Gore may get the Democratic ticket - Obama and Clinton may miss out!!!!

Gore may get the Democratic ticket - Obama and Clinton may miss out!!!!

www.tcpalm.com

U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, whose district includes much of Martin and St. Lucie counties, is hoping he won't have to attend the Democratic Party national convention in Denver in August.

If he does go, that will mean the Democrats still haven't decided a nominee for the presidential election. And if neither Sen. Hillary Clinton nor Sen. Barack Obama has clinched the nomination by August, Mahoney says we may see a brokered convention, meaning the nominee could emerge from a negotiated settlement.

"If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket," Mahoney said.

A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization's editorial board.

If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This, IMHO, would be fantastic. Gore has the credentials, respect of the international community, to allow the USA to start rebuilding not only international relations, but also the problems which lie within.

Probably just a fantasy - but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

www.tcpalm.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

yea but then this country is a bigger joke due to the fact that we used up everyone's time on Hilliary and Obama...i say no, screw Gore...if he's president, imagine him getting impeached over the global warming thing. Yea, America ain't bright after all.

...and he's an improvement over Clinton and Obama how? If Obama has the most votes during the selection process, how willing do you think he and his supporters are going to be to be good little democrats and support Al "the bore" Gore? Not so much, would be my guess.

Al Gore? Why not Walter Mondale while we're at it.

reply to post by the titor experience


Gore may well be all you say he is.He is not however a person that was voted for in any primary this year.

Gore on either ticket would be an asset.

I like the choice between Clinton, Obama and McCain in 08' better than Kerry and Bush in 04'.

There are some good Democrats that have come in over the last 6 years. That Jon Testor out of Montana is a firecracker. American's need to hold their reps and senators feet to the fire and call them and email them once in awhile at least. I guess the same can be said for every country.

This brings to mind a prophecy i read whereAl Gore was the president. I think it would be better than the current choices we have today.

He better be careful, because whichever Dem gets the White House is going to have to clean up a much bigger mess than we have right now- the Republicans will see to that. And i mean a possible nuke type event as a welcome tribute.

FYI: A prediction i heard also said that the next president would NOT make it into office.
I wonder why.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by dgtempe]

Originally posted by the titor experience
This, IMHO, would be fantastic. Gore has the credentials, respect of the international community, to allow the USA to start rebuilding not only international relations, but also the problems which lie within.

This, IMHO, would be awful.

What credentials does Gore have? CFR endorsements? Global Warming hypocrisy? Being a terrorist by definition? Being the Vice President of a criminal?

All the things I look for in a president!

We wouldn't get the respect of the international community because we would continue on the same path that we're on. Nothing would change. No rebuilding would occur. No international relations would strengthen. No problems solved.

Nothing is going to change no matter who is elected.

Originally posted by the titor experience
Probably just a fantasy

Nightmare*

Should this happen, what would that say about our selection process?

Is anyone troubled by the prospect that a man that didn't run, thus didn't get any votes, and wasn't chosen by the people would be the man running for President?

This isn't a knock against Gore, but it does beg the question as to why even bother with primaries and delegates or for that matter.

Think of all the money that was just wasted on these campaigns. Not much of a Democratic process if the DEMOCRATIC Party CHOOSES who is to run and doesn't abide by the vote of the people.

Makes the 2000 election look allot different now doesn't it.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by the titor experience
This, IMHO, would be fantastic. Gore has the credentials, respect of the international community, to allow the USA to start rebuilding not only international relations, but also the problems which lie within.

This, IMHO, would be awful.

What credentials does Gore have? CFR endorsements? Global Warming hypocrisy? Being a terrorist by definition? Being the Vice President of a criminal?

All the things I look for in a president!

We wouldn't get the respect of the international community because we would continue on the same path that we're on. Nothing would change. No rebuilding would occur. No international relations would strengthen. No problems solved.

Nothing is going to change no matter who is elected.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, he has no controversial vote on Iraq to defend. Unlike Barack Obama and John Edwards, he has extensive experience in both the Senate and the White House.

He has put aside his wooden, policy-wonk demeanor to emerge as the Bush administration's most eloquent critic.

Oh and if you dont think international relations would improve, you might like to consider the impact of electing as the American President a man who has won the Nobel Peace Prize. To the rest of the world, that sends a clear message - one which would be received with positivity and a pleasant surprise - Al Gore has grown in stature and is perceived internationally as being a man who has depth and integrity - do NOT underestimate what impact that would have on how the rest of the world deals with the USA.

Suggesting he was the vice president of a criminal - i guess the alternative is to have the criminals wife in office? That logic does not even make sense.

Things wouldn't change? I beg to differ.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by the titor experience]

[edit on 25-3-2008 by the titor experience]

Well he did already win the election once

Still I don't think either Obama or Clinton supporters would be too happy about it.

Originally posted by the titor experience
Unlike Hillary Clinton, he has no controversial vote on Iraq to defend. Unlike Barack Obama and John Edwards, he has extensive experience in both the Senate and the White House.

You say these things as if you are assuming I am a supporter of any of these criminals.

Why don't you support Ron Paul? Does he have a controversial vote on Iraq? Does he not support civil liberties? Does he not support strong economy and better international relations? Does he not support better health care?

Ron Paul's policies are far and away better for this country than Al Gore's.

So do you vote for Gore because he has experience? That's enough to convince you?

Let's forget the policies and focus on experience, right?

Does that mean you'd vote for George Bush over Ron Paul, if you had to choose between the two? George Bush has more experience.

Originally posted by the titor experience
Oh and if you dont think international relations would improve, you might like to consider the impact of electing as the American President a man who has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Henry Kissinger has won a Nobel Peace Prize.

What is your point?

Originally posted by the titor experience
To the rest of the world, that sends a clear message - one which would be received with positivity and a pleasant surprise - Al Gore has grown in stature and is perceived internationally as being a man who has depth and integrity

Depth and integrity? He has integrity by winning the Nobel Peace Prize for propagating the illusion and fear of man-made global climate change and ushering in support for carbon taxes, seizures of land, new laws, control over all aspects of manufacturing and agriculture, and regulations of travel?

If that impresses you, then clearly you're biased.

Originally posted by the titor experience
do NOT underestimate what impact that would have on how the rest of the world deals with the USA.

I do underestimate it and for good reason.

Originally posted by the titor experience
Suggesting he was the vice president of a criminal - i guess the alternative is to have the criminals wife in office? That logic does not even make sense.

You're right, it doesn't make any sense. It also doesn't make any sense to assume I am a Clinton supporter, so stop making baseless assumptions.

Originally posted by the titor experience
Things wouldn't change? I beg to differ.

They wouldn't.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Gore on either ticket would be an asset.

Well, you're half right.

That pompous fool would take his throne with his Nobel Prize around his neck. He would order by royal decree that all people become "carbon neutral"... except for him... while simultaneously erecting statues of himself in every major city.

And that's just if he were VP.




[edit on 26-3-2008 by apc]

I think it would be funny. Gore comes in and sweeps the party clear of both Clinton and Obamessiah.

It's not going to happen, but just thinking about it made me laugh.

I wonder how that potential lawsuit against Gore is coming .. you know .. the one by the head of The Weather Channel?? Claiming Gore is making money off of the Global Warming is by Humans hoax???

Gore taking over would be the best thing that ever happened in Liberal politics.

Being a conservative, I really "hate" all the Liberal candidates, which includes McCain. They are all highly corrupt and all talk with carefully hidden agendas.

Gore would be the only one of the 4 mentioned worthy of a vote. Obama makes me gag!

I could see this happening. I foresaw this happening when (instead of campaigning) he was winning a Nobel peace prize (along with the ~1500 scientists who actually did the work).

I think he would be a worse president than Hillary or Obama. He is the ultimate CFR candidate.

I think this is pure speculation. Too many of the superdelegates are committed to Clinton or Obama. IMO if there's still a stalemate by convention time, they'll just keep voting again and again until one of the two finally wins.

The Democrats could do much worse than Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, but it's not going to happen.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Gore on either ticket would be an asset.

I could vote Obama, but not with Gore as his VP.
(And I haven't even considered a democratic choice since 1968.)

Gore on either ticket would probably insure that McSame gets the Oval Office.
I think he should stick to what it is that he does best, whatever that is.

Gore on either ticket would probably insure that McSame gets the Oval Office.

I think this is a reasonable conclusion. Al Gore tends to tick off too many people, and people who see themselves as centrists may move to McSame-er-Cane.

I think he should stick to what it is that he does best, whatever that is.

When I read this I immediately got a mental image of the Al Gore as Southpark hilariously portrayed, screaming nonsense about manbearpig. I know it's unfair to bring that up, but it is funny.

Yeah, i have been keeping up with this for awhile and i have to tell you that this will never happen. Although the Dems may have a Brokered convention, they would never risk damaging the party with such a radical decision like that. Now if they did, you might as well start looking for a new party like the Green party or
independent because the Democrat party would cease to exist.