view, it is way too little, way too late.
Posted by: CBurr | Oct 2, 2006 11:16:04 AM
I not only support drafting Gore, I draft Novick to go to Iowa to help on the ground! Seems only fair...
Posted by: Christy Splitt | Oct 2, 2006 12:36:40 PM
You can use my name... Gore needs to do something with all of the good will he is illiciting. Can he win? Sure, if he listens to whomever has been telling him what to do SINCE 2000.
Posted by: Noelle Hurley | Oct 2, 2006 1:44:36 PM
You can add my name to the list. After hearing him speak about a year ago in Portland, he went right back to the top of my list. Our country needs him!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 2, 2006 2:33:47 PM
Editor's Note: The DraftGore.com ad running on the sidebar is not related to Steve Novick's effort. (Other than that the authors of that site saw this post, and then put up an ad.)
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 2, 2006 2:35:17 PM
This is all very interesting, but if you think you can stop Hillary, try standing on the main line railroad track in Oregon City tonight when the Amtrak Coast Starlight is coming through at 75 miles per hour. Let me know tomorrow morning how that worked out for you. At this point I think my best opportunity as a left wing Democrat / Socialist is to advocate that Hillary choose a liberal running mate. I like C. Delores Tucker, a very well regarded African American woman with excellent credentials.
Al Gore had his moment and he blew it by trying to distance himself from Bill Clinton.
Time to move on, folks.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Oct 2, 2006 3:28:58 PM
I honestly don't think that Hillary has a chance. She's one of those people that is either liked or hated, with few inbetween.
It would be interesting to see a Gore/Clark combo. Gore has the experience, having already been VP. Clark has great military experience. They could make quite the team.
Personally, I'd like to see the president and VP work together more as a team, complementing each other in strengths/weaknesses. While the president has the ultimate say on things, the VP can be heavily involved in the decision making.
Posted by: spicey | Oct 2, 2006 4:09:52 PM
This was one of the weirdest "conversations" I've ever read on this blog. The comments suggesting we not "draft" Gore because we're using him for our own political purposes? Just strange. If he'd make a great president, and he's gotten better at relating to people, and he's championing a cause that we all agree with like global warming, why not draft him and encourage him to run? and have him represent us?
and, I'd love to see Hilary get a chance to run in the primary, too. It will be fantastic to have her out campaigning and speaking her mind. I think she'd make an incredible president. And, I think she could beat McCain, as could any of the people who have been mentioned here.
Posted by: Talan | Oct 2, 2006 4:41:31 PM
Anyone who is updated on Al knows he is by far the best answer to most of our countrys problems. By all means anything that can help encourage Al to run is good. Once he is there people will quickly see why Al Gore is by far the best choice for 08. Thanks for your great work.. Talan
Posted by: Keith Creech | Oct 2, 2006 6:04:09 PM
Count me in! I really hope this works out.
Posted by: H. Wayne Dobbins | Oct 2, 2006 11:19:17 PM
For those paying attention Al Gore was the best and is now even better. There is no one who would be a better President. Has anyone who does not agree listened to a speech he has given in the last 2 years. Believe it or not he has honesty, intelligence and charisma. My alternate pick would be John Kerry. I like Wes Clark but frankly I don't think he is all that qualified. A Cabinet position yes, but not on the Democratic ticket. Count me in for Al Gore!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 2, 2006 11:24:25 PM
Here's my take: In 2000, you heard a lot of "there's not difference between Gore and Bush" - and not just from Nader.
Today, folks understand that there certainly was a big difference - and to many Americans, the day that Gore won the popular vote and lost the election was the day that America went wrong.
To all those who argue that Gore can't win popular support, I'll simply point out that he did. He won the popular vote by a half million votes. Don't forget that.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Oct 2, 2006 11:56:13 PM
Great post, Kari. I couldn't have said it better.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Oct 3, 2006 12:11:00 AM
I'd like for two things to happen,
One: win by a statistically meaningful margin
Two: Do it with somebody other than Hillary or Al
"Wait a minute you say," bullsnot, if you've got your panties in a knot over George II's abuse of the Bill of Rights, maybe you ought to take a look at what parts those two find optional. Oooohhh, not nice to demand principle from our annointed duo.
Al's got a nice gig, now, and is in a position to do little harm, why don't we leave him alone. As for Hillary, if you like Presidential asskickings, go right on ahead, I personally would like to win one.
Posted by: Jan | Oct 3, 2006 4:38:24 AM
"You can use my name... Gore needs to do something with all of the good will he is illiciting. Can he win? Sure, if he listens to whomever has been telling him what to do SINCE 2000."
GORE needs to do something? How arrogant. HE IS DOING SOMETHING NOW, something VERY important to get US to take action to save our planet, only people here don't seem to care unless he does it the way they want it done, which actually in my view has turned him off to running. How soon before someone states that he needs to lose weight? Or change his hair? Or not wear black? Or talk a certain way? Or not to say this or that? Please, NOTHING has changed in how campaigns are run in this country (as he has eluded to many times in his speeches regarding Democracy which obviously not too many people even listened to,) and from the looks of all the "draft sites" that will now be competing to be "number one" with all those doing it because they are "auditioning" for attention instead of focusing on his vision, nothing has changed there either. And I know that for a fact because I was involved in Draft 2004 and I left it because all it was was an ego contest with people looking for attention and vying for positions. Nothing of real substance on issues was done. It was just a popularity contest. Look already how fast one site rushed to get an ad up here, because God forbid another one beat them to it. Same old thing as always. Not thinking of the man and his feelings, just to get him out there to whip Hillary Clinton's butt to say you won something.
If Mr. Gore wishes to run for any office, he will, and I can't believe how oblivious so many people are to the REALITY of this situation. Not ONE comment about the climate crisis that is indeed a "planetary emergency" that needs ALL of us to work on now has been posted here. And I will tell you this, the response to his call for action on this is defintely showing him who the people who care really are. Why haven't you all applied to learn his slideshow in Nashville if you support him so much? Seems to me like you still want him to do all the work while you take the credit. That is all a draft movement is to me, and I say, it is a waste of energy that could be put towards moving people ourselves to see the urgency of what we need to do now to mitigate the effects of climate change, which are real. We don't have until 2008 to do that. I don't know how many times people need to be told that before they truly see the urgency of this and where he is coming from.
There is also absolutely NO guarantee that Al Gore will win any election for President, and he knows that as well. That isn't because he isn't qualified to do so. That is because the real puppetmasters of this government will do all in their power to keep him out and to divert any talk from his work on this issue, and it will just be the same 30 second soundbite mudslinging rhetoric we always see, and we don't have time for that right now. Some things are more important than drafts and even presidential campaigns, especially ones like those run in this country. Such a shame so many don't seem to have the vision he has to understand that.
Posted by: Jan | Oct 3, 2006 6:22:37 AM
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 2, 2006 11:24:25 PM
Here's my take: In 2000, you heard a lot of "there's not difference between Gore and Bush" - and not just from Nader.
Today, folks understand that there certainly was a big difference - and to many Americans, the day that Gore won the popular vote and lost the election was the day that America went wrong.
To all those who argue that Gore can't win popular support, I'll simply point out that he did. He won the popular vote by a half million votes. Don't forget that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then where were those millions when the USSC handed the election to Bush? Mr. Gore also won the electoral vote because Florida's electoral votes were unconstitutional. However, I didn't see those millions out in the streets for Mr. Gore or this Constitution then. My PAC even tried to do something about that decision by entreating Congress to remedy it by amendment or some other remedy, but we were called crackpots by other Gore groups for even attempting something, and we were ignored by members of Congress we contacted about it. That in and of itself spoke volumes to me about the people of this country and their representatives when it comes to caring about their Democracy and supporting someone. Think it would be any different now?
Many I talked to also claimed they voted for Al Gore because he was the "lesser of two evils", and many just vote straight partyline no matter whose name is on the ballot. Sad, but realistic. However, if as you claim here every single one of those millions who voted for Mr. Gore in 2000 did so because they support HIM and believe in HIM, then where again were those millions in 2004 in screaming for justice and for the man they believed in?
You see, that is why this all looks so political to me, and not from the heart. To me, if you believe in someone you stand up for them whether it is "popular" or not come hell or high water, not only when it is convenient to do so. Had Mr. Gore not made this important film, written his companion book, and made any speeches in the last few years how many would even care to "draft" him?
Is this then from the heart, or just for political expedience? It makes a difference. And in my view, if you had to TELL people there was a difference between Gore and Bush, then they didn't deserve Al Gore then, and they most certainly don't deserve him now. Especially the millions who voted for Bush in 2004, and probably would again despite their crimes, and those from both parties who have enabled them all these six years. Right now, we don't need a draft, what we need is an impeachment. Where's the support for that?
Posted by: Singh T. Junior | Oct 3, 2006 7:03:41 AM
Posted by: Jan | Oct 2, 2006 11:01:43 AM
Same old sound bite speech...Then why wasn't his "reelection" imperative in 2004 to your website and others? Wasn't he good enough to fight for then? You think he is doing all of this now just to give political operatives fodder? How many more years will he be expected to give "Sherman" statements to appease everyone? 2012, 2016, 2020? You all really don't see the higher ideals he is fighting for now and how we all fit into that now, do you? You think he really is the kind of man who would sell himself out by using these issues? Especially when noone would stand to get for him what he won in 2000? Is this "draft" then really being done because people have a sincere reepect for the MAN, or because you think it pennance for the inability to stand up and support him when he and this country needed it the most? In my view, it is way too little, way too late.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You could be more wrong, but it is hard to imagine how. Draft Gore movement has been alive since 2000. In 2002/3 an incredible attempt to draft was made by various groups and many human hours were spent in opening phone banks, printing newspaper ads, fund raising, and sending letters to representatives. Your comments are insensitive to those who have been working hard for years to bring about the change in the political course. Off course, when Al Gore decided to endorse Dr. Dean, the movement came to a temporary halt. Nevertheless, the spirit is still there and the cause is more urgent than ever.
Posted by: earthmother | Oct 3, 2006 1:24:08 PM
Hi, Singh. EM here. Good to see you in another context.
I agree with your comment that this call to action ignores previous Draft Gore movements. We did try with all our might to get Gore to run in '04. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, he wasn't ready to jump back into the ring. 2008 may be a different story. We honestly don't know what he intends to do. There are those who believe that he will need to be asked, in which case Steve Novick's plan makes sense. There is already an active Draft Gore movement (draftgore.org, as well as draftgore.com, which, to the best of my knowledge, are two different sites). In addition there are sites such as ours (Al Gore Support Center: http://z8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support/index.php?act=idx and AlGore.org). There is also http://www.gorenet.org/portal/. I hope that Steve Novick has contacted these groups for help with his effort. We would do much better to all be working together on movements like this than striking out on our own.
I would suggest to Steve Novick that he contact all of the organizations I've listed above and any others I've missed. Urge people to sign on to this movement. It can start here. It has to start somewhere.
One word of caution, however: Back in the spring, when "An Inconvenient Truth" was being released across the country, I was part of a large movement to make the public aware of Gore as a viable candidate for '08. We encountered a lot of resistance at the time because people accused us of politicizing the movie and Gore's global warming message. I don't believe we were, but many see it that way. Just be aware that you may encounter similar resistance with this effort. However, we are getting closer and closer to the time when candidates will be announcing their intentions of '08. Gore must be made aware of how strong his support is. He needs to believe that if he runs, he could win. Think how horrible it would be in January '09 to say to ourselves: If only we had been able to all work together.
Let's show him we're ready to back him up if he will jump in the race.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: jeff cogen | Oct 1, 2006 8:49:07 PM
Count me in.