is that he hasn't endorsed anyone yet, and that he is standing on the side.

The story is that he didn't run because didn't have it in his heart to go through a divisive campaign.

I too wanted Gore to run, but the thing about this scenario that I am not getting is that the only way for Obama to fail to get the delegates to win the nomination is if the superdelegates refuse to vote for either candidate.  As you say in the quote above, they would have to conclude that both Clinton and Obama are too damaged to win the general.  I suppose that would imply that the superdelegates would also have concluded that someone else would need to be the nominee.  And that also requires a huge leap in that the easy way out for the superdelegates would be to just close their eyes and vote for one of Clinton or Obama and hope for the best.

Right now I would say that Clinton is already in the "too damaged to win" territory.  Her negatives have been steadily climbing.  The Wright story doesn't seem to have damaged Obama in any substantive way - if Clinton is hoping to damage Obama, they will need to find something else.

is that Al Gore was always my #1 choice for president in 2008.   In the fall, I finally gave up on any prospect that he might run and started looking for a candidate to back among Clinton, Edwards, Obama et al.  I started with "leaning Clinton," then came really close to endorsing Edwards, then finally decided that Obama had found his voice (and also was turned off by the Clinton campaign) while Edwards couldn't win after he finished second in Iowa.  Also, Obama inspired me.  But still, I guess in the back of my mind there's always been Al Gore, and the current, nasty, seemingly endless battle between Clinton and Obama has brought him back to the front of my mind.  I'm skeptical, but I can see possible scenarios where a deeply divided Democratic Party turns to Gore and says, essentially, "save us!"  If Gore picked Barack Obama as his running mate, I'd be thrilled with that scenario, although currently I'd put the chances of that happening as no better than 1 in 5 (but increasing by the day).

Aside from Samantha Power (who had to resign), I have felt that Obama's campaign has been exceptionally professional and polite - almost to a fault.

Independent supporters (including myself) have been much rougher on Clinton, but the official campaign and Obama himself have been way, way too nice to Clinton.

I suspect it is because of the old saying that in politics there are no friends and no enemies; that everyone may need to be an ally someday; though Clinton's campaign has been willing to burn a surprising number of bridges if that axiom is true.

So did I miss something?

I'd actually like to hear that the official campaign trashed Clinton on something in a negative fashion...  mostly everything I have heard has been pointing out the obvious truths.

this blog, I assign 90%+ of the blame for the nastiness in the Obama-Clinton contest to the Clinton campaign and its supporters. However, all you have to do is check out some of the pro-Obama blogs and you'll see plenty of anti-Clinton nastiness too.  And no, that didn't just start in the last few months; a year ago, two years ago, Clinton was being blasted regularly as a "DLC Democrat," among the nicer things said about her.  That wasn't by the Obama campaign, but it was by many people who eventually became Obama supporters. Anyway, just trying to be fair here...

I agree that there's been plenty of anti-Clinton nastiness on the blogs, but it's strange to point to "DLC Democrat" as a beyond-the-pale insult when Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative.

That's one of the insults hurled at Clinton, as if being a member of the DLC means you're not a Democrat or whatever. By that reasoning, I guess none of the following are real Democrats either:

   * Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri (1985 - 1986)
   * Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia (1986 - 1988)
   * Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia (1988 - 1990)
   * Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas (1990 - 1991)
   * Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana (1991 - 1993)
   * Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma (1993 - 1995)
   * Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut (1995 - 2001)
   * Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana (2001 - 2005)
   * Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa (2005 - 2007)
   * Former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee (2007 - present)

Or any of the following (note that Al Gore and John Kerry are on this list?):

Brian Baird
Politician
7-Mar-1956   Congressman, Washington 3rd
Max Baucus
Politician
11-Dec-1941   US Senator from Montana
Evan Bayh
Politician
26-Dec-1955   US Senator from Indiana
Shelley Berkley
Politician
20-Jan-1951   Congresswoman, Nevada 1st
John Breaux
Politician
1-Mar-1944   US Senator from Louisiana, 1987-2005
Maria Cantwell
Politician
13-Oct-1958   US Senator from Washington
Lois Capps
Politician
10-Jan-1938   Congresswoman, California 23rd
Russ Carnahan
Politician
10-Jul-1958   Congressman, Missouri 3rd
Thomas Carper
Politician
23-Jan-1947   US Senator from Delaware
Ed Case
Politician
27-Sep-1952   Congressman, Hawaii 2nd
Ben Chandler
Politician
12-Sep-1959   Congressman, Kentucky 6th
Bill Clinton
Head of State
19-Aug-1946   42nd US President, 1993-2001
Hillary Clinton
First Lady
26-Oct-1947   US Senator from New York
Kent Conrad
Politician
12-Mar-1948   US Senator from North Dakota
Bud Cramer
Politician
22-Aug-1947   Congressman, Alabama 5th
Joseph Crowley
Politician
16-Mar-1962   Congressman, New York 7th
Artur Davis
Politician
9-Apr-1967   Congressman, Alabama 7th
Jim Davis
Politician
11-Oct-1957   Congressman, Florida 11th
Susan Davis
Politician
13-Apr-1944   Congresswoman, California 53rd
Cal Dooley
Politician
11-Jan-1954   Congressman from California, 1991-2005
Byron Dorgan
Politician
14-May-1942   US Senator from North Dakota
John Edwards
Politician
10-Jun-1953   2004 Vice Presidential candidate
Rahm Emanuel
Politician
29-Nov-1959   Congressman, Illinois 5th
Eliot Engel
Politician
18-Feb-1947   Congressman, New York 17th
Bob Etheridge
Politician
7-Aug-1941   Congressman, North Carolina 2nd
Dianne Feinstein
Politician
22-Jun-1933   US Senator from California
Harold Ford
Politician
11-May-1970   Congressman from Tennessee, 1997-07
Dick Gephardt
Politician
31-Jan-1941   Congressman from Missouri, 1977-2005
Al Gore
Politician
31-Mar-1948   US Vice President under Clinton
Bob Graham
Politician
9-Nov-1936   US Senator from Florida
Jane Harman
Politician
28-Jun-1945   Congresswoman, California 36th
Brian Higgins
Politician
6-Oct-1959   Congressman, New York 27th
Rush Holt
Politician
15-Oct-1948   Congressman, New Jersey 12th
Darlene Hooley
Politician
4-Apr-1939   Congresswoman, Oregon 5th
Jay Inslee
Politician
9-Feb-1951   Congressman, Washington 1st
Steve Israel
Politician
30-May-1958   Congressman, New York 2nd
Tim Johnson
Politician
28-Dec-1946   US Senator from South Dakota
Bob Kerrey
Politician
27-Aug-1943   Governor and Senator from Nebraska
John Kerry
Politician
11-Dec-1943   US Senator from Massachusetts
Ron Kind
Politician
16-Mar-1963   Congressman, Wisconsin 3rd
Herb Kohl
Politician
7-Feb-1935   US Senator from Wisconsin
Mary Landrieu
Politician
23-Nov-1955   US Senator from Louisiana
Rick Larsen
Politician
15-Jun-1965   Congressman, Washington 2nd
John Larson
Politician
22-Jul-1948   Congressman, Connecticut 1st
Joseph Lieberman
Politician
24-Feb-1942   US Senator from Connecticut
Blanche Lincoln
Politician
30-Sep-1960   US Senator from Arkansas
Zoe Lofgren
Politician
21-Dec-1947   Congresswoman, California 16th
Terry McAuliffe
Politician
1957   Clinton's Chairman of the DNC
Carolyn McCarthy
Politician
5-Jan-1944   Congresswoman, New York 4th
Mike McIntyre
Politician
6-Aug-1956   Congressman, North Carolina 7th
Mack McLarty
Government
1946   White House Chief of Staff, 1993-94
Gregory Meeks
Politician
25-Sep-1953   Congressman, New York 6th
Juanita Millender-McDonald
Politician
7-Sep-1938 22-Apr-2007 Congresswoman from California, 1996-2007
Dennis Moore
Politician
8-Nov-1945   Congressman, Kansas 3rd
Jim Moran
Politician
16-May-1945   Congressman, Virginia 8th
Ben Nelson
Politician
17-May-1941   US Senator from Nebraska
Bill Nelson
Politician
29-Sep-1942   US Senator from Florida
Gavin Newsom
Politician
10-Oct-1967   Mayor of San Francisco
Sam Nunn
Politician
8-Sep-1938   US Senator from Georgia, 1972-97
David Price
Politician
17-Aug-1940   Congressman, North Carolina 4th
Mark Pryor
Politician
10-Jan-1963   US Senator from Arkansas
Chuck Robb
Politician
26-Jun-1939   US Senator from Virginia, 1989-2001
Timothy J. Roemer
Politician
30-Oct-1956   9-11 Commission member
Loretta Sanchez
Politician
7-Jan-1960   Congresswoman, California 47th
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Politician
3-Dec-1970   Congresswoman, South Dakota
Adam Schiff
Politician
22-Jun-1960   Congressman, California 29th
Allyson Schwartz
Politician
3-Oct-1948   Congresswoman, Pennsylvania 13th
David Scott
Politician
27-Jun-1946   Congressman, Georgia 13th
Adam Smith
Politician
15-Jun-1965   Congressman, Washington 9th
Debbie Stabenow
Politician
29-Apr-1950   US Senator from Michigan
John Tanner
Politician
22-Sep-1944   Congressman, Tennessee 8th
Ellen Tauscher
Politician
15-Nov-1951   Congresswoman, California 10th
Tom Udall
Politician
18-May-1948   Congressman, New Mexico 3rd
Anthony A. Williams
Politician
28-Jul-1951   Mayor of Washington DC, 1999-2007
David Wu
Politician
8-Apr-1955   Congressman, Oregon 1st

it is too reminiscent of 1968, where Humphrey got the nomination without submitting to the primary process.  I would view that as a return to boss-run politics.  

And I am quite certain that a Gore-Clinton ticket is totally unacceptable to many of the Obama supporters.  The Clinton campaign has placed her outside the pale of acceptability for many Democrats, and I would suspect that would apply to the VP slot as well, whether with Obama or with Gore.

but was denied the presidency in an outrageous series of events culminating in a partisan Supreme Court decision that shall live in infamy. The way I see it, Gore has more than paid his electoral dues, would be a popular choice, and would certainly not represent a return to "boss-run politics."  However, I grant you that the Gore scenario would be highly unusual and would present its own set of problems/challenges.  We'll see, but I'm very much open to the idea at this point.

after 1st (unanimous) decision for a recount in the Florida Supreme Court  had occurred, Tom Feeney, then Speaker of Florida House had started the process of legislatively designating a slate of electors for Bush.  Had SCOTUS not shut down the 2nd recount, that process would have been accomplished within abou 2 days, and Jeb would have signe

And I point you at the following, from Article I Section 2 of the Constitution, and note the bolding:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

It was entirely within their power to so act, and such a slate of electors ultimately would have had to be accepted.

The U.S. Supreme court most certainly did decide the 2000 election when it overruled the Florida Supreme court order of a recount.

While it is true that the Florida State might have voted to designate a slate of electors for Bush, and that Jeb Bush would have signed it, you statement that "such a slate of electors ultimately would have had to be accepted," (emphasis added), doesn't seem right.

I am not an expert in this stuff by any means, but had a recount showed Gore the victor in Florida, then the action of the state legislature appointing electors at variance with the election results would most certainly not pass Constitutional muster. The state legislature may determine the manner of appointment (i.e., by  popular vote), but once it does so, it clearly cannot, consistent with any notion of equal protection, change the manner after the fact.

My recollection is that the SCOF ordered the recount based on its reading of the Florida State Constitution. The Florida Legislature could not have invalidated this decision -- the court was clearly acting within its jurisdiction when it did so.

'The U.S. Supreme Court decision is quite convoluted and therefore difficult to explain, but again, my best recollection is that the SCOTUS held that the SCOF's decision interpreting their own state Constitution violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This decision was a prerequisite to the Florida legislature's appointment of a Bush slate of electors.

The simplest way to put it is that Article I, Section 2 instructs and empowers the States to act but, when they do so, their actions will be subject to review under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution.

I'm a fan of Gore (though I worry that much of his appeal for many people would vanish as soon as he became a candidate again). But I'm extremely skeptical that this idea would work.

Obama supporters are supposed to find it acceptable that the Powers That Be decide to take away the nomination that he won by any normal measure in a historic contest and give it to someone else (and a white man at that)? I can't see Clinton supporters being happy, either -- at least with Obama they can eventually accept the idea that he beat her fair and square, and I believe most will.

...I'm even more skeptical of this thing dragging on for 5 more months, during which time Obama and Clinton pound the crap out of each other while John McCain cruises along without anyone laying a glove on him.  To me, that ends up spelling GOP victory in November, and that's completely unacceptable to me.

because we have two good candidates in a primary right now.  I don't see the benefit in tossing them aside to bring Gore in -- since that will further (and seriously) fracture the base.

The idea is to figure out a way to beat John McCain this November, that's what a lot of high-ranking Democrats are talking about (because they're worried about what they're seeing).

We're going to ask the white Southern male to step in to save the black guy and the woman from themselves and THAT's not going to be a divisive event for the voters?

There's no way to invite Al Gore in and not make it look like he's being asked to pick up the white man's burden once again.  This isn't a knock on Gore, but I can't understand how issuing such an invitation to Gore wouldn't destroy all the inroads the Democratic party has made with minorities and the young.  Moreover, the voters didn't vote for Gore.  They voted for Obama and Clinton.  Wouldn't this be disenfranchising the voters?  

Do you want to win the White House this November or not?  Presuming that the answer is "yes," how do you propose to do that if the Democratic Party is in tatters because of a knock-down, drag-out Clinton-Obama slugfest?

and think that to avoid a knock down drag out slugfest both Clinton and Obama should float their serious VP choices - or get someone on their ticket.  They need to add to their strengths and use that strength against McCain.

Are you saying that a knock-down, drag-out Clinton-Obama slugfest through the convention would be a good thing?  If so, I strongly disagree.

don't throw the baby out with the bath water

that the winner of the most delegates after the final contests in June be ratified by the remaining super-delegates, and give the nomination to the candidate that has earned the majority of support from Democrats, and that we then win the general election in November!

The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Former Gore aides now believe he could emerge as a compromise candidate acceptable to both camps at the party's convention in Denver during the last week of August.

How can a "compromise candidate acceptable to both camps" be "disenfranchising the voters?"  As a strong Obama supporter, I'd be thrilled with Gore-Obama 2008.  On the other hand, imagine if Hillary Clinton somehow emerged victorious from the convention, what shape would the party be in after that?!?

It's one thing to have a bloodbath between two candidates struggling for the nomination, and quite another to say that the only solution is to take the ultimate prize away from them and give it to someone else.  It would be tantamount to admitting that neither one of them can carry the election, which makes the Democrats look so weak and leaderless that they need to bring in a savior who happens to be a white male.   Do proponents of this compromise honestly believe that they'd get the kind of turnout and enthusiasm we've been seeing with the Obama/Clinton campaigns?  

I've seen this talk of the worry among some Dems that neither candidate can win against McCain because the best the surveys show is that they're even against him or slightly behind.  But look at the numbers from the primary votes - more voters have voted for Obama and more voters have voted for Clinton than have voted for McCain.  McCain doesn't have any groundswell of popular support.  Even people voting for him mostly say they're doing so because he's the only one they can think of voting for right now.  He's made major missteps which, if he weren't Teflon and deemed immune from criticism by the so-called liberal MSM, should have shot him down already.  Neither Obama nor Clinton has spent any real time campaigning against McCain.  Why should we conclude that a properly run campaign CAN'T win against him without bringing in a white knight to save the Dems from themselves?  

I'm watching Fox News Sunday right now and seeing these polls claiming that 28% of Clinton's supporters would go to McCain and 19% to Obama.  What a bunch of hoohaw.  Sure, there are going to be voters lost, but faced with what is essentially a third Bush term most of even these voters are going to come around and stop pouting.  When push comes to shove they're not going to stand in the voting booth and push the button for the guy who's telling them he's going to keep us in the war and keep the same economic policies as his idiot predecessor.  Some are going to stay home, but the vast majority will drag themselves into the voting booth whining and cursing and will hold their noses and vote for the Democratic candidate.  

As mentioned above, the Democratic bosses handed the nomination in 1968 to Hubert Humphrey, denying the popularity of anti-war candidates Ted Kennedy, Gene McCarthy, and George McGovern.

Did the Democratic and progressive-leaning independent voters drag themselves to the polls and vote for Humphrey to prevent a Nixon presidency?  No, they stayed home in droves and waited for 1972.  Of course, the Democratic Young Turks then proceeded to adopt a "better to lose and be right than win" philosophy and the Nixon landslide of 1972 resulted.  That eventually led to the 1984 primary reforms and the creation of the superdelegates.

I find it interesting that although the Republican Party is right now more weak and irrelevant than it has ever been since 1932, the Democratic Party seems intent on destroying itself.  Denver is going to make Chicago 68 look like a church social.

I think it will all be over on June 1st or around there.  Senator Clinton will concede graciously (I say this only because polling here on out shows her still losing the popular vote and total pledged delegate count).  And it will be a freakin' love fest in Denver.  

Alternatively, if Senator Clinton pulls off a stunning upset in pledged delegates, then I expect in June for Senator Obama to concede graciously.  And then it would be a combined Clinton/Obama ticket.  And proceed again to a freakin' love fest in Denver.

I don't see disaster yet.  As we get closer to the all important primary in Puerto Rico (I know it sounds crazy to even write it down), we'll have a better idea of whether it will be a love fest or bar room brawl.  As an aside, who could imagine a U.S. Territory that doesn't even have voting representation in Congress and no electoral votes would be important in selecting a nominee for president?  What a crazy world in which we live!

the key battlegrounds will be Pennsylvania, North Carolina and to a lesser extent, Indiana.

Essentially, Clinton will need to run the table on those three (a 10+ vicotry in Pa., an upset in N.C., and a win in In.).

If she doesn't accomplish that, she realizes she will have to concede at some point. The only issue then will be the terms of and manner in which she does.  

Also, if Clinton somehow pulls off an upset in pledged delegates, "stunning" would not be the proper adjective for it. "Miraculous" would.

...are you sure "she realizes she will have to concede at some point?"  That's not what the Washington Post article today indicated.  To the contrary, Clinton says she's going to the convention no matter what.  

That HRC says a lot of things.  These statements are not always indicative of what she will actually do.

And for the Clintonistas out there, that isn't to say that Obama doesn't do the same thing.

And say, "I told you so?"  Neither Clinton nor Obama is going to concede anything, graciously or otherwise.  This thing is going to be a floor fight in Denver and here is why:

*neither Obama nor Clinton can possibly score a knock-out blow on the other in the remaining contests.  Proportional delegate awarding means that each can claim some measure of victory no matter what the outcomes of the PA, et al, primaries.

*the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegations will not simply go away.  There is way too much pent-up energy there, esp. in the case of Florida where the Republican legislature forced the DNC's hand.

*the Democratic nominee is still widely-assumed to be more electable than McCain.  This makes the stakes too high for both Obama and Clinton.  2008 means "win or go home" since whoever gets the nomination gets the White House and leadership of the Democratic Party for at least the next 8 years.

but either way, it may not be June 1. It may be June 15.

But this thing is not going to the convention or a floor fight. Enough superdelegates will step in before then, IMHO, to give it to either Obama or Clinton.

The main issue to take to the floor will be the seating of the MI and FL delegations. If by the end of June Obama has a majority sewn up because he has enough superdelegates, which would likely occur in order to avoid a floor fight, the issue of MI and FL becomes moot, does it not?

On the other hand, if after PA, NC and IN, there are enough superdelegates to give the election to Clinton, it will likely be only because there is a good reason that is transparent to the party.

On the other hand, if you believe both Clinton and Obama prefer to destroy their own careers as well as the hopes of their political party for perhaps the next several election cycles, rather than concede an election after they have lost it, then you could be right. Either could make a lot of trouble at the convention.

For what reason is the question.

I am assuming that once these upcoming primaries play out, and the writing is on the wall, she will do what is right because it will be in her interest to do so.  But she has not given up yet.

Interestingly, she apparently contacted the Post specifically to get this story out there. This leads me to think she is just trying to prevent pressure for her to drop out from possibly building too strong prior to April 22 by signaling that such pressure is driving her in the exact opposite direction.

I could make a case either way as to who is being hurt more in this election cycle.  But 1968 is not a good analogy.  

There are two significant differences.  The first is that the unpopular Vietnam War was perceived as being President Johnson's war.  Hubert Humphrey, who won the nomination, was a representative of the incumbent party.  The unpopular war today, in Iraq, is viewed as a Republican war.  The rapidly deteriorating economy is also viewed as a Republican failure.  Unlike in 1968, the Democrats are not the ones in the White House.

Two, there were riots in the streets of Chicago and the nightly news showed young protesters being tear gassed and beaten by Mayor Daley's police, who were perceived as representatives of the incumbent party.

I doubt there will be riots in Denver and the Democrats haven't been in the White House for eight years.

Whoever wins the nomination, will have time to make the case against McCain.  But it is dangerous that by the time that happens, McCain will have had months to define himself to the public, largely unchallenged.

BTW, I love a Gore Obama ticket - I don't think Gore would run with Hillary.  But then I've always been a Gore supporter.  

That said, I honestly don't think he's interested (sob).  It would take a heap of convincing to get him to run.  Can we start making the case publicly now?

One word to describe how I'd feel if there were a Gore-Obama ticket or even an Obama-Gore ticket.

Al Gore has a unique position in the zeitgeist of our society... he is being listened to far beyond even ex-Presidents.  He should continue to use that incredibly benign power for good, as he has been doing.  Having him stay out of the fray is a good idea.

This election (both the primary and the general) is over.  Obama will be our next president.  My only concern is wether we will all be willing to work hard with him to undo as much of the Bush damage as we can by 2012; or he'll be a one-term president.  There is a world of hurt coming to the American people, and they are an amazing people - but they don't accept blame for anything, even when it is their due.  Can voters forgive anyone in the office when the country goes into full-fledged recession?  Has to deal with two long-running and pointless wars?  Has to live with an unbalanced supreme court?

Obama cannot fix those things alone, he'll need independent progressive voices to help get people involved.  Gore's best position is doing what he is doing now.

He lost to Dubya.  Nuff'ced.

See Lowell's comment above. I don't necessarily oppose the Electoral College--it has its pros and cons--but any objective observer would have to admit that what happened in 2000 went beyond the simple-but-rare constitutional quirk of electors overturning the popular vote.

I was in Florida visiting my parents right after the election, so I had a ringside seat to what went on, plus I was a Florida Young Democrat in the 1980s, so I also knew a lot of the players in the recount.

It wasn't the hanging chads that did in Gore's chances.  Although that has been widely covered and remains the popular perception.

What really lost the campaign were the butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County.  They were designed by Supervisor of Elections, Theresa Lepore, to make it easier voters.  But instead, they proved to be incredibly confusing and senior citizens in condos, who normally vote straight Democratic, were voting for Pat Buchanan by mistake.  Here's what CNN said at the time.

WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- Voters confused by Palm Beach County's butterfly ballot cost Al Gore the presidency, The Palm Beach Post concluded Sunday.

The newspaper's review of discarded ballots found Gore lost 6,607 votes when voters marked more than one name on the county's "butterfly ballot." A leading Republican called the finding "speculation."

Voters who marked Gore's name and that of another candidate totaled more than 10 times the winning margin Bush received to claim Florida's 25 electoral votes and the White House, the Post concluded. The newspaper said the result was "an indictment of the butterfly ballot, political experts and partisan observers agree."

The tragedy is that, unlike the hanging chads, there was no recount of the butterfly ballots.  They were simply discarded. Legally, they couldn't be counted and because there was no intentional fraud, just confused voters, there was no recourse to re doing the election.

Morally and ethically Al Gore should have won Florida.  But the screw ups cost him the election legally.

Plus, the re-count was mostly concerned with the undervotes -- ballots where no choice for President was recorded. However, there were many, many more ballots with overvotes -- where people voted for Gore, and then also wrote him in, especially in heavily African-American districts. These votes were never in play.

If a full recount, examining all ballots under the standard of best discerning the voters' intent, had been undertaken, Gore would have won if all the overvotes were counted, even discounting the Palm Beach mishaps.

The Supreme Court completely undercut legitimate state judicial decisions by inventing a heretofore unknown precedent for voting rights. Bush v. Gore was about as abominable a case  in election law/voting rights law as this country has ever seen, excluding all the Jim Crow and apartheid decisions issues over the years.

Yes, the Florida legislature could then have used that as an excuse to ratify the slate of electors for Bush anyways -- but at least that would have happened under a constitutionally and democratically accountable method, and those FL legislators could have been held accountable for their actions and would have to think twice before doing so. The decision by the Rehnquist court is in many ways the perfectly symbolic legal decision for this accountability-free politics since the year 2000.

Barack deserves the nomination. He has fought hard and responded extremely well under pressure from critics.   Gore should have gotten into the race a long time ago.  I would like to see Gore and Edwards endorse Obama.  I foresee an Obama-Richardson ticket.

In most states Obama has blitzed (like Wisconsin) he has overcome earlier Clinton leads of 10 points and won. I see Obama gaining a lot of traction in Pennsylvania and he's drawing great crowds.
I predict he'll be within five points before the primary election April 22. Those endorsements by Bill Casey, Jerome Bettis and Franco Harris have traction, and I'm sure the race will crescendo over the next 3 weeks. Don't be surprised if Barack pulls an upset in Pennsylvania and HRC is forced to withdraw, which is clearly the only way she will withdraw.
That would be a lot better than turning to a candidate who hasn't even been on a primary ballot.

I expect Obama to be trounced in PA by double digits.  Polling data suggests it.  Also, PA has a lot of lower income, white voters which break for Hillary.  And then you have Hillary's edge with female voters.  It is pretty near impossible for Obama to win.  It's like Ohio, but even more in her favor.  It would take a miracle.  Though since God isn't busy with Mike Huckabee's campaign anymore, maybe he'll lend a hand here.  ;)

When the results of PA come in, I would like to hear DanG say: "I'd be embarrassed to be a Pennsylvanian.  White people in Pennsylvania showed today that they haven't really grown at all in terms of racial development."  I just replaced Mississippi with Pennsylvania.  =)

was that Casey endorsement.  I think Obama on his own can counter Rendell's impact in and around Philly.  The campaign's emphasis on the west of the state -- and the Casey support is what will give Obama a shot at getting this close to single digits.  He still has a steep uphill climb.  He will not win the state this go around.

I think she carries Pennsylvania, realistically.  Casey helps but Rendell remains popular and Murtha is a hero to many Democrats in that state.

And Rendells approval rating has fallen into the 40s according to SurveyUSA (43%), and 30s according to Rasmussen (37%).  Murtha, while a quality endorsement, doesn't quite hit the Casey family name.  Conservative Democrats in PA are literally known as "Casey Democrats."  True, Casey's father is the namesake, but it points out the significance of this endorsement.  Obama already has a pretty solid grip on the state's liberals, especially as Hillary's momentum in the state dies down.  What he needs are the state's conservative Dems.  That's where Casey, who has an approval rating of 62%, could be valuable.

I'm sure Hillary will win PA.  But I don't think it'll be the 16-point blowout she was hoping for.  Obama has 22 days to campaign, and to do so with the most popular Democrat in the state.  And I would hope for Obama to have a nice ad out with Casey in it to reach those blue-collar Dems.

I would be happy with an 8 point loss in PA.  I wasn't aware of the Rendell numbers -- but in closed primary he probably still has enough influence to be a big help.  His campaign networks are a nice get for Clinton.

I think there's a good chance for Obama to have nice wins in Oregon and North Carolina (high 50s in both).  Clinton wins West VA and Kentucky by large margins -- maybe breaks into the 60 territory.  

She wins Indiana by a narrow margin (52-48).  

Obama likely wins Montana and South Dakota.  

Clinton may close the gap a little, but Obama still finishes this long primary season ahead in the pledged delegate count (100+) and popular vote counts (450,000+) and states won.

First, what part of the Patriarch of the Democratic party taking over the ticket with Obama does anyone think will go over well with the women (that is, the subset of all her women supporters) who support HRC primarily because she's the first woman candidate? None. It would be a joke and even I, as a woman and a Hillary hater, would find it heavy-handed in an unpleasant "male" way.

Second, have you ever seen a person whose name is repeatedly brought up as a presidential candidate look less interested in politics? At least Newt Gingrich is out there making political speeches and going on pundit shows. Gore doesn't do any of those things. He has a single mission: the environment. And he is approaching it as either a non-partisan or a bi-partisan, depending on which you prefer, effort.

Watch 60 Minutes tonight. You'll see.

looked at this one -- believe it was Rasmussen -- which ran the three way race and found:

1. Obama 42%
2. Clinton 26%
3. Gore 22%

Essentially what happened was that Obama lost about 4% points of support to Gore while a big chunk of Clinton's support fractured over to the Gore candidacy.  

Pure speculation, but I think there's a segment of Clinton's support that is clearly not entirely comfortable with an Obama candidacy right now (for whatever reason) -- but which sees the writing on the wall and would be willing to support another candidate like Gore before leaning to Obama.

I've tossed the idea around in my mind as well.  Even if Obama were to lose the general election, I think the party would be wise to select him as the candidate.  

I don't think it's morally right or politically productive for Dems to indulge a mindset that any one individual may need to be called upon to "save" us.

In 2000, nearly half the voters voted for Bush, blind to how good things must have been to be able to indulge in the luxury of pretending to be concerned about the President having sex with an intern.

In 2004, Bush got even more votes, because there were enough fear addicts who actually believed a Kerry victory would make it more likely that terrorists would come here and kill them.

In 2008, Dems will again be accused of being insufficiently fearful of both God and terrorists.  A nominee Obama would bring out the racists, and a nominee Clinton would bring out the sexists.  Even if the Dems were to turn to Gore, that would only add cars to the list, along with tax money and guns, that this closet socialist would take away from "ordinary" Americans.

Come Labor Day, if McCain is anywhere close to the Dem nominee in the polls, it'll only mean that we may have to wait another four years for a majority* of voters to grow up.

*a sufficiently large majority, so neither the Supreme Court nor the makers of the voting machines can deny it.

he is who i orignially wanted when the race began. he is more qualified than the two current candidates put together. as a clinton supporter i just don't know if i can bring myself to vote obama in november. i think there is something to that poll stating 28% of clinton supporters will not vote for obama.
gore would be ideal to bring the party together at this time.

Don't get me wrong, i would find no problem with this ticket.  But it isn't going to happen.  It's simply an idea that has been floated around.  

After June 3rd, when Monatana and South Dakota go to the polls,  Al Gore will likely endorse a candidate, and Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will go to work convincing the superdelegates to go public with their support so Obama can get to 2025.  Once he has, the calls for Hillary to get out will just be too big.  If she stays, she's seen as trying to intentionally hurt the candidate.

There are many people who frequently point out that they don't think it would be right if Clinton got the nomination because it would go against the will of the voters and would reek of a back-room deal. Even though Al Gore is extremely popular and I would support him if he did receive the nomination, there'd be people who thought this would even reek more of a back-room deal since he wasn't even on the ballot in any of the states.

I think he would be a great person to bring in as a Vice-Presidential nominee for all the reasons that he'd make a good president. This would simply allow him to be on the ticket without having a feeling of a backroom deal giving him the presidency. That being said, I don't really foresee him taking on that position once again.  

to the trial balloon being floated about Gore as a compromise Democratic candidate (trial balloon mysteriously rising from an obscured original source) is that I have noticed renewed sniping at Gore by those in the media who often seem to signal a new Republican talking point.

At least two times I've heard very vocal smears out of the blue about Gore "inventing the Internet" and a couple of nasty comments about his ego and the many "proven" lies in his silly elitist movie about global warming. Why would the Republican Wurlitzer smear machine suddenly begin wafting out a screech here and there about Gore, when he is not on the political scene right now at all?  Unless, of course, the Super Elite which overlays the grid of both political parties, knows that Gore is indeed being talked about in the background, out of sight of ordinary mortals, and is warming up the Wurlitzer just in case?  

Teddy, with all due respect, just who is this "Super Elite which overlays the grid of both political parties?"

and this very question is supposedly addressed, to my own surprise, in a new book reportedly soon to come out, about who are those I myself call the Super Elite. As it stands, as I've indicated in other posts, the whole point is, the nonreferrential "they" are indeed shadowy, and careful not to be public figures, observable more by their effect than by public pronouncement. (Yeah, I know, infernal conspiracy, on a par with the so-called "Merchants of Death" accused of setting up World War I.)

The point is, the international, extremely wealthy influential class are, without being a formal organisation, able to touch and influence political and financial leaders everywhere to ensure things turn out to their advantage, or perceived advantage.  And why not? The formal charts of organizational command and control never tell the whole story of where true power lies. I look forward to reading the book, which was mentioned but not reviewed, in, I believe, the Post "Book" review some weeks back.    

Thank goodness that at least they are human!

For a moment I was worried that you were referring to the aliens known as the Greys, from Zeta Reticuli.  As everyone knows, they have been co-existing on our planet since 1954 when they landed at Holloman AFB in New Mexico and signed a secret treaty with President Eisenhower (a Republican, of course).

See:  http://www.greatdreams.com/195...

Sleep well tonight knowing that our destiny is only controlled by "the international, extremely wealthy influential class" and not by bugs from outer space.

P.S.  I dearly hope that this didn't sound in the least bit snarky.

I wrote here months ago that someone had told me Obama was a stalking horse for Al Gore. I was put down for suggesting such as outrageous thing.

I wouldn't want Gore to do this. I have not been sending money to Al Gore for months. I've been sending it to Barak Obama. If Mr. Gore would like to head the EPA I think that might be more appropriate. I don't think Gore is a very good speaker and he can't inspire a wide variety of people like Obama can. Heck, I even heard Newt Gingrich say he would work with Obama the other day.

Bill Clinton's immorality at the end of his 2nd term lost the White House for Gore.  Gore has a great reason to endorse Obama.  What does it look like to the independents if the dems continue to float the Gore idea?  Doesn't that make it seem like the dems aren't happy with either Clinton or Obama?  

Gore would never be where Obama is now if he were running. He is not a good candidate. He doesn't come across well when speaking. He doesn't even like being a candidate. Why would Obama supporters donate all their work and their candidate's work to Al Gore simply because he is Al Gore? People like Obama because of who he is, because he is able to inspire new people to come to the Democratic Party. Gore doesn't have that charisma. Obama is a great candidate on many fronts and that includes being a genius at managing his campaign.

Al Gore lost in 2000 because of some of the reasons I stated above, not simply because of Clinton. It would be a disaster to bait and switch with Al Gore. Its not nice to fool the electorate.

But remember, you also piss off some on both sides.  Unless the Democrats can come up with a poll showing Gore doing substantially better than both Clinton and Obama, it shouldn't even be considered.

From Daily KOS:

With more than 56% of the results tallied from today's 284 Democratic district conventions across Texas, Senator Barack Obama currently is projected to earn a 38-29 pledged delegate win in the Texas caucuses, exactly as projected on the day after the March 4th precinct caucuses. The nine delegate margin in the caucuses means Obama will gain a net margin of five pledged delegates from Texas because Senator Clinton narrowly won the Texas primary by only four delegates, 65-61.

"Despite the Clinton campaign's widespread attempts to prevent many Texans from participating in their district convention, the voters of Texas confirmed Senator Obama's important delegate win in the Lone Star State," said Obama spokesman Josh Earnest. "Today's record-shattering turnout sends a clear message that the American people are ready for change in Washington and new leadership in the White House that will stand up for working families."

The Obama campaign will release a more detailed tally of the results tomorrow.

Hillary Clinton won the open primary in Texas 1,459,874 to 1,358,785 popular vote, which gave her 50.89% to Obama's 47.37%.  She won 65 delegates and he won 61 delegates.  

But then there was a caucus and then another caucus and by the end of it he won the damned state and Obama supporters are both gloating that he won and still accusing Clinton supporters of trying to unfairly block him and steal his victory.  Actually, it appears that just the opposite happened.

Sorry guys, I admire and respect most of you. We've been allies before and we will be again.  But where is your sense of fairness here?  Where is your moral compass?

On the one hand you speak up for fair play and for respecting voters.  But it appears to only hold true when the voters are choosing your choice.

Otherwise, winning is everything.  And that's just not a new post-partisan politics.  It's the same old.

It's why I got disillusioned with Obama.

Sure, I'll vote for him if he's the nominee. And sure, I want to see this resolved before we get to Denver.  I don't want our party ripped apart.

But don't any of you have enough common sense to see how this looks to Hillary supporters, whom you will need to actually unite?

I get that Texas has a convoluted system.  But to actually accuse Hillary of trying to steal it when she won the popular vote in the true open primary simply convinces her supporters, who are half the party, that she is getting a raw deal and Obama supporters actually don't care about any of their high minded principles.  They are just pretty words without action to back them up.

Remember, this is Texas; in the general election Texas delegates are going to the Republican no matter who wins the Democratic primary.

Obama is eminently capable.  I agree with Carville and Slick Willie on one thing: We should just chill and let it play out awhile.  I think come mid-May, Obama supporters are going to be happy with the state of the race.  This will be just in time for my Birthday.  I am looking forward to that birthday present.

I find many of these reports in the UK press to be fanciful ideas akin to "If wishes were horses ..."

It's just parlor chat, and then the Independent runs it and people worry about it. It's one thing to read about European or UK politics in these papers, something entirely else to read their ramblings about American politics.

I rate the chances of this at : 0%. [of course, I had UNC, Southern Cal, Xavier, and Stanford in the Final Four, so buyer beware.]

Gore was on 60 Minutes tonight because he is funding an expensive advertising campaign designed to help awaken the public to the need to take action on global climate change. (That probably explains why Gore is becoming a political target again.) He is funding it with his proceeds from the documentary and the Nobel peace prize.  So he is putting his money where his mouth is.

He was asked about whether he would consider entering the race, and he said he couldn't imagine himself ever running for political office again, or something to that effect.

He refused to endorse either candidate and made it clear he would support whoever is the nominee.  He also made it clear that it is his goal to get all the candidates talking about climate change.

Gore was in India in mid-March, training people there to give his slide show, and speaking to the Indian parliament and the Indian Prime Minister.
http://blog.algore.com/2008/03...

We can ask no more of the man who should have been president in 2001.
He is already giving more of his life than most of us ever will.

How did I know this was coming back...more talk about Gore running for President even though he's expressed about 1,000 times now that he's not.

Yet ANOTHER interview today stating he has NO interest:

http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

:)