Former US vice president and Nobel laureate Al Gore talks during a session at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 24 January 2008. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In many ways, it's been a strange campaign up to this point. But it could get a lot stranger.
Consider this: What if we go through the Florida primary and Super Tuesday and the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama remains as tight as it's been? For the primaries, Democrats have the same rules in every state: delegates are awarded in proportion to the vote - meaning no winner-take-all. If Clinton and Obama continue to split the vote in many states, it's possible we could get to late spring or early summer and neither candidate would have enough delegates to secure the nomination.
And that's assuming they get that far without destroying each other with their increasingly nasty bickering. There just might be an opening for someone else to step in and unify the party. Oh, you know, like say maybe Al Gore.
Gore insists he won't run despite a movement called "draft-Gore-dot-com" that's calling on him to "transcend politics as usual and bring real hope to our country and to the world." As recently as last month, the former vice president said he has "no plans to be a candidate." But being a politician he added, "I see no reason to rule it out entirely."
Also, it's worth noting Gore has not backed either Clinton or Obama so far, and a recent report indicated that an endorsement by Gore is looking less likely. Former advisers suggest the Nobel Prize catapulted Gore to a new national and international standing that could possibly be tarnished by taking sides in the primary battle.
Here’s my question to you: If the Democrats have trouble picking between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, should Al Gore consider entering the race?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Jim writes:
There is more than room for Al Gore, regardless of what Hillary and Barack do, as long as he doesn't bring whining Joe along and the courts keep out of the results. Al and John Edwards would be an attractive ticket and would bring many young voters into the Democratic column on Election Day.
Anthony writes:
Al Gore: Yesterday's man, too late for America's tomorrow.
Jenny from New York writes:
I'm an Obama supporter, but I'd much rather see him beaten by Gore than Clinton!
Beverly writes:
Jack, Oh my God. Can you imagine the Clintons double teaming Gore? Gore entering the race sounds like a scheme only Karl Rove and his henchmen could come up with! The Democrats wouldn't survive the carnage or be a viable party for 25 years!
Ben writes:
Jack, I like Al Gore, voted for him in that ill-fated election that could have nipped this fiasco in the bud. But at this late stage in the game, I am afraid that his entry into the ring would only fracture the party worse than it already is.
Scott from Indiana writes:
Gore will never run because he would be forced to openly debate "global warming" (or "climate change" or whatever the current buzzword is) and we would have both sides challenging each other's "facts".
John from Connecticut writes:
Why not? If the election is close again, the Supreme Court will side with the Nobel Prize winner, won't they?
April writes:
No, no and no. I can not handle anymore Al Gore. He needs to pack his things and get his "inconvenient" ass out of the spotlight.