1
   

This is a fascinating idea - The Gore Factor

 
 
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 09:25 am
This is a fascinating idea. I could go for this!---BBB

The Gore Factor
by Hoomad Madj
Posted May 2, 2008

Let us assume for a moment that the Democratic convention commences in August without a presumptive nominee. (Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama appear likely to throw in the towel before the convention, no matter what happens on May 6, and it also seems increasingly likely that the candidates will be effectively locked in a stalemate, notwithstanding Obama's almost inevitable lead in pledged delegates and probable lead in the popular vote.) If no nominee is selected on the first ballot, the convention will become a brokered one, and (obviously) it is at this point impossible to guess who will emerge victorious on any subsequent ballot.

But imagine this: what if Barack Obama, if unsuccessful on the first ballot, rather than continue to fight for the nomination, meets with Al Gore, yes Gore, and tells him that he would willingly throw his support behind a 'Draft Gore' campaign, and become his vice-presidential running mate. One cannot imagine a scenario under which, with Obama's and his supporters' (and delegates') support, Al Gore would not become the nominee on the second or a subsequent ballot, even accounting for a last-minute furious fight by a Clinton campaign known for its fury.

Admittedly, Al Gore has often publicly said he is no longer interested in the presidency, that he is well over the disappointment of not attaining it, and that he can do better work (on the environment and global warming) as a private citizen. And he has said those things with all sincerity. But it is relatively easy to make those comments and believe them when the presidency is an abstract notion, and when the idea of entering the grueling fray of a long winter of primary politics is a singularly unattractive one to a retired politician. But one cannot underestimate the effect, sitting in the convention hall in Denver and watching the future of his party, and potentially his country, being decided and his being offered, on the proverbial silver platter, the opportunity to likely become the forty-third president of the United States a mere two-and-a-half months later, can have. (And who really believes that as president of the United States he cannot do more for his cause than he can as a tireless, and admittedly often effective, private citizen?) As the saying goes, "show me the money," and such a scenario would surely have to figuratively count for a lot of cash. Nobel prize winner, Oscar-winner Albert Gore would have to possess an unusually small or suppressed ego, something neither he nor any other politician is known for, to refuse the proposition.

But why, one might ask, would Obama make such a suggestion in the first place? Well, why shouldn't he? He is, and would be, understandably reluctant to become the Clinton running mate, a rival he will have arguably beaten; he would understandably be reluctant to become the running mate of a rival whose husband was himself a two-term, and highly popular, president, and he would be understandably reluctant to become the running mate of someone whose campaign at least, if not always herself and her spouse, has engaged in rather vituperative, malicious, and even vulgar attacks on him and his character. But the running mate of the granddaddy (now that Bill can really no longer be considered that) of his party? Barack Obama knows full well that if he cannot become president in 2008, matched with the right candidate (and assuming a good eight years), he will likely become president in 2016. When he is still in his fifties. He also knows that even were he to prevail at a brokered convention, he will be in a tough fight against John McCain, not least because as we have recently re-discovered, race cannot not be factor in these United States, certainly not in 2008.

I have been, and am still, an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama for President of the United States. I believe that an Obama presidency will be enormously beneficial for the country and will have the potential to revolutionize our foreign policy, to the great advantage of the U.S. and the rest of the world. I am still hopeful, indeed optimistic, that he will become the nominee of the party, and believe he should. But if that is not to be, Obama might do almost as much good as the Vice President, at least in a Gore administration.

A Gore/Obama Democratic ticket would be a hard one to beat by any Republican, let alone the seventy-one year old John McCain, who can hardly be considered one of the more formidable Republican nominees in recent history. Dream ticket? It's this, not Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. Al Gore and Barack Obama, if they were to seriously consider running together, would be the saviors of what soon will be a fractured Democratic party, and would virtually ensure a Democratic White House in 2009. And as my friend Glenn O'Brien, copywriter extraordinaire, pointed out last year (well before it was clear that Gore would not be running) a Gore campaign would have the ultimate campaign slogan, one that Obama, (even) Clinton, their supporters, and many independents couldn't help but happily endorse: "Re-elect Gore 2008."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 645 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 09:40 am
It's hard for me to believe that Gore is percieved to be viable. Didn't he sort of lose all credibility with his shrill, post-losing weirdness?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 10:42 am
Rolling Eyes Owl Gore is an incontinent poof!


The failure of his global warming farce in proof, but it is making him fatter and richer ...
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 11:39 am
It would be horrible to have a nominee pulled out of a hat, so to speak, without having been vetted by the primary process.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 11:49 am
H2O_MAN wrote:
Rolling Eyes Owl Gore is an incontinent poof!


The failure of his global warming farce in proof, but it is making him fatter and richer ...


Wow, another clueless person who can't read a thermometer. At least guys like you are becoming as rare as spotted salamanders. Even Bush now admits we have a climate problem.

It ain't gonna happen BBB and I think Gore should remain an activist and not a White House resident.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 12:36 pm
I would have happily supported Gore this year. But, he has dropped out of the process and there is no chance, in my opinion, he can or will return to run.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2008 08:07 am
Greenwitch
Greenwitch, of course, you are right. But I did say it was a fascinating idea.

I think Gore's global warming activities are probably more important to the planet than being president.

I also think that Hillary Clinton should be elected as senate majority leader, where she could actually make her policies happen with the help of Pellosi in the House.

BBB
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2008 08:20 pm
Re: Greenwitch
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Greenwitch, of course, you are right. But I did say it was a fascinating idea.

I think Gore's global warming activities are probably more important to the planet than being president.

I also think that Hillary Clinton should be elected as senate majority leader, where she could actually make her policies happen with the help of Pellosi in the House.

BBB

I really liked this idea before Ohio/Texas. I was ok with it before Penn, but now I don't know. Senator Clinton is showing stripes I really don't like. Economists are "elitists" and she's going to ignore their opinions on her gas tax proposal? Yikes! We've had seven years of a President who doesn't believe in science and feels he knows better than those snotty, college types. I really want our leadership to understand science and economics. I also want them to surround themselves with people who give them good advice. Going on talk shows and dissing professionals who tell hard truths is not my picture of a leader.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 05:28 am
Green Witch wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
Rolling Eyes Owl Gore is an incontinent poof!


The failure of his global warming farce in proof, but it is making him fatter and richer ...


Wow, another clueless person who can't read a thermometer.


Wow, another proud member of the dumbmasses. Get a clue Green Witch.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 08:04 am
Engineer
Engineer, I agree with you. Hillary Clinton's desperation "gas vacation" proposal is about the last straw with me. She has really demeaned herself as far as I'm concerned. It's not only her pandering, it's that the proposal is so stupid. The oil companies would end up with the money by raising their prices and the public would get nothing.

Hillary Clinton for Senate Majority Leader is now my choice for her.

BBB
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 01:00 pm
Excuse me but if congress could mandate a temporary drop in the tax of gas why couldn't it mandate a rule that the oil companies cant keep the tax but must lower the price by the amount of the tax. And don't give me that garbage about the problems it would cause the oil companies because they can and do adjust the price daily.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 01:20 pm
rabel22 wrote:
...if congress could mandate a temporary drop in the tax of gas why couldn't it mandate a rule that the oil companies cant keep the tax but must lower the price by the amount of the tax.

We had government controlled oil prices in the past (early 70's?) and Carter implemented a windfall profits tax on oil. Both were disasters. Suppose you say that (I'll exaggerate) gas must be $1/gallon. Since the price of a barrel of oil is not going to drop, suppliers will lose money on every gallon. The respond by not making any gas and you have extreme shortages. You could argue that this is just on the tax rate, but since you don't know the value of gas at any given time due to market fluxuations, you have to fix the price to ensure none of that tax cut is going to refiners. Once you fix the price, you can count on long lines at the pump.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 01:47 pm
I hope gas gets to $10 a gallon soon so that we can have some incentive to drive less, use public transportation more, and create alternative methods to fuel our cars.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 02:00 pm
Well, as someone that has to drive to work and doesn't have access to public transpotation or funds to get a more fuel efficient car I sure hope it doesn't.

Imagine the consequences of such a desire on the economy before you say such things.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 02:14 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Imagine the consequences of such a desire on the economy before you say such things.


I have imagined the consequences......I wouldn't change anything I said.

The economy is not all there is either McG.

Like your avatar says....life is pain.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 02:18 pm
maporsche wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Imagine the consequences of such a desire on the economy before you say such things.


I have imagined the consequences......I wouldn't change anything I said.

The economy is not all there is either McG.

I was listening to an economists who suggested slowing raising the gas tax to $1/gallon, but giving an offseting tax break with the money. Those who don't use a lot of gas end up making money and the higher price of gas drives behavioral reform. I'm not sure I'm ok with that since gas is a cost in food and other items requiring transport, but I understand the concept. If you did it slowly enough, people could change their habits in time.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 05:54 pm
Engineer
Where in my post did I advocate a mandidated drop in the price of gas. I said if the government rescinds the tax that they should also make sure that the oil companies don't approaite the gas tax. Also while were talking about it why not rescind the the government grants to big oil. They sure as hel- don't need it.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 07:51 am
rabel22 wrote:
Engineer
Where in my post did I advocate a mandidated drop in the price of gas. I said if the government rescinds the tax that they should also make sure that the oil companies don't approaite the gas tax. Also while were talking about it why not rescind the the government grants to big oil. They sure as hel- don't need it.

How do you ensure the oil companies don't appropriate the gas tax? In a free market, what's to stop the oil companies (or distributors or gas stations) from taking a cut? Everyone in the supply chain is feeling increasing prices and everyone is looking to raise prices to cover their costs.

As for government grants, sure, cut them.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » This is a fascinating idea - The Gore Factor
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:26:13