Boston Globe: Gore "putting out feelers"

[CultureKing]

Let's just look at a few things:

First off, Democratic Primary polling. http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

1/12-14/07
Hillary Rodham Clinton - 29%
Barack Obama - 18%
John Edwards    - 13%
Al Gore - 11%
John Kerry - 8%

What's the excuse this time? Is anyone going to try and play the name recognition card with a former 8 year vice-president and presidential candidate? I would hope not. So someone do tell me, why is Gore not landsliding in these polls if he is in fact the golden ticket to the White House for the Democratic Party? Could it be that he is a hasbeen who has shifted into the environmental, green-type ranks of his party? Why is it that this stunning candidate only polls 3 points higher than possibly the biggest idiot that the party has ever put on a ticket? You be the judge.

Let's take a gander at another poll, from the same site.

Do you want to see the following run for President?
Al Gore:
Yes - 32%
No - 66%

Eh? What is this? 66% of those poll don't want to see "President" Gore on the ticket in 2008? Someone do explain to me why one of the "strongest" candidates the Democrats could put out is so put away with the populace.

So, what is the consensus? It obviously isn't name recognition, or a lack of experience. Anyone have something to offer? I am truly baffled.

Well there is an easy explanation, Gore has continually said that while he hasnt ruled out running he still doesnt seem to be nearly as involved as the other top three (who have much clearer intentions) if he declared himself running you could look to see those numbers climb way up there. At the moment when most people think of the 2008 they mainly think of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards

[CultureKing]

oh and I would also be 100% behind Gore though if Richardson ran I might be divided between the two

[Boris]

Could it be that he is a hasbeen who has shifted into the environmental, green-type ranks of his party?

Al Gore's environmental rhetoric hasn't changed during the past thirty years. His bestseller, Earth in the Balance, was published during the 1992 campaign. The only reason you hear about it more now is because you probably don't remember the 1980s-early 1990s too well and Al Gore has finally released his own movie on the subject.

[adam]

Let's just look at a few things:

First off, Democratic Primary polling. http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

1/12-14/07
Hillary Rodham Clinton - 29%
Barack Obama - 18%
John Edwards    - 13%
Al Gore - 11%
John Kerry - 8%

What's the excuse this time? Is anyone going to try and play the name recognition card with a former 8 year vice-president and presidential candidate? I would hope not. So someone do tell me, why is Gore not landsliding in these polls if he is in fact the golden ticket to the White House for the Democratic Party? Could it be that he is a hasbeen who has shifted into the environmental, green-type ranks of his party? Why is it that this stunning candidate only polls 3 points higher than possibly the biggest idiot that the party has ever put on a ticket? You be the judge.

Let's take a gander at another poll, from the same site.

Do you want to see the following run for President?
Al Gore:
Yes - 32%
No - 66%

Eh? What is this? 66% of those poll don't want to see "President" Gore on the ticket in 2008? Someone do explain to me why one of the "strongest" candidates the Democrats could put out is so put away with the populace.

So, what is the consensus? It obviously isn't name recognition, or a lack of experience. Anyone have something to offer? I am truly baffled.

Well there is an easy explanation, Gore has continually said that while he hasnt ruled out running he still doesnt seem to be nearly as involved as the other top three (who have much clearer intentions) if he declared himself running you could look to see those numbers climb way up there. At the moment when most people think of the 2008 they mainly think of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards

The thing is however, that these polls are conducted assuming that these candidates are in the race. As I said, it's not as though Gore has to go spread his name around.

Al Gore's environmental rhetoric hasn't changed during the past thirty years. His bestseller, Earth in the Balance, was published during the 1992 campaign. The only reason you hear about it more now is because you probably don't remember the 1980s-early 1990s too well and Al Gore has finally released his own movie on the subject.

I don't recall it being at all a center-peice of his 2000 campaign.

[Boris]

I don't recall it being at all a center-peice of his 2000 campaign.

Okay? Why would he make it a center-piece of his campaign? All he had to do was distance himself from Clinton's scandals and just consistently repeat the Clinton economic achievements, which he did. Gore's environmentalism is nothing new. He's been passionate about the topic for the past thirty years.

[Padfoot]

I don't recall it being at all a center-peice of his 2000 campaign.

Okay? Why would he make it a center-piece of his campaign? All he had to do was distance himself from Clinton's scandals and just consistently repeat the Clinton economic achievements, which he did. Gore's environmentalism is nothing new. He's been passionate about the topic for the past thirty years.

Then how did he manage to lose the environmental vote to Nader?  If Gore was truely an appealing candidate to environmentalists he wouldn't have lost Florida or New Hampshire.

[HardRCafé]

God damn this man, make a fuc*ing decision already......   

He pays Naomi Wolf to do that for him.  Earth tones.

[opebo]

I don't recall it being at all a center-peice of his 2000 campaign.

Okay? Why would he make it a center-piece of his campaign? All he had to do was distance himself from Clinton's scandals and just consistently repeat the Clinton economic achievements, which he did. Gore's environmentalism is nothing new. He's been passionate about the topic for the past thirty years.

Then how did he manage to lose the environmental vote to Nader?  If Gore was truely an appealing candidate to environmentalists he wouldn't have lost Florida or New Hampshire.

Because he was the candidate of a center-right party, Padfoote.

[Boris]

I don't recall it being at all a center-peice of his 2000 campaign.

Okay? Why would he make it a center-piece of his campaign? All he had to do was distance himself from Clinton's scandals and just consistently repeat the Clinton economic achievements, which he did. Gore's environmentalism is nothing new. He's been passionate about the topic for the past thirty years.

Then how did he manage to lose the environmental vote to Nader?  If Gore was truely an appealing candidate to environmentalists he wouldn't have lost Florida or New Hampshire.

He didn't lose so many votes to Nader because of the environment. He lost votes to Nader because "there was no difference between the candidates" or something along the lines of that bullsh**t.

It really shouldn't be that hard to prove that Gore's environmentalism is hardly a move to the left. Go to a bookstore, and look up Earth in the Balance. On the inside flap, it should say "Copyright 1992." And there you have it.

[Frodo]

Jesus Christ....

God damn this man, make a fuc*ing decision already......   

Same could be said for you. Choose a party already and stick with it.

He's a Democrat. 

Not anymore -I am now an independent, actually.  I have neither the partisan nor ideological militancy to be affiliated with either party. 

When it comes to real-life, I am done with political parties.  I was a Republican from 1999 to 2003, and a Democrat from that year to just this January, and I have experienced enough to convince me to simply avoid parties in general.