digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Al Gore: ex-next POTUS to next POTUS. What a difference 7 years make

rollingstone.com — If the Democrats were going to sit down and construct the perfect candidate for 2008, they'd be hard-pressed to improve on Gore. 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. The Bush admin's most eloquent critic.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 25, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

271 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -24/+197Seriously, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat and I think after two terms of Bush, people realize they made a mistake.
  • Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+127Al Gore never said he invented the Internet, damn it.
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -18/+101"I voted for Bush both times, the second time holding my nose big time, but don't regret either vote because of Gore and Kerry"

    I guess you haven't been paying attention to the last 7 years. You ***** up.
  • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -11/+62if he ran, i would shoe polish his name on my car 19 months in advance . i would talk about him to every person i met. this man would blow everyone else out of the water. he has been burned and redeemed himself. i love him
  • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -21/+72Who would vote for the smart boring guy when you have this folksy talkin' fourth generation oil millionaire on the other ticket! Who, natch, promised everyone who voted for him a pretend $300 tax "rebate".

    I know more than one person who voted for Bush on that basis alone. But as the wise man says, Fool me once...
  • TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? He's actually pretty engaging in the documentary.

    I don't need my President to be entertaining in front of a camera, I can go to the movies to be entertained. I want a President that is competent and willing to at least acknowledge when he's wrong.
  • ian87, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42I saw a great documentary by Spike Jonze, going on vacation with Gore at the very start of the 2000 campaign. For those who care to see it, it was packaged with McSweeny's #18 and the DVD is called Wholphin #1 (get it on Amazon maybe, or go into a big box book store and take your chances). Anyway, Gore was fantastic in the documentary, really self-deprecating and honest. Almost made me cry to think about him instead of GWB for the past six years.

    If Gore ran in 2008, I'd vote for him without hesitation. And all the negative crap stigma attached to him in 2000 was, in my mind, more a result of the media's demonizing him than his lack of ability, etc.
  • mattsidesinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37"Problem is, you put Gore in front of a camera and he's stiff as a board."

    Did you see his recent SNL appearence? I think he has been reprogrammed.
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37""Al Gore never said he invented the Internet, damn it."
    "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
    -Al Gore
    Judge for yourself."

    At least he never said "the Googles".
    Yes, that was taken out of context. He WAS the head of committee in the 70's to create legislation making the Internet public and opened it up to universal accessibility and the first public laws while most other people were busy figuring out how to use the revolutionary "three copy carbon".
  • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -9/+41Very good article. I would expect Gore as president with Obama as vice president. Good combo and they would really support each other. Just consider if Guliani would run, how would you win New York? With Clinton? I'm sceptical, also consider California and the south.

    And just Imagine. Imagine if Gore had been president instead of George W. Bush ;o)
  • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35Gore has a better chance of winning than Hillary Clinton. That woman is evil. Obama is popular, but I can't say that I know much about him, and I doubt that I am alone, so that may be a sign that he might be a hard sell. If Al Gore ran, I would probably vote for him. If Obama ran, I would probably vote for him, at least based on current information. If Hillary ran, I would have to throw my vote away on a third party candidate or something. I don't know if the Republicans would stand to get any votes from me, they kinda blew their last job, so it would take an absolutely amazing candidate this time.
  • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -11/+38"unelectable"

    They said the same thing about Republican Governor Schwarzenegger, after his early career in gay pornography became publicly noted...

    He's still around.
  • jfowler27, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28What I would like to see is Al Gore run and then see Bill Clinton support him over Hillary.

    Gore is the perfect candidate in my mind after the fiasco of this current administration and, like the article says, he has the experience to pull the job off better than anyone else on the ticket. What I would like to see is him step away from the Democratic Party though. Run as an independent. But with our country's political system as screwed up as it is, I doubt an independent could win the White House.
  • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34"Well considering he got re-elected, I believe that's shame on you."

    That's a shame on *all* off us.
  • TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28What you fail to understand (and this is coming from a New Yorker), is that there are plenty of people in NY that don't like Guiliani. It just happened to be that 9/11 happened at the end of his shift, so he got blown up as some kind of national hero.
  • vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25"[A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
    Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective."

    --Statement by Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Robert E. Kahn on 2000-09-28
  • quiltmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Obama is not a Muslim, and if he is I don't see why it would matter. Way to bring religious bias into the page!
  • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I've noticed a marked difference in Gore's demeanor on television in recent years. He is confident, engaging, and quite personable (at least compared to his old self) in his appearances. I think if he had acted that way during his campaign he would have won easily. Hopefully it will carry over into a future race. I fear the stiff personality was the result of the stress of campaigning and having millions of people fret over every word he said. I wouldn't blame him--that fear would make me stiff as a board too--but if true it means we'll likely be right back to the old Gore in a new campaign.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28"I voted for Bush both times, the second time holding my nose big time, but don't regret either vote because of Gore and Kerry."

    That's one of the most pathetic excuses ever. All you're doing is trying to deflect the blame for your own lack of judgment. Both of them are better men than Bush, both are smarter, better managers, more honest and I trust either of them to do a better job than W. The country would be light years ahead of where we are today and you damn well know it.

    Republicans will blame everyone but themselves when things go wrong. Some of them are still trying to blame Clinton! Anything but own up to a bad decision. Iraq is a mess because Iraqis aren't stepping up to do the job, or the generals didn't ask for enough troops, not ever because it was a bad decision and you put a failed CEO in charge of it. No, never that. Katrina was a mess because of the Louisiana governor and Brown. Not because of the top spots at FEMA and DHS being filled by fund raisers and party faithful instead of qualified people. Couldn't be that.

    We're in the ***** we're in now because of spineless, pathetic creatures like yourself. I would respect you more if you just came out and admitted you made a mistake but the people who are so damn quick to tell other people what they "need" to do just can't do that.
  • Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@geekee
    And look up in Wikipedia the number of things he did to advance the Internet and help make it as mainstream and widespread as it is today. Taking initiative in creating isn't the same as inventing. People manipulate and re-interpret his statement. He never intended to even imply that he single handedly invented the theory, technology, and implementation of the Internet. Too bad people would like to think he did. All he meant is that he took action to help make the Internet what it is today.
  • bdkarl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Gore was one of the most involved Vice Presidents in recent history (in a good way, not a Cheney way). Global warming is now a front-page issue, thanks to him. Like the article says, imagine what the past 6 years would have been like under a Gore administration. Run Al, Run!
  • GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19No independent will ever win, the deck's stacked too severely against them for that to be allowed. The 2 party coin toss (heads we win, tails you lose) is the only choice we're given, which suits both parties just fine.
  • TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15If the best you can come up with to describe why you don't like a potential candidate is that they are "Retarded", then you need to educate yourself and improve your vocabulary. Oh, and please stay home on voting day.
  • happyclam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Giuliani will get torn up in the primaries. He's too liberal for the GOP and he's got some questionable business partners that will be a huge liability.

    I agree that a Gore/Obama ticket would be truly excellent. Both have shown that they have a long-term vision that this nation desperately needs.
  • TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Giuliani was a disaster for New York City. He took the largest budget surplus the city ever had and squandered it. He denied the firefighters the money they needed for radios so they all died in the World Trade Center, then spent $35 million on security for City Hall. Despite warnings from each and every expert consulted, he insisted on putting the disaster center in WTC 7 so it was destroyed before it was ever used -- it's not a coincidence that WTC was owned by his biggest campaign contributor. While crime stats show reduced crime during his tenure, the crime rate went down even further in most major cities in the US -- and just try to report a mugging or a minor theft during the time or no, the police simply don't accept these reports.

    And he's a self-confessed adulterer and a cross-dresser ("only for fun" supposedly -- but he kept doing it on network TV). I think these are good points :-D but the result is to make him unelectable.
  • lj535i, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18"I never thought I would say this. But, Al Gore, stick to acting."

    Yeah! Just like Ronald Reagan! Oh wait...
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Ya, gotta hate those extremists that just trumpet what the vast majority of scientists on the planet have been saying for the past decade or so.

    Wait... that's not being an extremist; it's being a realist. Man, we could sure use a realist in the White House.

    Run Al. Run.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14CapNCash must get his all his news from Fox..
  • Coffeedemon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Don't forget he has also ridden the mighty moon worm.
  • Simcom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17I'd vote for him, but Obama is still my favorite.
  • shagz7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The question isn't Should he run. The question is WILL he run.
  • conradpaul, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20sorry: This is a really great article, AND while I kind of believed him when he's said recently that he doesn't plan to run, this story makes me think he could have a really good shot.
  • bmurph83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Agreed - Gore/Obama would be great for America!

    EDIT: ^what they said.
  • Jiffylush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Is that because you think he is an open minded moderate?

    Go look at his voting record, Bush republican all the way. Actually backed down on torture (signing statement), and he was ***** tortured!!
  • Jiffylush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"Wait, Jesus will be back any day now, let him worry about the environment"

    That is the Republican stance on the environment right?
  • StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I was rather iffy about Obama until recently. I liked him, sure, but I didn't see any compelling reason to vote for him.

    But his memo to Fox News made one thing clear: Obama has the balls to outright challenge everything that is hated about the government, corporate, media world. And if there's one thing severely missing from anyone who has a good idea of where the country should be heading, it's a set of cajones.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"I thought "Inconvienient Truth" was absolutely boring"

    It's a documentary; you weren't meant to be entertained.
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"i too would talk about him to everyone i know. i would remind them of what a jackass he is, and tell them that the reason he seemed to be doing nothing in the white house is because Hillary was busy"

    Yeah, things were horrible for America in the 90's, unlike today.

    /sarcasm
  • bigspruce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Gore has shown more leadership in the past 6 years (about America's and the world's future) than Bush and Cheney together.

    Had Gore been POTUS, Bush would barely be remembered at this point.
  • pgoetz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16It's hard to top an expression like "libtard", but then the libtards do have a full vocabulary to draw from for insults, which kind of levels the playing field a bit. Now get back to molesting your sister, Cleotis.
  • raitchison, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"why what has Obama done?"

    As an ex-Republican now Libertarian I can tell you that I rather like Obama, he's kind of liberal but at least he's honest about it rather than changing positions based on the latest polls (*cough*hillary*cough*). He's also not been in Washington very long so he's not absolutely corrupt & inept yet.
  • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15I wish every Republican who cites "nobody knows enough about Obama/Gore/whoever to get him elected" would get a dope slap. YOU people elected Bush based on him being "a guy I'd have a beer with." If you actually analyzed his past in business and government, you might have noticed his penchant for quick-fix long-term disaster policies.

    Not to mention his speaking skills going WAY downhill since his gubernatorial days. Was that an effect of detox or re-tox?
  • raitchison, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13GabrielS to be specific the economy started to turn south well before the 2000 election, and the bursting of the .com bubble (which was artificially inflating the economy) had been predicted by most economists for a few years before that.
  • myxyplik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I'd be down for Gore in '08, so long as Lieberman isn't his running mate again.
  • sodypop77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The only 'skeletons' I've seen in Obama's closet were fabricated by Faux News.
  • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"Can a pro-life adulturer"

    You meant pro-choice. And consider that Giuliani said if he had to appoint supreme court justices, he would appoint people like John Roberts.
  • xenoploid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11This country desperately needs instant run-off voting to accurately reflect the wishes of the populace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_run-off_voting How it basically works is, you rank your choices for who you want to elect, and if your 1st choice doesn't have enough votes, then your subsequent choices are used as your vote. If you want to vote for a minority like Obama, or a woman like Hillary, but are afraid that with the 50/50 division in the USA that these candidates don't have a strong enough chance, you can vote 1.Obama 2.Hillary 3.Gore, and if Obama and Hillary don't have enough votes upon the first counting of the votes, your vote goes to Gore.

    This avoids a multitude of problems with our current electoral system:

    - Right now, as I just mentioned, if a particular party has several strong candidates, the party vote is split up between them, thus allowing a single strong candidate from an opposing party to easily win.

    - Citizens don't vote for the person they really want, they vote for the lowest common denominator to ensure a party victory. Instant Run-Off voting creates a much more accurate reflection of who the country truly supports (i.e. the results from the initial count of people's #1 choice).

    - 3rd parties are essentially ignored right now, or they split the vote with horrible consequences (e.g. Nader, Gore, Bush in 2000)

    - Minorities and women have a much harder time getting elected when you have a Republican party block that largely opposes their election.

    Thus, we currently have a system that perpetuates a 2 party system full of old white men, who smile and lie through their teeth to appeal to the lowest common denominator, vote along partisan lines, and consistently get re-elected. I chalk it up to entrenched power not wanting to rock the boat and threaten their re-election, and an overblown reverence for the "Founding Fathers" as men who were wiser than they actually were. Some people have pushed to fix these fundamental flaws when they came and bit them in the ass (e.g. When Gore lost the electoral college vote, even though he won the popular vote). But they don't usually recognize the subtler flaws, like the ones I previously stated here.

    I don't think many people remember, or even know, that "We the people" stood for white, male, land-owners; and that all women have only been able to vote for President since 1920. So, yeah, our "Fathers" got some serious ***** wrong; and damn it, we need to fix it.
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Anyone but Hillary. I'm going to assume the Republicans are going to pay to have her win the primary, then laugh all the way to the Oval Office running a trained chimp like usual.
  • raitchison, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I like Guliani as well but unfortunately the religious right pretty much owns the Republican party right now. The way the primary system is rigged it's rare that the most electable person gets nominated by either party.
  • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"why what has Obama done?"

    Obama will have twice as much experience in public office in 2008 as Bush had when he was elected. In particular Bush had *no* experience in international (or even national for that matter) politics when he was elected. I agree that it would be nice if Obama had more experience, but why was it OK for Bush but not for Obama?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 274 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.