New Hampshire Dem Leader is . . . Al Gore
Boston - A New Hampshire presidential poll by WHDH-TV and Suffolk University shows that local Democrats prefer Al Gore to any of the current contenders.
Hillary Clinton has a solid lead over the rest of the current Democratic field. The poll, released this afternoon, shows 37 percent of likely Democratic voters backing Clinton or leaning towards her. Barack Obama was at 19 percent, with both John Edwards and Bill Richardson at 9 percent. 
Al Gore, however, could enter the race as the leader. When his name is added, Clinton loses more than a quarter of her support, while Gore is backed by 32 percent.
Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani lead the GOP field. The former Massachusetts governor is supported by 26 percent of likely GOP voters, with Giuliani slipping to 22 percent. John McCain and Fred Thompson are both at 13 percent, a major move backwards for McCain. Romney’s support, which relies heavily on younger voters, is up 7 percent from a comparable poll in March, when he trailed Giuliani (37 percent) and McCain (27 percent).
The poll, which has a 4.4 percent margin of error, surveyed 500 likely voters from June 20 to 24.
© 2007 Capitol News Company, LLC
I would suggest Common Dreams readers check the election betting market at Intrade.com
Thompson is the leader according to that methodology-which historically is more accurate than polls. There, the current odds of Thompson or Rudy G getting the GOP nomination are respecitvely 31%. Mitt is trailing at 22%. McCain is barely ahead of Ron Paul at 7.9%.
If you really think Romney has a better chance than Thompson, you can make money if that opinion is correct. I’m not betting -and think these are reasonable odds.
Note: according to Intrade, Al Gore has only an 8% chance of gettin the nomination. I suspect that reflects the opinion he is unlikely to try for the nomination. Hilary is running at 48% and Obama at 30% and Edwards at 5%
To Richard Posner: I appreciate your message, but it’s spam. Please stop it.
To Al Gore: Run, Al, Run!
Richard, I love you man, I understand what you are doing and its wonderful. Keep up the good work. And to all the rest of you intellectuals you need a kick in the butt. Get off the damn bloggosphere and call, write, talk to someone. Grassroots starts on the ground and that means getting up!
It is not a question that we will all be fucked by the powers that be unless more is done and that includes getting LOUDER, like my man Richard!
BTW the Democrats are bought and sold to the corporations like the republicans are. Do some homework and this fact will smack you in the face. Focus on removing the traitor cheney. Get Louder, Please.
Speaking of someone getting off their butt and doing something, I’d like to suggest you all check out Bill McDannell’s site at www.wtetw.com
WTETW stands for Walk To End The Wars. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Bill and his wife Jonna. As of last Saturday, he had walked 2500 miles to protest the wars. He is walking from San Diego, CA to Washington, DC. He needs donations (check his website) and media attention. He is almost 60, walking nearly 20 miles a day, and is someone who got off his butt to do something. I took some video while he was here. If you want to see it, its at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLIoHKYQM5Y. Thanks.
RUN, AL, RUN!!
Al Gore is the only hope we have that a truthtelling progressive will get the nomination. I hope he sees that this is his moment and goes for it.
“Romney’s support, which relies heavily on younger voters, is up 7 percent from a comparable poll in March.”
It is bitterly ironic that his support should come from “young people.”
Romney, Torture, and Teens:
The former governor’s connections to abusive “tough love” camps. http://nospank.net/szlvtz4.htm
Al Gore should run.
Gore is not going to run because he knows he can not make the changes to fight global warming. Corporate America will not allow it if it hurts profit.
Gore is enjoying the spotlight but, if he actually gets the chance to become president and fails to make changes to combat global warming, it will be a long four years.
He can be a successful advocate and incite change. Even if he fails to cause change he will be fondly remembered as one of the people that tried to warn us about global warming, as a private citizen making a lot more money with a lot less stress.
Hell, I’d like to see him win and look Bush in the face during the inauguration (that’s if we don’t impeach Bush first).
Oh wow–another week and another Al Gore puff piece. Yechh!–Go home to your 4500 sq. foot country-politan mansion in Tennessee whree you can pretend to be the good ol’ boy you ain’t–or your upscale digs in Wash. DC and drool over how much influence you can peddle down on K Street after some Dem, any Dem but you wins the White House in ‘08.
If you care about humans and other endangered species - It has to be Gore.
America and the world need Al Gore.
He’s much too good for US voters.
Why not just let Bush have his war powers a la FDR and let him be president for life?
You will truly have the government you deserve.
The King of NAFTA, the Slayer of Kyoto is the great hope of the Democratic Party ?
Or how about the Queen of WalMart ?
Or John AIPAC Edwards
Or peace loving Obama, who wants to Obomba Iran ?
Thank God for Ralph Nader. The only Democrat left every 4 Novembers
Gore is probably the only [non]candidate who could deliver the Sorensen speech with a clear conscience — but not as a K-street Republicrat. He’d hafta deliver it as either an Independent or as the Green Party candidate.
And I agree with crivera on the NAFTA issue.
The Democratic party had better draft Al Gore. Because if it’s Hillary, with her repeated hand gestures ( I get damn tired of seeing her practiced posturing ) I will vote a STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN ticket. That’s because a Third Party vote is a lost cause, sad to say, because there aren’t enough to wun anything. So if you want Hillary, it’s bye bye Democrats.
If it weren’t for Ralph Nader, Al Gore would have been our President for the last six years. He would have spent those years working on his defining cause–the environment. We wouldn’t be in Iraq, and we would be six years closer to averting climate disaster. Instead, the reign of
George has set us back a few centuries.
Be mad at Al Gore for support of NAFTA if you will, but be mad at Nader for the outcome of the 2000 election. The worst President in history versus the visionary, driven not by greed and corruption, but by a desire to avert the world from a disastrous course. Nader knew what he was doing. He knew he couldn’t win and he knew that Al Gore would be working for the environment.
Al Gore will save us from Hillary, not Nader.
Re-elect Al Gore in 2008!
Poet:
Don’t be a hater. No one needs it, so please leave the spite and bitterness off the thread. Will people never tire of attacking politicians for their wealth, rather than their issues?
I never noticed Gore going for the good ole’ boy approach. If anything, he’s our national egghead elect. And is it just me, or are other people perceiving him as a Superman figure of sorts?
Is Ann Coulter writing in comments under a pseudonym?
Gore is not incapable because of the house he lives in… that’s irrelevant.
And the NAFTA Gore was pushing in the past may not be the NAFTA that is developing under the Bush Junta…. remember that the Republicans have rewritten and redefined nearly everything, including their definition of ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, and ‘patriot’ to deceptive doublespeak, the opposite of their true meanings.
TOP PRIORITY should be to block a Republican from being president in 2008. Period. And in current political reality, that means supporting the Democratic candidate next year. Vote to create a majority that can beat Republicans.
AFTER the election, if the Democratic president turns out to be a Republicrat, THEN start consolidating a third party, which should include large numbers of Democrats who abandon the corporatists. The Green Party also has fascists masquerading within, trying to control it, and they need to be weeded out… Green is no less immune to corruption than the Democrats. The Green Party could be a viable winner eventually, but not until it gets the pseudo-greens out of it, and it can’t win an election in 2008…. it’s way too soon…. all voting Green would do is give the Republicans a majority.
So if you don’t want to see a Republican president again, Vote Democratic in 2008… the Republicans want the votes of all opponents to their party split up.
There is someone who already has a positive track record on environmental issues. Who has sponsored a health care reform bill, put together a 12 point exit stategy for Iraq, didn’t vote for the war in the first place and has publicly called for the impeachment of Cheney (months ago).
http://kucinich.us/
But the reason he’s so popular now is because he’s NOT running. Al Gore is great when he’s not being a politician!
Al Gore the politician = support of NAFTA, against gay marriage, voted for the Iraq invasion in 1991, and being a wooden bore during the 2000 campaign.
Al Gore the non-politician is the cool guy with a beard talking about the environment, asking corporations to be held accountable, and being hilarious on Saturday Night Live.
Friends don’t let friends run for President.
RestoreDemocracy
“And the NAFTA Gore was pushing in the past may not be the NAFTA that is developing under the Bush Junta”
That’s not true. NAFTA was corporate written treason and environmental genocide from the get-go…enslaving the 3rd world and stagnating wages in the United States while corporate profits skyrocketed.
RestoreDemocracy
“So if you don’t want to see a Republican president again, Vote Democratic in 2008…”
But if you want to see a Republican president pretending to be a Democrat vote Gore,Clinton,Edwards in 2008
When are you people going to stop pushing lesser-evilsm and start holding Democratic Party candidates accountable for their right wing corporatism.
I see nothing here but the same ignorance and blinders the Republicans wear..”Support our bad Democrat because he’s not a Republican”. No thanks
Nader 2008
NOT well said, Peace Warrior. If Progressives hadn’t wasted their votes on Nader in 2000, we wouldn’t have had to watch Dubya’s attempts to destroy our democracy (along with the Middle East). Or maybe you STILL buy Nader’s line that there was no difference between Gore and Bush?
MetalDog. I’m computer stupid, what is SPAM?
I’ve heard of it, never asked anyone,probably afraid of showing my ignorance. Well here it is folks, Duh!
Gore/Nader/Green Party 2008!
I have been hoping for Al Gore to run for president ever since I recovered from my post-2004 election depression. Since he became a private citizen, Gore has also become a very different person than he was in his previous life as a professional politician. No longer is he under the influence of the consultant class that had led the Democratic Party to so many defeats. He is thinking deeply about important issues and is self-confidently speaking his mind. I believe that he would carry his new found self into the campaign, and that this would make him a very attractive candidate, regardless of whom the Republicans nominate to be their sacrificial lamb.
The biggest problem that Gore would face in a presidential campaign would be the abuse heaped upon him by the same media whores who savaged him mercilessly in 2000. Their hate for him rises to the level of bigotry. The media deserve almost as much of the blame for giving us George Bush as do the Supreme Court justices who appointed him President.
STOP IT!!!!
Aren’t some of you reading posts above by informed people? Gore is a Democrat. Period. And as a Democratic president he will push his agenda on global warming (which I commend) but he’ll woo voters with luke warm attempts at correcting social problems while supporting NAFTA and the WTO. But please people remember who he is. And who he served under. And what he owes his loyalty to. His presidency would be Clinton light with an undying commitment to supporting Isreal, big money and special interests. Oh, and do you think for a minute that a true progressive movement would stand a chance getting our electoral system changed to include fair ballot access, open debates, and an end to corporate run campaigns???!!!! Jeeze, get the stars out of your eyes and get a grip.
There’s still hope if a real change is what we’re looking for. Nader is giving a speech to the national Green Party convention this month in Reading, PA. Could there be a re-marriage between the two? Here’s the article…
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_06_27.shtml
Hi Evelyn, Sorry no one answered you sooner. Spam is e-mail you get from ‘people’ you don’t know, and didn’t request it from. Usually trying to sell you something. On Yahoo, you can click the Spam key which will block any more comeing into your Inbox.
The size of Al Gores house does not concern me!
IF, he supports NAFTA that would.
But, at least he’s READ the Constitution!
All these Nader-blamers seem to forget that in 2000 Gore ran a disaatarous campaign that failed to distinguish him from Bush in any way. There was, or is, no evidence that Al Gore would have done anything differently. He gave no evedence in his 2000 campaign that he would have done anything differently than Bush. As member of the Clinton team he supported the sanctions regime that killed at least a half million Iraqis, supported the 1998 Clinton bombings of Iraq, and was no douby champing at the bit for an excuse to attack Iraq as well. He championed NAFTA and so-called globalization, gutted Kyoto, and did nothing at home. In Florida, he meekly requested recounts in only a couple gold-coast counties that he thought he has some rich democrat friends, instead of the whole state, which he had, in fact, won. He then backed down from even that when Bolton and his golfwear-clad thugs stormed the Palm Beach County electon offices. Those were the FACTS as of November-December 2000.
Those arguing that Gore would have been so great seem to be forgetting a basic property of our universe. Outside of science-fiction, only information in the past can be accessed, future information cannot be accessed. Physicists aren’t sure why this is. At the quantum scale, time is bi-directional - like Vonnegut’s Billy Pilgrim. But at the macroscopic scale of political candidates, time is an arrow. So, we could only make our decisions based on current data in the year 2000. Now, maybe Gore underwent some kind of epiphany after the “election”, but that was too late.
For these reasons I will NEVER regret voting for Nader in 1996 or 2000, and I will always regret caving in and voting for the useless Kerry in 2004.
can we please settle this?
nader didn’t cause gore to lose in 2000. that would be impossible, because, as weak a candidate as gore was (with his only identifiable message being “vote for me, i’m not bush and i’m not clinton” he didn’t even carry his own home state), HE DIDN’T LOSE.
the “state’s rights” supreme court ordered florida to stop counting the votes, which was just fine with jeb, and gore and the dems folded up like wet toilet paper. when members of the congressional black caucus tried to start a senate investigation into the disappearance of 96,000 voters from state eligibility lists, they couldn’t get a single second for their motion, not even from the president pro tempore, gore himself.
all the evil that we’ve witnessed since that time can be attributed to gore’s abject cowardice. compounding that by blaming it all on nader is beyond disgraceful and beneath contempt.
i expect that from the corporate media, but i continue to hope for better from common dreams’s subscribers.
Al Gore makes Bu$h look like a road worker….
I understand he has a controversial past, but ‘he without sin cast the first stone’…
You never know Gore might redeem himself given the opportunity…
PJD: According to your basic property of the universe, you can’t claim that Gore was chomping at the bit to attack Iraq because that would lie in the future.
Nader’s claim that Gore and Bush are alike is preposterous. Gore is an intellectual, a visionary who alerted the world to the environmental disaster we face when it was politically dangerous to do so. George Bush is a simple man, with no grasp of the complexities of the Middle East, and no understanding of science. Do you think GWB could write a paragraph about global warming, much less a book? Do you think he even knew what global warming meant in 1997 when “Earth in the Balance” was written?
As for Gore’s support of war in Iraq, both wars were a mistake in my opinion, but the war in 1991 was over in a few weeks. In 1991 we had the support of many other countries-financial, military and philosophical support.
The war in 1991 did not incur the wrath of the world as this war is doing. Gore has spoken out vehemently against this war. Those who say Gore would have invaded Iraq are just making things up. There is no basis.
Who did the most to bring global warming to the level of global consciousness? The answer is Al Gore.
Who did the most to bring us eight years of George Junior? The answer is Ralph Nader.
In 2000, Nader received 2.7% of the votes. What did that prove? Did that prove the presence of a huge progressive movement? Did it make George Bush shudder with fear? No. I’m sure Ralph Nader’s entry into the campaign caused a big Republican high-five.
There is no hope if Al runs as a Dem. We need him to run in either a brand new party or in the Green Party. Would change American politics forever if he ran as a green.
How could Al Gore possibly win if a Green candidate split the liberal vote? All the Republicans would have to do is NOT split the Conservative vote.
Al Gore said either this year or last year that his views haven’t changed that much from what they were in 2000, which is when he said when pressed on it, that his views weren’t that different from W’s. Gore is the chief founder of the rip off/con job DLC gang which hijacked the Democratic Party and virtually wrecked it during the national administation which he was a member of. Gore stay the hell in Tennessee and out of our misery. We don’t need you.
AD: Where could I find Gore’s quote you are referring to that he and George are the same?
To add to the solid points PJD made about Gore above — Al Gore was on Larry King last month, right after the big Dem sellout on the war. He used the occasion to defend Pelosi, Reid, Joe Lieberman, the Dem Party in general, & told a bald-faced lie on national TV. Here is some of the dialog:
KING: Here is an item in the news today, and what is your thought on it? Democratic congressional leaders now plan to send President Bush a war-spending bill without a timetable for withdrawal. Has your party caved in?
…..
GORE: You know, the tools that are available to the legislative branch of government are not always very precise. They are often blunt instruments. And they passed a measure that would have required a timetable. The president vetoed it. They were not able to override the veto. So their options have been sharply limited.
Again, I have not seen the details of what they have done but I have a lot of confidence in Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and rest of the leadership in the House and Senate now. And I’m sure that they have made some good decisions here.
KING: In that regard, are you disappointed in Joe Lieberman, your former running mate, who has run independent, and is staunchly pro the actions of President Bush in Iraq?
GORE: Well, I disagreed with Joe Lieberman on his policies toward the invasion of Iraq. But he’s entitled to his own opinions. And let me tell you, he has been one of the leaders in trying to get an adequate response to the climate crisis for many years. And there are more issues that I agree with Joe on than those where we find ourselves in disagreement.
But, yes, I have disagreed with him on that.
KING: You would not call him a disappointment then?
GORE: Well, why would you use a word like that where a friend is concerned? We have had our disagreements and I have stated them. But I would not apply that to a friend….
Gore’s mentioning “not able to override a veto” is a red herring and a lie. He knows perfectly well what the relevant mechanics of legislation are: a bill is sent to the president only when passed by both houses of Congress. In either house, you need only a simple majority (51%) for a bill to pass. That means that if your party has a simple majority, you can PREVENT any given bill from going to the president. The president can’t veto, if no bill is sent to him. So if the Dems, who control BOTH houses, resolved firmly to defeat any bill that funded the war, there would be no funding for the war. Bush’s power to veto has nothing to do with this. Gore knows this, but chose to muddle the issue for Americans, to defend his miserable party of traitors & sellouts.
Al Gore wants to be President, and I believe he intends to run. I think his interview with Larry King demonstrated shrewdness. Insulting the Democratic leaders is not a good way to get ahead. I would much prefer that Gore be coy at this stage of the game. He needs to get over 50% of the votes in 2008, not 2.7%. Al Gore lamented his “frequent sighing” during the debate with GWB. He felt that it hurt him politically, and he gained nothing from it. He will not make mistakes like that again. This is not a time for gestures. It is a time for drastic action.
Politics is a cess pool. Anyone in the cess pool is going to get dirty, even those who are trying to clean it up. Ralph Nader, for example, on the outskirts of politics, can appear more “pure” than Al Gore, but he doesn’t stand a chance of being elected. He will forever be the “protest vote” guy. Al Gore will shine when he becomes President because he has a cause.
“Gore is an intellectual, a visionary who alerted the world to the environmental disaster we face when it was politically dangerous to do so.”
What “Gore” are you talking about? At least Billy Pilgrim still remembered that time had an arrow for ordinary humans. Gore was in no way a “visionary” when he was actually in office 1993-2000, in spite of writing writing “Earth in the Balance” in 1992 (not 1997).
So now, we are to expect that he will do all these great things because of his global warming schtick. Why should I trust the guy this time?
And, is your memory so short, or your time-reversal syndrome so profound as to not recall that the Bush of pre-November 2000 was very convincingly portrated as moderate like his father who was hardly distinguishable from Gore - and Gore likewise form Bush?
Electoral politics is an absolutely rigged system of phoney choices. I will vote my dreams, not for those the powerful have apointed me to choose.
al fkn gore…is it? wow, he helped us out alot, with a sigh, right before making sure war-george could reign, with a sigh. gotta love global-warming gore. wouldn’t he be a great spoiler, if there was a real SOLID stand up guy? yeah, he could split votes enough to even give us another republican president. but that is not the plan is it? watch, botches… watch al fkn gore step up under hillary with his lil role. thats only if these botches all live in the same country club. otherwise, well see him without a sigh, right? lol. al gore, secretary of interior, hillary prez. american peeps, without representation. elite polo parties, continue unabated. iraq war. iran. al fkn goreand global warming. lol.
PJD: I apologize for the typo, the year was indeed 1992. Regarding your other points, the Vice Presidency is a world away from the Presidency. The Vice President has only two roles: presiding over the US Senate, and taking over if the President is unable. Gore was clearly stifled by the pro-business Clinton team, and eventually by the Monica Lewinsky scandal that crippled Clinton’s last years. By the end of Clinton’s term, there was no apparent friendship or camaraderie between the two.
Here are a few differences between Gore and Bush, a comprehensive list would be exhausting. Gore is opposed to drilling in ANWR; Bush is in favor. Bush wants environmental regulations to be voluntary; Gore believes that voluntary measures are ineffective. Gore supports protection of roadless forests, Bush promotes development for logging purposes. Gore has been the nation’s global warming conscience for years. Bush tries to refocus the debate on “uncertainties” and stated that we don’t know what the solution to global warming is.
The following is an excerpt from a Bush Gore debate in October, 2000:
Bush: ” What the heck. I — of course there’s a lot — look, global warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously. But science, there’s a lot — there’s differing opinions. And before we react, I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place. ”
Gore” ” I disagree that we don’t know the cause of global warming. I think that we do. It’s pollution, carbon dioxide, and other chemicals that are even more potent, but in smaller quantities, that cause this. Look, the world’s temperature is going up, weather patterns are changing, storms are getting more violent and unpredictable. What are we going to tell our children? I’m a grandfather now. I want to be able to tell my grandson when I’m in my later years that I didn’t turn away from the evidence that showed that we were doing some serious harm.”
Indistinguishable? Are you kidding?
One hard fact Gore supporters have a hard time admitting is that one of the reasons Gore didn’t get as many votes in 2000 was because by adding Joe Lieberman, his platform looked much like George Bush. That is, Lieberman pulled the Gore ticket further right.
Compare Lieberman to Bush. I dare you.
For those out there that think there are only two things a VP can do, I submit two names: George HW Bush, Dick Cheney. VP are influential, behind the scene players.
Ronnie and Dubya would have been spinning in circles if people didn’t cut the crust off their bread.
The Vice President is bestowed by the Constitution with two powers mentioned above. The President can choose whether or not to give him anymore. What about Bill Clinton would cause one to believe that he bypassed Hillary to give Gore any authority? In the early months of Clinton’s Presidency a reporter asked Hillary if she aspired to the Vice Presidency. “I’m not interested in attending a lot of funerals,” she snapped. That line says it all.
I have only been a small part of this fine group of peole for a short time period, about forty days. One thing I have noticed, is there are about four or five individuals who write a large number of blogs and do so with a most negative attitude.
Diverse opinions are good, we as humans have and always will have differing opinions on any number of issues or subjects. That’s not only normal, it’s good.
The ones I am concerned with, are those that do not just offer opoinions, they do so in a rude and offensive manner, often attacking others, and some do so with the use of profanity, or words such as idiot, stupid, moron, fool, idioatic, etc.
This often starts a pissing contest and others often join in and before we know it, the original subject matter is lost. Some good people log off, with either hurt feelings, or anger, or disgust with the lot of us and may not ever return; we may lose some who are beneficial to all, by offering suggestions and or their opinions. I personally have learned a great deal since I’ve had the opportunity to read articles of concern and comments written here.
This is what I believe MAY be occurring. The Republicans have an old term, I understand it began with the Nixon years. The term is called Rat F####ing and the Republicans are highly skilled with its use. From what I have observed, it seems that these few are attempting to undermine the purpose of this excellent website, by their actions, by writing their blogs in the manner they do.
Some even write comments like, Yeah I’m looking for a fight, or l’m waitng for your stupid idiotic reply. Things such as that. Instead of cordially saying, they disagree with another, they attack with rudeness. They seldom offer viable alternatives to other’s opoinions or the issues at hand. They also display arrogance and a attitude of superiority and they often exhibit a high degree of intellect. Smart people.
Some dispay signs of being psychotic, they are ones who are being picked upon by the herd of stupid idiots. They offer no apologies and insist that everyone else is wrong.
Have they been selected and placed by far right neo-cons? I don’t know, it just appears that it may be so. Therefore, we should totally ignore them when they begin their ranting, for answerig them only fuels their egotistical souls and pleases them. Ignore them, they only detract, and harm the cause of those who believe in honesty, freedom, our rights and our constitution.
You will know them by their deeds, their obnoxious, rude attitudes and unprovoked attacks against good people.
Gore is a hypocrite by living in that huge castle, I mean house, and using up all that electricity and gas every month. At least he has raised awareness about the problem. The solution is not aggressive enough though..
So the Constitutional guidelines state the VP has two powers. The Constitution is a living document the last time I checked. However, some see it as an antiquated piece of paper. Interpretation is key. Even sjstevens admits VP power is relative to interpretation when stevens indicates a president can hand more responsibility to the VP. Precisely. The VP can and has been much more influential than the limitations set by the Constitution.
The example of Hillary Clinton offers nothing more than her opinion and perhaps her aspiration.