Al Gore to the Rescue?

[FOTD]

Gore now becomes America's most powerful democrat.


Democrats Look for Way to Avoid Convention Rift
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and JO BECKER
Published: February 16, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?ex=1203829200&en=6a66c9ae5c3e72c6&ei=5070&emc=eta1



"Former Vice President Al Gore and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday.

Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates.

The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.

But they also provided an early glimpse at the complex set of tradeoffs facing party leaders, from their desire to make their own influence felt to their worries about offending the candidates and particular constituencies — not to mention the long, sometimes troubled relationship between Mr. Gore and the Clintons.

The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses. That perception could cripple the eventual Democratic nominee's chances of winning the presidency in November, they said.

A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards and Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate.

"It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided," Ms. Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Ms. Pelosi said she intended to remain neutral, though some of her closest friends and allies in the House are publicly supporting Mr. Obama.

She said the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month, as the Clinton campaign has proposed. Mrs. Clinton got more votes in both places, although neither candidate actively campaigned there and Mr. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. The party had penalized those states for holding their primaries earlier than the party wanted by stripping them of their delegates to the convention.

"We can't ignore the rules which everyone else played by," Ms. Pelosi said.

Few figures are being more closely watched by Democratic insiders than Mr. Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who associates say has been lobbied hard for an endorsement by allies of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama.

Although it is not clear what role their past may play in his decision, Mr. Gore and the Clintons have a complicated, sometimes intense history, and Mr. Obama's strength in the presidential race could make it even more complicated.

Some of Mr. Gore's allies have complained bitterly that Mr. Clinton concentrated more on Mrs. Clinton's Senate run in 2000 than on getting Mr. Gore elected president. For his part, Mr. Clinton was surprised and hurt that Mr. Gore did not enlist him on the campaign trail in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

Although Mr. Gore has expressed concerns to some associates about the damage a brokered convention could cause, several associates said he was hopeful that one candidate would soon break through, sparing the party such an outcome. He told a close friend recently that his decision not to endorse "feels like the right thing" and that he remained optimistic the race "is going to tip at some point," the friend said.

Another close ally of Mr. Gore's, however, said: "He recognizes the need for a few party elders to stay on the sidelines to ensure, if needed, that the process is fair and honest. It could very likely take a group of senior party people, including Gore, to settle this, but the only way they can settle it is if they stay on the sidelines now."

Kalee Kreider, communications director for Mr. Gore, said that he "has no present plans to endorse a candidate," though she added, "He has not ruled out that possibility prior to the convention." Ms. Kreider declined to discuss Mr. Gore's private conversations with party leaders.

But four close associates of Mr. Gore's said senior party officials had actively consulted him for his advice about what the superdelegates should do if neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton amassed the 2,025 delegates necessary to win the nomination after the final Democratic caucus in Puerto Rico on June 7th.

Party leaders described Mr. Gore as a potentially crucial mediator because the putative head of the party — and the man who chose him as his vice president — Bill Clinton, is hardly a neutral observer when it comes to his wife's candidacy.

"Because President Clinton is very involved on one side, there is an opening for him to be a more neutral force and an honest broker," said a close associate of Mr. Gore's, who like most of the associates spoke only on the condition of anonymity. "He's probably the only unaligned person with the kind of stature to step in to that role and have a real impact on this."

Several allies said that because of Mr. Gore's bruising defeat in 2000 presidential voting in Florida, he would have the credibility with Democrats to carry the message that the will of the people should be respected.

Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are aggressively lobbying the superdelegates, a battle that received new attention after Representative John Lewis of Georgia, who had endorsed Mrs. Clinton, said late Thursday that he would cast his superdelegate ballot for Mr. Obama if the battle for the nomination went to the convention.

The Clinton camp has Mr. Clinton making frequent calls, and Mr. Obama's surrogates are pushing for superdelegates from states where he won primaries or caucuses to pledge their support to him.

But there was no sign of any wholesale shift in support toward Mr. Obama on Friday. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip and highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he intended to remain neutral and let the primaries play out even though Mr. Obama won overwhelmingly in his district and state.

"If I were to only reflect my state, then that may not be good enough for a national candidate," Mr. Clyburn said. "So I think we ought to use our collective judgment to do what is in the best interests of our party."

But the role that the superdelegates should play between now and the convention is at the heart of a raging debate. Mrs. Clinton's campaign, which is trailing in the delegate count, has taken the position that superdelegates should be free to choose the best-qualified candidate. Mr. Obama's campaign has said that the superdelegates should be bound by the voters' will.

Several senior officials cautioned that the party elders had not yet determined whether superdelegates should be urged to cast their votes for the candidate who has the most delegates, or the one who won their state or Congressional district, or the winner of the popular vote. Because Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton might lead in different categories, the question is a vital one.

At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said. Although a number of his supporters had been urging him to endorse Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton has actively sought his backing, Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said.

A senior associate of Mr. Gore's said that surrogates for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had tried to lock up the former vice president's endorsement. But he has steadfastly refused to even hint at which candidate he might favor. "

We will not get fooled again!

[we vs us]

Hm.

I'm happy that there's at least an effort to ameliorate the superdelegate system, and to have it reflect the will of the majority of Democrats.  I suppose we won't know till after the convention if it works or not. I have a feeling -- if Obama's momentum keeps up -- it may be a moot argument, but we'll see.

Al Gore's endorsement is one of the last big shoes to drop, along with Edwards'.  If they weighed in now for Obama, the primaries would be over for all intents and purposes.  If they weighed in for Clinton, I think the Democratic Party would split right in half, and all the internecine rancor that they're trying to head off would just explode.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Hm.

I'm happy that there's at least an effort to ameliorate the superdelegate system, and to have it reflect the will of the majority of Democrats.  I suppose we won't know till after the convention if it works or not. I have a feeling -- if Obama's momentum keeps up -- it may be a moot argument, but we'll see.

Al Gore's endorsement is one of the last big shoes to drop, along with Edwards'.  If they weighed in now for Obama, the primaries would be over for all intents and purposes.  If they weighed in for Clinton, I think the Democratic Party would split right in half, and all the internecine rancor that they're trying to head off would just explode.

good one

+millions of Americans

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Hm.

I'm happy that there's at least an effort to ameliorate the superdelegate system, and to have it reflect the will of the majority of Democrats.  I suppose we won't know till after the convention if it works or not. I have a feeling -- if Obama's momentum keeps up -- it may be a moot argument, but we'll see.

Al Gore's endorsement is one of the last big shoes to drop, along with Edwards'.  If they weighed in now for Obama, the primaries would be over for all intents and purposes.  If they weighed in for Clinton, I think the Democratic Party would split right in half, and all the internecine rancor that they're trying to head off would just explode.

I agree. I think many Dems, especially those new to the party, would view it as the fix being in. The Democratic Party should stand for Democracy, not dynasties.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Double A
The Democratic Party should stand for Democracy, not dynasties.

How simple. Just because your spouse or somebody else in your family was president, then you can't be.

Oppose Hillary if you want, but please find some other reason than her husband had the job.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Double A
The Democratic Party should stand for Democracy, not dynasties.

How simple. Just because your spouse or somebody else in your family was president, then you can't be.

Oppose Hillary if you want, but please find some other reason than her husband had the job.

Sure. Here's a good one, let's not send the message to all the little girls out there to stay in a dysfunctional relationship with an adulterous spouse if it serves your own personal, professional, or political ambitions. How's that?

[USRufnex]

Here's one, RM...

As First Husband... Bill will be co-president... I don't believe any of his lawyeristic bull mularkey insisting he's just going to be in the background.

------------------------------------------------

"No one suspected that former President Clinton would not be part of this race. Of course he would be. But the way he goes about it, what he says, how he says it, the tone he uses -- he is not the average spouse now. He is a former president of the United States." -- Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano

"As long as he is careful with the truth, I don't think any of us in any way resent his campaigning. But the fact that he has shaded things and he has tried to manipulate the facts in a way that is patently unfair, I think that is frankly flat wrong and I think it's demeaning." -- Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo

"He (President Clinton) said he kind of likes Barack and Hillary fighting. Is this a good thing, particularly when they are fighting over things the Clintons have created that are simply not true? I think it shows a disregard for the party and also I think jeopardizes our ability as Democrats to win the general election. They will do absolutely anything and say anything in order to win the election." -- Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill


It's amazing how they could be so protective of 28 yo Chelsea, yet now want to have it both ways when they PIMP HER OUT on the campaign trail...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxgw04Y0Fc

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Double A
Sure. Here's a good one, let's not send the message to all the little girls out there to stay in a dysfunctional relationship with an adulterous spouse if it serves your own personal, professional, or political ambitions. How's that?

So you feel she should lose the election because you disagree with her decision on how to handle her marriage?

Do you even know about the marriages of the other candidates? McCain's divorce and re-marriage? Obama's infidelity rumors?

Of course not.

Again. How simple of you to judge her based on these things.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael Obama's infidelity rumors?

Would you like to share that rumor with the rest of the class???

Or are you just as guilty of using spin and innuendo as the "right wing conspiracy"....... ?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Double A
Sure. Here's a good one, let's not send the message to all the little girls out there to stay in a dysfunctional relationship with an adulterous spouse if it serves your own personal, professional, or political ambitions. How's that?

So you feel she should lose the election because you disagree with her decision on how to handle her marriage?

Do you even know about the marriages of the other candidates? McCain's divorce and re-marriage? Obama's infidelity rumors?

Of course not.

Again. How simple of you to judge her based on these things.

KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.  At least you can still respect yourself in the morning, unlike the spin to win ethos of the HillBillary Clintonistas. Kisses.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Would you like to share that rumor with the rest of the class???

Or are you just as guilty of using spin and innuendo as the "right wing conspiracy"....... ?

I shouldn't. You are right. They are out there, but not worthy of this conversation.

But the point is that people like doubleA know about Hillary's husband's infidelity and thus judge her...without knowing or asking about their own candidate.

I just ask you to have other reasons.

[guido911]

quote:
Oppose Hillary if you want, but please find some other reason than her husband had the job.

Some other reason? Her husband having the job is her only qualification...

[RecycleMichael]

et tu guido?

McCain is just qualified because he was a prisoner of war? Obama is qualified because he talks real purty?

[Breadburner]

Monica Lewinsky's ex boyfreind wont make a very good first lady.....

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

et tu guido?

McCain is just qualified because he was a prisoner of war? Obama is qualified because he talks real purty?

Are you serious? Do you really believe Hillary, on her own, has political clout? She is gravy training off of her husband. Hell, other than herself the most visible person in her campaign is her husband. Can you say the same about McCain or Obama? Uhhh. No.