March 25th, 2008
02:15 PM ET

Gore-led ticket good compromise for Democrats?

 Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

A Florida congressman is suggesting that a brokered convention for the Democrats could lead to some pretty unexpected results. In other words, forget about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Representative Tim Mahoney says he wouldn't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket. He says a compromise candidate could be someone like Al Gore.

In a newspaper interview, Mahoney said if the convention is deadlocked and either Clinton or Obama suggested a Gore-Obama or Gore-Clinton ticket, the party would accept it.

Mahoney is one of the almost 800 superdelegates who would get to cast a vote at the convention. He hasn't endorsed either Clinton or Obama yet, but has been wooed by both.

It's an interesting idea. It's not clear if Democrats really know what they're in for if this nasty battle continues all the way to the Denver convention. The way things are going, there could be enough acrimony by the time it's over that neither Obama nor Clinton would any longer be viewed as electable.

Al Gore has insisted he won't run and that he has "no plans to be a candidate", although he's also said "I see no reason to rule it out entirely." And, it's worth pointing out that the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner has not yet endorsed either Clinton or Obama. So stay tuned.

Here’s my question to you: If a ticket led by Al Gore somehow emerged from a brokered convention, would that be a good thing for the Democrats?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Adam writes:
Great. So now Obama and Clinton will fight it out to see who gets to be Gore's V.P.? I think that a congressman from Florida has a lot of nerve even suggesting this. The Florida Democratic Party is part of the reason this election is such a mess. The Democratic Party leaders and Florida and Michigan should stand up and start taking responsibility for this mess they've created, instead of patronizing us with ridiculous fairy tales.

Eugene writes:
The fact is if neither candidate has enough votes on the first ballot at the convention then those delegates are released from their pledges and are free to draft another candidate from the floor. This is not robbery, it is simply recognition that neither candidate has a majority of the party's support, and thus cannot be expected to unite the party to win in November. My feeling is that this is the DNC sending up a trial balloon to see if this proposal will garner the support of the party regulars as a solution to the August train wreck that is coming around the corner.

Woody from Tucson, Arizona writes:
That's just stupid. No one runs a campaign for 2 years to give the top spot to someone who wasn't running.

Cindy writes:
A Gore nomination would really tick off the voters of both front-runners and show the world how wishy-washy the Democrats are. It's gotta be Obama or Clinton, and the one who doesn't get the nomination will have to convince their supporters that it's ok to support the other guy. That's why the negative rhetoric has to stop. It's going to make it harder and harder to deprogram their supporters.

Barb from Canada writes:
If you think you've heard griping by not allowing Florida and Michigan votes to count, just try not counting the votes of the entire nation! It would be the end of the Democrats, although Gore would probably win the election!

Angelos from Munich writes:
Yeah, that would make sense: make both candidates unhappy. Next time we can as well do away with the primaries and nominate Chelsea right from the start.

Rob writes:
Any more ridiculous suggestions you want to post, Jack?

Filed under: Democratic Race
soundoff (519 Responses)
  1. thelma nashville tn.

    No and why would it jack

    March 25, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  2. Ed Reed

    To my shame, I didn't vote for Al Gore in 2000. In fact, I didn't vote at all because I thought it was a choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I had no idea Tweedle Dum would turn out to be so, well, dumb. If I could get a do-over, I would move to Florida and vote 900 times for Al Gore.

    Ed Reed
    Port Aransas, TX

    March 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  3. Jessica

    Then we'd have to worry about who will be the V.P. and that will start another earthquake within the party with Hillary and Obama supporters focused more on the V.P. than the President. Seems a bit backwards to me. I feel like either way, approximately half of the Democratic party is going to be disappointed with the candidate. So let's focus on who is electable. That might just be Gore.

    Lexington, KY

    March 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  4. mikeytherhino

    Yes. He's smart, He's politically savvy, he's rested, he's ready. Plus, Anything is better than these two lunkheads. Obama has no experience and he's a racist. Hillary is too polarizing. Gore-Bloomberg. That's The Ticket.

    Mike, from Staten Island, New York

    March 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  5. Channell from Boston

    This would be interesting considering Gore has no delegates! I am pretty certain that a Gore/Obama ticket would rock the nation!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  6. DW; Miami, FL

    Jack that would be AWFUL! If the superdelegates deprive the candidate with the most delegates of the nomination (Obama), I will most certainly vote for McCain in 2008.

    If they add insult to injury by nominating someone that NOBODY voted for this election cycle, I will likely not vote for a Democrat the rest of my adult life.

    Independant in Miami

    March 25, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  7. Ron Richmond, VA

    Jack, this is the kind of rhetoric that damages the process, let the process work. Leave it alone, don't make it out to be bad. Lots of others countries would love to have the chance to go through an election process like this. All that is happening here is real choices based on a process we all agreed on. Now whether some of us were not paying attention when the process was agreed on is irrelevant, it's a done deal.
    Sure there may be some bugs in the system, time will work them out. You cannot demand to know now what will happen just to incite bloggers!
    To answer your question, it's irrelevant, not going to happen! Your variables are way out there.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  8. Mark - Asheville, NC

    What a breath of fresh air that would be! If there is any way in the world for this to happen, let's do it!! Hillary and Obama are both unelectable as it is – having either Gore, or John Edwards, as nominee is our only hope now of beating Mccain.

    But I am suspicious here: would the media turn on him by Labor Day? Would they be leading us down the garden path again? The way they have turned on the Clintons is instructive here; would it be the same for President Gore? (He was elected, by the way, in 2000.) Does he know the attacks would begin immediately, and this is why he did not run??

    March 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  9. IFEANYI AZUBIKE Houston, Texas

    Mahoney is an another example of why Florida still cannot get their acts together. We have a nasty problems that is compounded by the inability of Florida to stick to the rules and the congressman is telling us that since their illegal votes will not count, then the votes of those law abiding citizens who thronged to the polls to make a statement should be tossed. It is irresponsible and to come from a congressman leaves me wondering if, with minds like his we actually need a congress.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  10. Dan, Washington DC

    It would be good for the Democrats in that there is no way McCain could possibly beat him. On the other hand, it would just be another example of how messed up the party is that they need to beg someone who wasn't running the first place to take over because their two candidates aren't cutting it. Weighing those two opinions, I'd say this is one of those times when cutting your losses and starting over would be the way to go. Possible other option; John Edwards. Unlike Gore, he actually wants to be a candidate right now. This will probably never happen if only because the party does not want to go through Clinton-Obama again in 2012.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  11. Carolyn Louisiana

    No it would not be a good thing for the democratics. After all this time we are given a candidate that no one voted on, where is the democracy? I respect and admire Al Gore, but to come out of left field, no campaigning, no money spent or raised to campaign, no one voted for him, and then be on top of the ticket. NO WAY IS THIS GOOD!!! None of us needed to vote if the democratic party was going to give it to AL Gore.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  12. tracy adams

    No, it would be a huge mistake. But I think VP Gore will step in and endorse Barack Obama soon.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  13. Efren

    How does Gore get troops out of Iraq? How does he fix our economy? What does he want to do with health care? Exactly, we don't know? And we want to hand him the nomination at the convention? I don't think so!


    March 25, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  14. Patricia

    Well, it should have Gore/Edwards in 2000. I don't know if it should be Gore now. Maybe Gore/Obama or a Gore/Edwards ticket would be nice. At least we know that our Nation would lead in creating "Green Jobs" & that our Nation would finally have Universal Health Care as well.
    Palmdale, Ca.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  15. Joe in DE

    Gore would be a strong canidate,however unlikely.

    Hillary & Brack supporters are acting really stupidly. I have seldom seen two canidatea with less policy diffrences than these two. Yet some idiots are saying that if one wins that they will not vote for the other. Apparently these people are more committed to predjudice and personality than to issues.

    Get on board – support the Dream Ticket. Or of course you can support McCain who has become the reicarnation of king George, or waste your vote on Raph Nader.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  16. Jean, Arizona

    I have the highest respect for VP Gore, however I do not believe that it should be the corner that this democracy turns. With either Clinton or Obama the voices of a free people will have been heard when all primaries are finished. That is what is truly important - the voice and vote of the people - not the good of any particular party.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  17. Mike S., New Orleans, Louisiana

    I think Gore could have won the nomination outright if he had run, so yes, this would be a good thing.

    The split between Obama and Clinton has become so acrimonious, if either won the nomination at least half the Democrats would be turned off.

    Gore could unite the Democrats entirely and assume the presidency he won in 2000 but was negated by dirty Rove-arian tricks in Florida.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  18. Tosha-Atlanta, GA

    Tosha- Atlanta, GA

    Jack I am a big fan of Al Gore, but no one voted for him during this primary cyle. This would not be the democratic way and voters will feel slighted. It would appear that the higher ups are pulling all the strings and ignoring the will of the people.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  19. Paulette Dallas,PA

    Great idea! Gore is also an Academy Award winner – just to add some sparkle. He certainly deserves it since he was robbed in 2000. Hillary has lots of baggage and Obama is turning out to be "damaged goods." Sounds like the best idea yet!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  20. Brian

    C'mon Jack, you know Gore isn't going to run for the White House. I can't imagine anything that would make people madder than the superdelegates overturning Obama's popular vote victory – except for another candidate who received zero votes taking the nomination.


    March 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  21. Robert in Toronto, ON

    I think Obama would benefit the most from having someone like Al Gore or John Edwards on his ticket. That might even convince those who have sided with Hillary to reconsider their vote come November. I'd still prefer to have Obama on top of that ticket though.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  22. kris

    that's rubish!!!!!...people are not voting for Gore in the primaries and obviously he has not been working hard like this candidates..so he doesn't deserve anything.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  23. wood burns

    That's just stupid. No one runs a campaign for 2 years to give the top spot to someone who wasn't running.


    Tucson, AZ

    March 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  24. Rico

    How about someone as unexpected as Judas erm I mean Gov. Richardson.
    He would fit right in with most peoples perception of our current crop of politicians.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  25. Fav

    Al Gore should be the one running for president!! He is the one true person that will save our country from doom!!

    I'm a Clinton supporter, and in a heart beat I would give my vote to Gore!!

    Please somehow convince him to run - all this BS going on between Clinton and Obama is getting petty and ridiculous – and is really deterring me from trusting any one of them to be my president.

    I've signed many petitions asking Gore to run for president!! It would be dream come true if he was at the top of the ticket!! Gore-Clinton!!

    I still have faith!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  26. Terry in Hanover, VA

    Isn't reality bad enough without adding Gore fiction to it? Won't happen. Gore doesn't want to do it and has made that clear. Obama has made it clear he must be number one or he's going home and taking his delegates with him. Hillary and Bill have their own internal struggle since both want to be on top of the ticket; forget about number two. Plus, the Clintons like Gore almost as much as they like Bill Richardson. You'd be better off pairing Gore with Kerry.

    The Democratic circular firing squad will continue until the very end. Duck!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  27. Tracy

    Gore would be a fantastic president--he was robbed when he ran last time. We wouldn't be in the mess we are in but for the hanging chad controversy. Just like Hillary, Gore has experience, is intelligent and has enormous respect in the world. Just like Gore, if Florida votes don't count another great leader will be robbed of the presidency. And I am not talking about Obama!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  28. roger dowdle lockhart, tx

    I think it would be a big mistake for the superdelegates to decide on any other than the leading candidate. Why bother having a primary if the candidates are going to be dictated by party cronies? It would essentially be disenfranchising all the voters who participated so far. After all her squawking about disenfranchisement of mich. & fla. Clinton can not possibly justify accepting any solution other than majority rule! She needs to take responsibility for the role people in her campaign played in establishing the penalties for early voting states, as well as her comment that their votes just shouldn't count, Of course that was before super tuesday (back when she expected to win).

    March 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  29. Randy - Philadelphia, PA

    The Fox types would have a field day with a back-room deal to put Gore at the top of the Dem ticket. Sean Hannity would have to change his pants in between telling his audience that this is proof of Democrats hating America, though he'd repeat that garbage even if Reagan was resurrected and decided to run as a Democrat.

    Since having the election stolen from him by our highest court, Gore hasn't made a misstep. Every time Bush has made a mistake, you could go to the videotape and listen to Gore say what should have been done, and why Bush is about to make the wrong decision.

    After the immediate backlash against the party, in comparing Gore to Humphrey of 68, or Carter of 80, Americans will listen to him and decide he was the right man in 2000, and he'd be the right man now.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  30. Darth Vadik

    This congressman should have his head examined.
    This would be an insult of all insults, and I love Al Gore, but he did not go thru a grueling primary like Barack and Hillary.
    Maybe he can be the vice president, but not the president.

    As far as Obama and Clinton, Hillary is not only done, but has also forever ruined the Clinton name with her deceptions, lies and secrecy.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  31. Nancy

    This is what I have been saying all along.... We need Al Gore to win back the White House.... Clinton/Obama has split the country and I don't thnk either can win... Al Gore for President!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  32. James from Maryland

    You always support Obama and you have never seen anything wrong about him. If not for Wolf, nobody will be listening to you. You should stop your anger against Hillary Clinton.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  33. Jed from Chico, CA

    That's a great idea - Let's have a candidate for President that NOBODY voted for this year. If Gore is at the top of the ticket after a brokered convention we might as well just hand over the keys to the White House to John McCain and save us all a lot of time and money.

    Not that I have anything against Al Gore. Dare I say he deserves to be president and is highly qualified on a plethora of levels. But you just don't hand over the nomination to someone you like and throw out 18 months of hard campaigning and six months of voters having a say in whom they prefer to be president.

    We don't need a brokered convention – this is a purely Clinton invention. A last ditch effort to get her into the white house. If the roles were reversed and Clinton was ahead in popular vote, states won and delegate count Obama would be yesterdays news and Hillary would be busy with exploratory committes on possible cabinet members.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  34. Sarah L., Fayetteville, AR


    Why not? Then, maybe the Republicans can put Dubya at the top of their ticket. Then, maybe, instead of having an election in November, we could let the Supreme Court decide the presidency again. That way we could forget about letting people vote all together. It would save a lot of time and money.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  35. DShawn233, LaVergne, Tn

    I first heard this idea a month ago and I said no way, but, the fact that The Clinton Party seems hell bent (not sorry Carville) on complete party destruction before they allow Obama to beat them has made me reconsider the thought.
    I would still like to see Senator Obama as President , but, a Gore/Obama ticket would go over very well and "Camp Hillarious" would then get everything that they have earned through their conduct during this campaign.
    No body knows the Clintons like Al Gore knows the Clintons and he would never allow a Clinton to be on his ticket. With Al Gore on the ticket we could at least have the person that served as Vice President in contrast to the Candidate that "misspeaks" about her prowess as First Lady.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  36. Heather in Huntingdon Valley, PA

    Hillary said again today that the pledged delegates can vote for who they want, not who was chosen by the voters. So my question to you Jack is, "Why even have elections?" If the pledged delegates can change their votes why spend millions of dollars and give the American public the false idea that their votes count? Hey, I know – let's let the Sumpreme Court decide who should be President! It worked so well in 2000.

    I love Gore but he did not run this time. Had he run, he would have gotten my vote. Now, Obama will get my vote. What a slap in the face of the American voters if our votes do not count.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  37. justobserve

    No, Gore is not running. He has not been voted by the people. Period!
    Obama can run as Independent if he chooses. He doesn't have to follow the rules of old politics if he wants to change.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  38. rja


    March 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  39. Katiec Pekin, IL

    No, Gore entering the race would not be good and cannot imagine him doing it. Believe he cares too much for the Democratic Party to be involved in anything like that, and has had his fill of politics.
    He is pursuing a cause he is proud of.
    With one candidate continuing to be negative, distort to anything but
    the kitchen sink, it is almost impossible for the campaign to go
    in a positive direction, as, some of the outlandish comments and
    accusations have to be addressed.
    If we had two candidates that sincerely cared about the country,
    the voters and the Democratic Party there would be no problem.
    But, unfortunately, one of the candidates stoop to any level to win,
    regardless of the harm she causes.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  40. barbara Actisdano

    Wow! What a question? I think it makes sense as the people in this Country would probably be happy with that situation-GORE AND OBAMA would be great but would OBAMA and his followers be Happy ??????????? If something don`t happen soon [like Clinton giving up, which will not happen as she beleives it is her and Bill`s W.H.} there are going to be a lot of angry DEMS. Anything can happen in Politics and probably will! That ball-headed man who speaks for HILLERY is on the news day and night- I cannot wait until he stops talking, I just mute him out! I am still for OBAMA for PRESIDENT!
    Barbara from Sebring, Florida!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  41. James S. Lenon - TN

    While former VP Gore would be better than either Clinton or Obama, he has already demonstrated his own lack of electability. Handed a failing economy and unpopular war, a housing crisis, immigration morass, and health care system in collapse, all caused by the Republican party in some manner; the Democrats still insist on throwing the election.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  42. Qwami

    Nope...they will lose the Obama vote even if Obama is VP , most people still wonder why they have allowed Hillary to mud sling for long and Obama bar Wright issues is still coming out clean.

    If the Democrats do that, students who have fought for Obama and all the interest in the election from new vote will be puff!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  43. Michael in Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: That would be the Democrat's worse nightmare. It's counter to common sense, and believe me that concept would only materialize by "chance", and in politics nothing happens by chance.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  44. Christina Mercelle Carlson

    This has to be a joke! Isn't this enough of a mess?
    What about the voters? Gore has no place on the ticket. If he want to be president this time he should have run. Hillary will continue to lie cheat and steal but at least she has some votes.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  45. Glenn

    Jack, Gore is great Democrat and great American. Maybe Al is the one who needs to endorse Obama and lead the other uncommitted Superdelegates to do likewise and simply end the negative campaign of Hillary.

    Hillary's latest scandal of "misspeak" in Bosnia and Carville's shameful attack on Hispanic Governor Ricahardson shows her campaign is at critical mass and has started into it's meltdown.

    Today's newest Gallup poll shows that Obama has taken the lead over Hillary showing people's disgust of Hillary and her old politics.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  46. Alex H


    Not a chance. However every day that goes by with Hillary and Obama fighting tooth and nail makes John Edwards look better and better. Since he's been gone he's looked really good as a candidate. He's got the experience Clinton boasts of and the message of change Obama preaches for. I'd be ok with an Edwards-led ticket but Gore won't work for me.

    Waterbury, CT

    March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  47. Amy in Woodstock, NY

    As much as I admire and respect Al Gore, I don't think this would be a good thing. Al Gore is like an elder statesmen and involved in global warming. I just don't think it would be a good idea. I am only interested in Al Gore helping Hillary Clinton to bow out gracefully. We need a new generation of leadership.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  48. Rosalynd

    A fight at the convention and a turn to Al Gore would show the Democrats don't have their act together. I like Al Gore and would vote for him like I did in 2000 but Obama has the lead now and should be the nominee. Divisive, do anything Clinton will be out of the race no later than June and the Democrats can move on.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  49. william

    What a great time to be a republican. If a party is so indecisive that they can't even choose their candidate, how can they run a country?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  50. James in Cape Coral, FL

    Sorry, no! If Al Gore wanted to be part of this race he should have entered like everyone else and allowed the voters to decide if they want him. I doubt there is any one person, even Al Gore, who is so revered by the American people that they would be willing to cast aside their vote and accept the DNC's choice without giving the people any say. Al Gore might be a great man but this is a year for change and with the exception being global warming, I don't see how Gore represents anything but the status quo.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  51. Nathan

    Would that be a good thing for the Democrats? Only if they want to throw away the election. The American public was presented choices in the Democratic caucuses and primaries, and now some Democrats are thinking about completely disregarding the entire nation's choice for someone not even on the ballot?

    What a shameful sidestep of the American electorate this would be. I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats who would happily vote for McCain in the face of such a blatant disregard for public opinion.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  52. Nick

    I don't believe that the American voters would take kindly to a third wheel being brought into the race in the last lap.
    San Diego, CA

    March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  53. Daniel

    There is no way this would happen. I don't think the public would allow this to happen. As much as I like Gore, I just don't think it would be fair to the other candidates. I'm a huge Obama supporter but I think the biggest mistake would be an Obama/Clinton ticket. I would probably vote for it, but it would be tough. I certainly would not vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  54. Texas Independent Ft Worth Tx

    You are kidding right? Good Lord NO!! Gore is a throw-back to the old days that's for sure.

    The Dems need to stop the infighting...they are eating their own right now and it is disgusting. But, I'm hanging in there because I think America has a once in a lifetime opportunity to elect an amazing president in Obama. Hillary has proven over and over she will do and say anything to win.

    I think Clinton's triangulation theory is alive and well and will probably get McCain elected. The sad thing is they won't care...if it isn't Hillary...it won't be any Democrat.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  55. Rex in Portland, Ore.

    I am an admirer of Al Gore, and if takes him as a compromise to salvage the Democratic Party I will support that idea. But it will not be "good" for the party – it will be a salvage job of a broken party.

    The obvious solution is for HRC to wake up, smell the roses that have died, and start uniting instead of dividing. Too bad that will not happen.
    The will of the peope and the rules of the party mean no more to her than to the current administration or the legislatures of Florida and Michigan.

    I personally do not think that we should ask Mr. Gore to lose another election.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  56. Roger B from Portland, OR

    No, they would loose my vote. While in retrospect, Al Gore may have been a better president than Bush, it is only because he was the lesser of the two evils. If Gore is chosen, I would lose complete interest in the election and probably politics in general. He is just more of the same. It would be no different than if Hillary won the nomination, especially as they were both Vice President.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  57. Judy Beardsley

    If Gore were the candidate, I WOULD vote for him. If it's Clinton, I'd stay home. The party has the opportunity to nominate the finest candidate who has emerged since John Kennedy–a candidate who would make such a huge difference for the country both at home and abroad. What a shame that Hillary is so clearly putting personal ambition ahead of the policies she supposedly cares about. She clearly doesn't have the good of the party or the people at heart. At least Al Gore does. Judy B.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  58. cc, Chicago

    The Democratic Party is getting more and more divided by the day. What it needs is leadership right now. Howard Dean has allowed this primary to get out of control. Could it end in an Al Gore led ticket? Possibly. Ironic that he would then end up the beneficiary of a brokered ticket that overturned the primary votes, considering the court cases he filed opposing that type of a voting process after the 2000 presidential campaign. Would it appease the democratic core base and reunite the party? Maybe. Would it turn off new voters to the process and independents? Probably. Al Gore is not running, has no platform, has not engaged in debates, etc. for voters to know what he stands for. Can he come up with a platform and sufficient position papers in time for voters to make an informed decision in the November general election? Highly unlikely.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  59. Obamacrat

    Oh my God, did I wake up this week in Bizarro world? Fake sniper attacks, pledged delegates being stolen, and now Gore for President. Are you kidding me?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  60. Stephen, Portland OR

    I have been saying this for weeks now! I would love for this to happen, and it would be a perfect way to NOT alienate 10% or more of the Democratic base.

    I think it would be a hard sell. I also doubt this will go to August. There will be a lot of pressure on Clinton immediately after the last June primary, if she is as far behind as things seem to indicate she will be.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  61. Realistic

    Not happening - If Obama has either the lead in delegate count or popular votes (and barring some really wild event he will have both), the Democratic Party will not risk turning away a new generation of energized voters who have come out just for Obama.

    It's over for Hillary, she's just too egomaniacal to acknowledge it.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  62. Matt

    I don't think t would work, although I like the idea. I also don't think a Gore/Clinton ticket would fly because they don;t get along and Gore would rightfully fear the Bill and Hillary trying to usurp power.

    I think an Obama/Gore ticket would be the best option. It would help unite the party w/o alienating the voters who have given Obama the lead (lets not forget he is winning).

    Gore would have to swallow some pride and be VP again. Maybe Obama and Gore could broker a deal to give the VP more responsibility.

    Gore is still young enough to run again in 4-8 years. I believe we'll see him run in 2012 if McCain wins.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  63. Mike

    Al Gore's shot at President has come and gone, for better or worse. I would have voted for him had he been campaigning all along, but the idea that I'd go for him inserted at the convention when the whole campaign (and all the voting) has been about Clinton & Obama? Terrible idea and whoever thought of it is quite mistaken I'm afraid

    March 25, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  64. Nuwan Sam

    It is a wonderful idea that will be dead on arrival. It will not fly. Neither of these candidates or Al Gore will agree. It is simple as that.

    Nuwan from Houston, Texas

    March 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  65. caroline, los angeles

    Al Gore? Where did he come from? The Democractic party would be ruined if this dumb idea gets passed. What about the millions of people who voted for Sen. Clinton and/or Sen. Obama for President and NOT VP. The Democrats are seriously in another planet if they think people will stand for this mess!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  66. Chris Swansea, MA

    Al Gore should have thrown his hat into the arena six months ago it's too late now. Sen. Clinton should have given up at least a month and a half ago. Get ready for President McCain. I'll vote for the first person who remembers that Osama Bin Laden needs to answer for 9/11. The current Prez and Vice Prez have forgoten.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  67. MT San Francisco, CA

    No, No, I like Al Gore but for him to come and try and take it away from the Democratic candidates that worked so hard over the past 15 months would be disastrous. He would have to come in as a different party in the General Election for it to be any way fair. We need something new for America, not a 90's revival, even though he did "invent the internet".

    March 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  68. Tony, Wilton, ME

    Anything that stops the foodfight and brings Democrats together is good. Right now the circular firing squad is forming up. it's only a matter of time before someone gives the order to fire resulting in four more years of Bush.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  69. Ben, College Park, MD

    Personally I like him better than both of them. If Al Gore is on the ticket I will be %100 for him. But I think he should finish this mess by taking side, instead of running. If Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and perhaps John Edwards step in and endorse Obama, Hillary will either quit or loose big.

    The way to heal is not to throw both of them away, Al Gore is the ace that can end all this.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  70. Will from Gaithersburg, MD

    An Obama-Gore ticket would be a natural choice. However, I highly doubt Gore would want to be VP for the second time.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  71. carlton Brose

    This is such a silly question as many on CNN have become. You are becoming more and more difficult to watch with Wolf brazenly thumbing his nose at Obama and white washing Hillary.
    When is CNN going back to the format where they simply give us the news on the hour and stop this repetition of non-news from the talk shows and the silly folks that bring you that sad "entertainment" you repackage and call "news". You're making the Democratic race into a farce, which it is not. It is actually two very good candidates struggling to get their messages across which you are constantly diluting.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  72. Obama all the way

    With this 6 week break until the Pennsylvania Primary, do these people have nothing else to do but speculate on the ridiculous? Next, they'll be suggesting it might be Santa Claus and Peter Pan on the ticket. It's not going to happen!!!! Obama is the best thing for the democrats and whether they realize it now or later....it is just a matter of time!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  73. Matt

    If Clinton is not ultimately the nominee, a ticket led by Al Gore would certainly be a good thing. Otherwise, I will with a heavy heart be voting for McCain. Obama is just not experienced enough to be president of the United State (yet). I refuse to vote for Obama just because he's a Democrat or because he makes people feel good. That is far from sufficient given the world we live in.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  74. Eugene in Northern California

    Jack, a ticket led, by Al Gore and brokered, from what's left, of democratic party leadership will lead, to race riots across the nation. Obama has the popular vote and delegate lead. Any back room superdelegate deal will lead, to civil unrest and more independent voters.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  75. Paul

    Hillary knows that she can't win and she is tearing Obama down. Between McCain and Obama, who do you think Bill Clinton will support?
    This primary is about the number of pledged delegates not about who is down in polls in Arkansas or Ohio.
    Gore knows that Obama has more delegates and will have more than Billary after the primary BUT he wants democrats to see how Clintons operate! Remember, everybody else is JUDAS and Billary is Jesus.

    Chantilly, Virginia

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  76. George Wilson

    It would for this Democrat. If he ran it wouldn't be all of this bickering, I do know one thing for sure, and that is Clinton doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination without Florida, and Michigan, and Obama couldn't win any of the states that he carried before if the elections were held again. Obama has took on way too much baggage lately, enough that the majority will not vote for him, nor Clinton either. It is one thing for sure in my book, and that is if Clinton, or Obama run the Democrats will lose. I for one know they can't get my vote. I will vote Republican the first time in my life.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  77. robert from nc

    Jack, This type of talk only hurts the process. Mr. Gore is not part of this race and should make it clear he is retired from politics. I'm afraid if the pundits don't step back and allow the primaries to held that the Dem's will never get it together at the convention...Resulting in a much lower turn out for the general election....Let's vote then do the math!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  78. Sue, Bloomington, IN

    No. It would still completely disregard the will of the voter. Do the democrats remember 'the voter'?!? You know those people they're going to need in November? The candidate with the most elected delegates, the most states won and the most popular votes needs to win the nomination. Otherwise, I and a LOT of others will stay home in November. It's really that simple.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  79. Michael NY, NY


    To put it simply, if a Gore/Obama ticket came out of the convention, I would quit my job, break up with my girlfriend, sell my house, give away my dog, put my possessions in storage, move to a swing state, and work tirelessly until election day to ensure that ticket reaches the White House!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  80. Martin (La Paz, Bolivia)

    Makes a lot more sense than Clinton/Obama or the reverse. However I don't see Hillary getting into bed (figuratively speaking) with Gore (nor his idea of a match made in heaven); he could agree to a single term only, so as to give a head-start for 2012 to his running-mate, which I think would have to be Obama.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  81. Adam Orlando Florida

    I would vote for a Gore/Clinton ticket.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  82. April in texas

    Nope as I will still back Obama. I would probably be more apt to vote for Gore rather than Clinton though but Obama is my first choice..

    Obama 08
    Austin Texas

    March 25, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  83. Tonya in Atlanta

    I like Al Gore and I believe he actually won the 2000 election, but I think he can do more good outside of politics now. Having him lead the ticket at this late stage in the game would be to concede that the democratic party is irrevocably fractured. I could care less about Obama's ex-pastor or Hillary's exaggerations, I just want to vote in good conscience for the best candidate. I think that if things continue to go downhill, Nader may become relevant again.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  84. Paula, Seattle

    Hi Jack,

    I think that if the Democratic party really wanted Al Gore in the race again that it would have been pushed many months ago. As much as I like Al Gore, I do not believe he has the ability to bring the Independent and on the fence Republicans out to vote. It is time for Democrats to come together and work towards making sure that John McCain does not take this election from them.

    As it stands, Barack Obama has the lead, has the numbers, has the ability to unify the nation and will be the stronger representative for the Democratic Party. Let's come together and use our strengths to support Sen. Obama fully as the Democratic nominee.

    Ugh, no more of the politics of the past. Let's move towards a strong future.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  85. Rich Dallas, Texas

    When Pigs fly. One or the other Clinton or Obama will be the nominee. Mr. Global warming had 8 years to do something while Vice President of this country and did nothing. His household electric bill is over 2000 dollars a month. This guy is about as green as Barney the dinosaur. There is no chance that gore will be the nominee. None at all. Gore is an illusion. Just smoke and mirrors.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  86. mike

    hey jack : i like to first say you are amongst the elite news anchors in my book, about the subject in hand , i think al gore's endorsement or taking a lead part in the democratic party will be one of the most important steps to get red of the (bush/dick) tyranny that took the soles out of peoples hearts and created hate all around the world.

    houston, tx

    March 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  87. Kevin in Austin

    Sounds nice, but it's fraught with too many practical problems, the least of which is that Mr. Gore hasn't had to pay the price of admission – for Obama, a bruising fight with the Clinton machine, and for Clinton, a bruise to her ego that people actually like somebody else.

    I do think that Gore as a VP on an Obama ticket would be awesome. He would actually be allowed to do something – like spearhead a real global climate initiative, or a change in our healthcare policy. A president Obama would have no problem turning the reins over to somebody so intelligent and competent.

    I think if either Gore and/or Edwards want to help out their party, they'll need to come out with strong endorsements and pleas for unity. Still might not work at this point.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  88. Xavier, Washington, DC

    Gore for prez? I think not. However, I do think he may end up repeating as VP for Obama. Imagine actually being able to do his job without a Clinton breathing over his shoulder. Besides, he still wants to be prez one day and if someone else is the sitting VP for 8 years, that person would be the frontrunner in 2016. Obama/Gore in 08

    March 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  89. Leah J, CA

    This is just the kind of stuff the media has been doing for over a year. Floating ideas like this is bad enough, but for you to pick up the ball and run with it...you need your coaching staff replaced.
    Al Gore should have been in this race...he chose NOT to and that is that. He will not be "selected" to run in the general election....WE are NOT Russia!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  90. memoryaid

    The Dems could make it clear to her that if she doesn't win this for herself, but instead just sets Obama up to lose, then she should not be the nominee.

    Unless she can set up a good case for herself going forward, it should be Obama, or, if something happens that causes him to implode or trip down the stairs, it should be Gore or some other third party.

    We just can't have her trying to tear him down all the way 'till June, thinking she'll win this thing.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  91. Gigi in Alabama

    Jack, that is sounding better with each passing day. Hillary and Barack have both been plagued with foot in mouth disease lately.

    Neither will have enough votes going into the convention and personally I think those dumb super delegates should just stay out of it. Let them cast that first vote for Hillary or Barack and then on the second go for the majorities first choice . . . AL GORE!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  92. rob

    Slow news day?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  93. William Henderson

    I think an Obama / Gore ticket makes sense. Apparently he didn't get too many reps in the Clinton Whitehouse when he was VP as Hillary kept him from doing any of the VP duties. I think though you'd have to give him time enough to devote to making money something he is apparently quite good at now.

    Considering he lost the battle against explicit lyrics in music not sure what else he could offer, aside from saving the environment from ourselves and graciously donating the Internet to human kind.

    Bill H. Long Island NY

    March 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  94. Les Young

    You got to be kidding with the money and time both of the candidates put in on the race. i don't think you could get a enough Democrats to hold qua-rm, much less get him elected. This would cause a revolt and split the party like no one would believe.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  95. Danny

    Any democratic ticket which isn't led by Barrack Obama will virtually destroy the Democratic party. Why are we looking for options? Obama will finish with the highest number of pledged delegates, states won and the popular vote! Isn't this the true democratic process for the selection of a nominee? Enough already!! If Al Gore wants to prevent the total collapse of the Democratic party he should do the right thing and endorse Obama.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  96. earl illingsworth

    Absoluely not! Al Gore ,the so called creator of the internet ,and the savior of the world from global warming should stay away from politic's, period!!! He basically was handed the presidentcy from Clinton and blew it, and now we want him back in the game again, I think not! He sent a poor child back to Cuba to show his determination to uphold the constitution, and guess what, the Floridians (Miami Connection Voting Block) handed him a "Bunker Style Defeat Royale" ,not to mention the distain the Floridians still have for the Democratic Party. Finally, his(Gore's) known disapproval of Hillary is no secret to anyone in political circles, so what's this fool,Mr Mahoney and the other clowns in Florida's trying to distort this time? The only ticket they want is their own re-election stamp!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  97. Time 4 Action

    Are you serious, after Clinton and Obama Supporters donated millions of dollars and someone would even make this statement. That is so ridiculous. That would hurt the demoncratic process. I would vote Green Party or other before I allow my vote to be taken away by some BIG WIGS.

    Why would someone make this dumb stupid idiotic statement????


    Jean said it for me.... The poeple not the party...

    March 25, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  98. Dee Montclair New Jersey

    If things continue so stay this nasty for the next few months it will take something drastic to repair the party. Maybe an OBAMA-GORE ticket would be a winner!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  99. Will K. San Jose, CA

    That would be a terrible idea. At least if they choose between Clinton or Obama half the democrats actually voted for them.

    If there are already worried about disenfranchising the voters in Florida or Michigan, disenfranchising all of them probably isn't the best answer.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  100. Brando

    Forget Barack or Hillary...It SHOULD be Gore / Edwards '08 -'12

    March 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  101. Melanie, Lake Wales, FL

    I am waiting on Al Gore's endorsement. I am an Obama supporter, but if Gore endorsed Hillary, I would switch in a second. I have always wanted him to run again and my dream ticket has always been Obama-Gore, or Gore-Obama (either way works for me).

    March 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  102. John in San Diego

    Al Gore as president would not only be good for the Democrats, it would be good for the world. But, Jack...it ain't gonna happen.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  103. Weiss

    I don't understand why he is being idolized in the Democratic party. This is the man who had Lieberman as his VP candidate and see where that worm has put himself now. The party needs to move into the 21st century...

    March 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  104. Denese, San Antonio, Texas

    There is no way that Al Gore should be considered to be anywhere on the Democratic ticket. These two candidates have worked very hard to get to this point, so much so, that they are delirious...not even thinking straight! I think that we should all take a break. That is why it has always been good for The Party to know who the general election candidate was by this time. That is why Florida and Michigan did not even think that their electorial votes mattered. Sen Clinton wants to win, so she is doing and saying what she thinks it takes to do that...Sen Barack is responding to the attacks thrown at him from all directions, and of course, he wants to win also. It saddens me to see politics at its worse. Gore on top of the ticket...it is downright silly to suggest such a thing. Am I missing something? Is the media trying to get the attention off the mudslinging by making a joke out of it all? If so...bravo...bravo...bravissimo...simply brilliant!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  105. Seth

    This has got to be a joke. They are already ripping the party apart by not having the super-delegates come out for the expected winner, Obama. But, now they would float the idea that someone who NO ONE voted for would lead the ticket. Give me a break. Never gonna happen.

    Hillary can't win – do the math! All of you Hillary supporters are hanging on to a sinking ship and bringing the party down with you. I'm not mad at you for hurting Obama, I am made at you for helping to put McCain in the White House by making Obama spar with Hillary because she refuses to do the right thing and drop out.

    Hillary, DROP OUT NOW and stop killing you party.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  106. Terry from Calif


    This would be bad for the party and I hope it does not happen. However, I would be open to an Obama/Gore ticket.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  107. Paulinus, Canada

    Yes Jack. I see only an Obama/Gore ticket as being viable. Sen Clinton should be expelled for her divisiveness. She has tried almost everything to get pledged and super delegates to support her. She is too desperate.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  108. Mike Brydges


    Coming from someone who has studied these elections since 1996, I have to say, Al Gore as a president is deserved. After being stripped of this in 2000 I believe he could easily handle any problem brought about and change the problems we have into positives. Just hope he chooses Obama.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  109. Liz, Buffalo, NY

    If Hillary Clinton just stopped thinking about herself she would step down now and end all this nonsense!
    I don't know how I would feel with Gore beign the nomminee, when no one voted for him., even though he should have won in 2000. I don't even know if he's interested in politics anymore, and why should he be?
    Look at the mess the Country is in!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  110. karen Charlottesville, VA

    I admire Al Gore, but I'm not convinced this would be the right move for him to step in as a brokered candidate. Far smarter to create a new party, the United Party, with Barack and Gore the the helm. Both of them are big thinkers with lofty, inspiring goals, and those of us who believe that America can have a bright future would be happy to follow them.

    Leave Hillary the spoils of the Party she and her husband raped and pillaged. All of her horses and all of her men, will never put the Party back together again.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  111. JH Texas

    Al Gore should be the one running for president!! He is the one true person that will save our country from doom!!

    I’m a Clinton supporter, and in a heart beat I would give my vote to Gore!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  112. John

    Al Gore, like Barack Obama, did the right thing by opposing the Iraq war from the beginning.

    He would make a good candidate and a good President.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  113. Ruslyn Schultz

    With all of this talk about disenfranchising voters, why would the Democrats put someone on the ticket at their convention that no one voted for?

    I do think Al Gore and John Kerry need to get involved to put an end to the division in the democratic party though.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  114. Jack, Fort Myers

    To pull Al Gore out of a hat–after the members of the Party have worked so hard for their own pledged candidates–would be a serious error on the Democratic Parties behalf.

    It would be better to just let Clinton and Obama decide on a "coin toss" than bring in another candidate from behind the curtain.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  115. Jerry


    Even tho Gore got the most popular votes in 2000 he was denied
    the White House by George Bush.
    Let it play out with the candidates we have now and see if we can
    steal one from the Republicans this time.
    If we don't elect either a Woman or a Black this time see me in
    another 200 hundred years.
    By the way what is a James Carville, is he a fish?

    Roselle, Illinois

    March 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  116. Chris - Hemet, Ca.

    Jack, I think by the time we get to the convention there would be too little time for such a major adjustment as bringing in Al Gore. There hopefully will be a clear leader after all the primaries, even if it's close, and that is who the super delegates should rally around to go against the Republicans. Then again that may make way to much sense, after all it is the Democratic party!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  117. Ken in Denver

    Gore would be a good thing – if you totally want to destroy the Democrats chances to have a viable candidate against McCain. Can you begin to imagine how disenfranchised all the Democratic primary voters for Obama or Hillary would feel if the top slot went to Gore?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  118. Holly Archer

    America is ready for a change that we can believe in. Not get the "old Cats" back in the White house. ,with due respect to Mr. Al Gore. Nor do we want oldies who 'misspeak'. I am counting the number of times the channel airs Mrs. Clinton's 'misspoken' words. I hope it will be aired as many times as Rev. Wright's words, to be fair. Only then will America finally distinguish the difference between 'misspoken' words and something imagiined. Do we want to hear misspoken words at 3 am in the morning.?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  119. Arnold,WV

    Given the gross uncoordination of the democratic party with this election it would not surprise me if they thow in a new candidate.By that time the voters are going to be so sick of it that McCain won't have to campaign much to win in Nov.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  120. David - NY

    As a point of fact, Florida was stripped of its pledged and super delegates. Rep. Mahoney, as the US Rep for Florida's 16th congressional district, does not currently enjoy super delegate status – as erroneously indicated by both the article above and the linked article from tcpalm.com.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  121. Ray Funderburk

    Having Al Gore enter the Democratic race would be akin to having Dick Cheney compete against John McCain. Both are overweight and have too much baggage to bring along.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  122. Cheryl From Mexico, NY

    Absurd... Are you looking for a civil war, you can't overturn the peoples choice. I for one will NEVER EVER AGAIN VOTE AGAIN!! (Why bother it wont matter anyway) Is this what America is coming to, we the people have no say in our nominee. So we would have spent all this energy trying to determine who will be the Democratic Nominee to have it overturned. How un-American is that?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  123. Albert, Los Angeles, CA

    A brokered convention would already be disastrous. However, Gore seems to have been running for president ever since he lost the 2000 election, and he's done it the smart way, swaying both Democrats and Republicans. However, we have yet to hear his views and plans regarding the key issues. Not a bad idea, for a last resort.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  124. Angela

    I think there would be some question about disenfranchising the primary voters. But since your question is hypothetical then YES! It would be huge – provided Gore had a better running mate than the last time. Clinton, Obama, Bayh, Edwards or Biden added with Gore would be huge

    March 25, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  125. Alex

    That's crazy talk. Not gonna happen.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  126. Zeppo

    I would love to see Gore involved. Could you imagine if all the greenies and lefties didn't fall for Nadar's BS eight years ago? We'd still be in a surplus like Bill left it and we wouldn't be acting like a spoiled Empire.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  127. James

    Where is the punchline?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  128. California Voter

    No; if people are having problems with the superdelegates deciding between Clinton and Obama to have Gore would be disenfranchising not just Michigan and Florida but the voters across the country. I personally think all the states should have a say in who is the democratic candidate, so I have no problem with waiting until Puerto Rico votes!

    Sonoma, CA

    March 25, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  129. Desire, Ann Arbor, MI

    Al Gore won once and had no chance because his presidency was stolen by G.W. Bush. Because he also won Florida and Michigan before Howard Dean impose this stupid rules it would be the best if Mr. Gore finally shows who would be our best president. I think everybody is sick and tired of Clinton and Obama and they should simply step down and endorse Oscar winner and most experienced person for president to be – Al Gore.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  130. Scott - Buffalo NY

    Everyone was looking for Al Gore to throw his hat in the ring last year, after winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore chose not to run and go in another direction.....fine....I like the guy either way.
    However, As little as we may or may not like Clinton or Obama, they have both been running hard fought campaigns from the start...and will to the end. Lets not go giving a free ride to Al Gore....you gotta pay to play in this game.
    Howard Dean (Chairman of the DNC) needs to cut the puppet strings and engage Obama and Hillary for the good of the party. Perhaps he should force them both to stop and negative campaigning and focus on themselves...this would solve alot of problems. AND prepare the dems for a winner/looser ticket.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  131. Deb, Austin, TX


    This s exactly what my husband said would happen once it became clear that Obama was no longer a viable candidate.

    I told him "keep dreaming", you'll be voting for Hillary or McCain!

    Deb Rudy
    Austin, Texas

    March 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  132. Dan

    The dream of Al Gore saving the Democratic Party from collapsing at the almost-inevitable brokered convention is just that, a dream. It is not going to happen ladies and gentlemen. Neither Obama or Hilary, after two years of campaigning, will be willing to step aside for anyone, even Al Gore. Besides, I think it's clear that Al Gore has realized that he can do more for the good of humanity outside of public office. However, I think the only thing any Al Gore fan can hope for is a place in an Obama or Clinton cabinet. Secretary of State, perhaps?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  133. Michael, New Jersey

    It would be devastating to democracy! However, our country is far removed from the Athenian style of governing more than 2 thousand years ago and has been replaced by the politics of money. Since more money has been raised by both of these candidates in the history of primaries, the donors of that money would never stand to have their hard earned cash stolen by a man who did not have the courage to try to run on his own merit.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  134. Debbie from NJ

    Let the superdelegates do their jobs. Isn't this one of their function, to be the deciding vote in case of a tie? Everyone is so afraid of disappointing the Clintons and some of them are looking out for their own political careers. It took guts for Richardson to speak out. He's not a Judas because there's no saint involved. There is too much at stake in this country and our well being for our political leaders to keep playing polictics as usual. It's time for this old boy, old buddy system to come down. No more Bush and Clinton leaders. Its time for something new.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  135. Matt

    We would not have to call it the Democratic party anymore right? I believe the Facist party is still vacant. Can we call it that?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  136. Ted, Beaverton, OR

    Has anyone talked to Al Gore about this daydreamer speculation? How did John Edwards get left out of these discussions? And If American voters want change and they can't have Obama, I firmly believe they know by know that a ticket with Edwards on it is absolutely necessary. Hillary on a ticket is a dream ticket only for special interests and lobbyists; a nightmare for Arthur Average, that's you and me Bub.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  137. Brian - Trinidad

    Great idea,but will never happen in the Democratic Party,who have consistently missed the big picture over the past 20years and focused only on the narrow self-absorbed picture.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  138. AndyZ

    It would only be good for the Democrats if one wanted an honest government, drinkable water, breathable air and a sense that the pristine, virgin lands we have are not about to be raped by the NeoCons. Additionally, I'd love to see a replay of "the KISS" Al gave Tipper. I want to see if he can still make smoke come out of her ears. Besides, how many countries can boast that their leader is a recepient of the Noble Prize?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  139. Jason

    Do you think he could win his home state this time?

    March 25, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  140. ron

    If that happens – why are they wasting all this time and money on the primaries.

    Let the party biggies decide who they want to run.

    They need to quit wasting our time if they decide to overturn the will of the voter.

    The entire ploirtical structure is in shambles and we are on path to total political destruction.

    ron in california

    March 25, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  141. Patricia S Macon GA

    Let us look at two points before we consider a Al Gore nomination. First, there is no way that Barack Obama can win in November. I have been finding so many negative things out about Obama that is documented that it will make the Rev Wright connection just the beginning of the end for Barack Obama as the Right begins their full assault. The Right is holding back on many things, but they have the goods on Obama and will cut it all loose as it helps their candidate. The second point is that the press and media do not report fairly on the only real vetted democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, because they do not like her. There is no tingle up their leg for Hillary Clinton. They are biased in favor of Obama. Okay there are the two points. Now we proceed. The realization that Obama cannot win in November will finally be seen. Clinton who has kept on because she knows she is the real Democrat that is vetted will not quite get the numbers. So we come to the Democractic Convention. The Democratic Party has refused to see the truth about Obama, refused to treat Michigan and Floirda voters with any importance (they are just a problem for the party leaders). The Party leaders have turned on Hillary who was vetted and had real solutions and not just feel good speeches (they failed to see her strength). The hour has come for the Convention and in comes Al Gore to save the day and the planet. Will Al Gore be a good thing for the party ...depends on if the biased media has a tingle go up their leg.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  142. Gary of El Centro, Ca

    If it comes down to a full fledged food fight at the convention with no resolution in sight between Obama and Clinton, then this might be the only way forward. I would support Gore again in a heartbeat!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  143. Chip Brogan, Celina, Ohio


    That's a loaded question. Where do I start? Could you imagine the greenhouse gas emissions coming from Denver were that to happen? That would ruin the environmental plank in the party platform and be Gore's "sniper fire" moment. Next, he'd have to navigate uncharted waters looking for a VP, because McCain has cornered the market on Lieberman. It would be, for Gore, some sweet justice to not have any popular votes but be put in the game by the "electoral prep-school."

    Not very likely, but as foolish as the primary has been to this point, nothing would surprise me now. Besides, it'd be fun to watch people that have tried so hard to change the rules up until now start slinging mud at people that are trying to change the rules.

    Chip, from Celina

    March 25, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  144. Tara

    Gore? Obama and Clinton fighting with each other and Gore taking the nominee. How can it be good for the Democrats .

    March 25, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  145. No longer for Obama

    Anyone would be better than Obama at this point... He continues to say he is for change and it is the exact opposite... He has defined himself as the black candidate and in the general election he will be destroyed by the Republican media...

    I have come to the realization that my vote was for the wrong candidate... He will not deliver in November... I live in Illinois and can not believe the garbage that is coming out of Chicago...

    I guess I should not be surprised that the South Side is destroying this youngman... I should have known that when they said he was "not black enough"... This is the same part of town that said Michael Jordan and Isiah Thomas were "sell outs" in the 90's... it seems that the racial divide is still present on the South Side and that is a sad reality!!!

    It is a time to stop blaming others for your short falls and poor decisions... our housing market is a fine example of that... if you do not like where you are at in life... Do something to change it!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  146. sozzi

    Mahoney from Florida, why is anyone even listening to this individual. Remember, Florida does not exist. PERIOD.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  147. Ed from Durango, Colorado

    It would tell me that the Democratic Party would be in shambles. If Gore would emerge from the convention as the nominee, the grass roots of the party would disappear after being so disenfranchised. It is past time for the Democratic elders to step in and work to avoid such a meltdown. Hillary is behind, she can't catch up, let's end the charade now.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  148. Rocky

    Chicopee, Mass.

    Its far from a remote possibility. The most under-reported aspect of the convention is that the delegates (super or otherwise) are only bound to their constituencies for the first ballot. After that, get to the back room, light up the cigars, and get to dealin'.

    The Dems should be 25 % ahead in the polls, given the horror-show of the last 7 years; that they're not displays the inadequacies of the Dems' challengers. A Gore-Obamam ticket is very attractive; less so, Gore-Clinton (not to mention a History Book nightmare).

    That just means that it WILL be a Clinton to break the glass ceiling; Chelsea in 2020!!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  149. Don Leggat

    I think it would be a bad thing. I think Barack and Hillary have put too much into this and both deserve a clear choice, even though the process is likely to be ugly. In addition, all the people who have already voted for their candidate(s) don't deserve to have their choice taken away from them by the superdelages or back-room politics.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  150. AC in CA

    No. I guess Obama's on vacation, so there's nothing to talk about.

    March 25, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  151. Pete in NY

    Wishing for Gore shows how bad things are for the demcrats. Gore is popular because he has been out of the political limelight and has only appeared in friendly venues populated by the environmental faithful. If Gore emerges from his greenhouse gas fog then his global warming carbon exchange scam as well as his hipocrisy over his monstrous "carbon footprint" will only be an appetizer. Social security "lockbox" anyone?

    Remember how popular ex president Bill Clinton was until he got back on the campaign trail and people were reminded of many of his less endearing attributes?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  152. Peter in Canada

    Bad...Bad idea!
    This guy Gore finished 2nd or maybe 1st or whatever to the worst US president in American history. That is not exactly a big selling point. People wax nostalgic, however the reality eventually will set in, that he was not a spectacular VP, he ran a horrible campaign in 2000, and is now merely a celebrity not a sage politician.
    BTW...his global warming stance is gonna bite him in the butt as more and more data refute global warming rhetoric! (think energy conservation , not climate change).

    March 25, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  153. Kab

    This is where Obama and Clinton supporters will probably agree...NO! It wont be good.

    As much as I would like to see Obama in WH, I think Gore-Obama ticket is anytime better than Clinton- (?) ticket.

    However, if it is Gore- Clinton- I would not vote. Anything with Clinton (even Obama- Clinton)- I will not VOTE

    March 25, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  154. Mark

    One word, no. That's not the person who I voted for and against in the primary. I guess Gore should be used to brokered elections though.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  155. Korrine

    Having Gore as President would solve quite a bit, if not all of the problems our country currently faces. However, I do have to agree with many when they say that the Democratic party nominating a candidate that was not in the original primaries would cause a lot of people to lose faith in the political process. Too many already feel that the government does what it pleases and if this was to occur it would only strengthen this belief. With that said, I wish that we could turn back the clocks and put Gore on the primary. Even better, Gore should run as an Independent and win which would really qualify this election year as the craziest in history.

    K. Carrera, West Palm Beach, FL

    March 25, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  156. Mehmet A. Basatemur

    That may be some "justice done " for All Gore (incidently I woted for him).I am not quite sure at this point though if it would be another "unjustice" for the present runners; both of them, particularly Mrs.Clinton, quite well qualified for the job.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  157. Jonathan Swift

    A Gore nomination would not help the Democratic party. If anything ti would prove how dysfunctional the Democratic party has become. The Goracle has reached the point where he transcends petty politics and would be unlikely to accept a draft. Also, I don't think Gore would be all that electable for two reasons. First, and foremost, the Republicans would have a field day with him around the issue of what has he been doing the past 8 years (16 if you count the 8 years where he wandered around the White House being ignored by Bill and Hillary), and attack him for being tax & spend, liberal, eco-freak, demagogue.- although they would doubtless come up with many other equally negative appellations. Second, there might be sufficient ill feeling on the part of Clinton and Obama supporters that the electorate would be less than energized.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  158. John in Virginia

    Please, don't be stupid. That is a totally ridiculous idea because it cannot happen. At he convention, 2 names will be put forward - H. Clinton and B. Obama - and then all of the delegates will vote. Whomever gets the majority of the votes will win. Period. Where does the "brokering" come in? And why would the delegates, who are all going to the convention expecting to make history one way or the other, decide instead to select another white male - one who got zero votes in the primaries and caucuses? The delegates are not crazy - they know that too many of their voters would feel robbed by a back-room deal if this happened, and stay home in November. Please. No more stupid reports like this one, that defy common sense.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  159. dan in mass

    How can you say we need a new kind of politics and have that scenario include Al Gore in the top spot? Up until now everyone has been preparing for the super-delegates to steal the nomination from Obama and give it to Clinton. These same (frauds of democracy) want to steal it from Obama and Clinton and hand it to Gore. I'm this far from not voting democrat at all. Between Florida, Michigan and now this, the party has proven it's ineptitude.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  160. Dee, Canada

    Americans would be nuts not to vote for any Democrat. All eyes are on them to see if they are going to elect a Democrat or another war monger and moron.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  161. michelle

    Al Gore would be the perfect compromise candidate. In the year 2000 he taught all of us about grace under pressure, by putting country ahead of self. This Nobel prize winner embodies everything good about public service. The former Vice President may be our only hope to bring together a party which has become bitterly divided. I would prefer to vote for him over Ralph Nader. As it stands I think Ralph Nader may pick up more votes from disaffected voters. Could the grown ups please step forward in this party before it is too late?

    Fed up in Kentucky,

    March 25, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  162. Bob from Traverse city Michigan

    Let's see Jack. wouldn't we once again get to choose between the rich guy in the dark suit (republican) or the rich guy in the sweater(democrat). Aaaaagggghhhhh! Pay taxes, go to work ,elect a president! Circles circles that's how our lives are spent!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  163. ABC Ohio

    This is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton has earned this nomination. Gore hasn't done anything. Why ignore the voters – is this a democracy or not?
    Obama's campaign is mortally wounded by the Rev. Wright issue and the typical white person remark.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  164. Yale

    If John Edwards and Al Gore had the leadership exhibited by Gov. Richardson, they could end this right now and give Obama the opportunity to unite the party and address the real issues facing America. By waiting until the brokered convention, the damage may be done already. It's obvious Hillary can't achieve a majority of popular vote or pledged delegates to pass Obama. That's why Edwards and Gore should step up and endorse Sen Obama now! By not doing so, they appear to be doing the same thing as Sen Clinton – putting themselves above the needs of the party and country.

    Yale Norwick
    St. Paul, MN

    March 25, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  165. SPQR753

    Frankly that sounds far more interesting than the other two candidates.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  166. Richard Sternagel

    A Gore ticket would be feasible only if the political rancor stirred by the Clinton campaign divides the Democratic Party!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  167. Angelos, Munich

    Yeah, that would make sense: make both candidates unhappy.
    Next time we can as well do away with the primaries and nominate Chelsea right from the start.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  168. Theresa

    How about Obama-McCain, I hear McCain has been a little torn lately.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  169. Danielle, Pittsburgh PA

    No way Jack!!!

    I am a black woman from Pittsburgh. I was raised as a feminist and my parents were members of the local chapter of the NAACP. I absolutely love the choices that we will either have the first woman or black male as President. This is a once in a life time opportunity to allow a member of a minority group to lead. I decided to vote for Hillary but I would be happy with Obama. This race can not be settled by putting another white man in the white house we should just put both Clinton and Obama on the ticket so that they both win. Am I the only one that still wants the "Dream Team" ?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  170. Sara, Minnesota

    Does the democratic party still want to exist? If it were to happen like that, there would be an outrage among democratic voters.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  171. Adam

    Great. So now Obama and Clinton will fight it out to see who gets to be Gore's VP?

    I think that a Congressman from Florida has a lot of nerve even suggesting this. The FL Democratic Party is part of the reason this election is such a mess. The Democratic Party leaders and Fl and MI should stand up and start taking resposibility for this mess they've created, instead of patronizing us with ridiculous fairy tales.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  172. Lori from Battle Creek, MI

    I think that would destroy the Democratic Party which maybe a good thing. I've never voted Republican, but I am getting fed up with how the Democrats are handling things. If Clinton somehow gets the nomination, Obama should then run with Gore on the independent ticket. I think we would see that Obama CAN unite people and bye bye Hillary.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  173. john fom PA

    Obama is unelectable and will make unelectable anybody who runs with him. That is the truth, inconvinient, but the truth.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  174. Barb Canada

    If you think you've heard griping, by not allowing Florida and Michigan votes to count......Just try not counting the votes of the entire Nation!! It would be the end of the Democrats, although Gore would probably win the Election!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  175. Ali, Bakersfield, California

    As long as he picks you for VP, I am down with it....

    March 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  176. Dennis, Dallas, Texas

    I've supported Obama's campaign as both a donor, by voting in the Texas primary, and by caucusing for him. I'd prefer to see Obama as the Democratic candidate. However, if there is no way to break a deadlock at the convention without tearing apart the Democrats, I'd be happy with a ticket with Gore at the head. He has undeniable experience and good judgment. It has been my impression that Vice President Gore and Hillary Clinton often butted heads, or at least had some sort of power struggle, while Bill Clinton was President. I wonder if he would be willing to have her as a running-mate. I would prefer to see Obama in that position. Very interesting topic.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  177. neal

    Al Gore for Pres.?
    It sounded like a good idea a year ago when Al was flying high on his global warming thing.
    However since viewing "The great global warming swindle" on Utube
    I think that it would be just one more liar entering the race.
    As A Canadian I hope that the American people would start checking the FACTS before rushing into another support for a false doctrine or ideology
    Neal Canada

    March 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  178. Cindy

    A Gore nomination would really tick off the voters of both front runners. And show the world how wishy-washy the Democrats are.

    It's gotta be Obama or Clinton, and the one who doesn't get the nomination will have to convince their supporters that it's ok to support the other guy. That's why the negative rhetoric has to stop. It's going to make it harder and harder to deprogram their supporters.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  179. Candi South Carolina

    If this is what the supers wants then why not let them explain to the American People what lead to this drastic down fall. Man this is like putting the draft at age 12 for the war.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  180. Cat

    People, it does not matter who is leading. Neither has won and cannot win based on the election process. To win a certian number of delegates must be won. It cannot happen for either. The rules don't state whoever is leading when the voting is done wins. They state it goes to a brokered convention with the Supers deciding. The supers are supposed to look at who is electable and neither one is.

    Al Gore would be an excellent answer. He electable, and we do know his views. You Obama supporters need to learn that he (Obama) is no more entitiled to be President than Clinton is as he hasn't won nothing yet.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  181. john up north

    This ticket is something out of the twilight zone. You have to actually run to get the nomination and Al Gore is too busy making millions of global warming. The Clinton ticket already look like a one in a million shot of happening. The only reason the Clinton are still running is to damage Obama so bad Mccain would get elected and Hillary would get another chance in 2012.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  182. CriC

    Jack, would this mean that the votes in Flordia would count ???

    March 25, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  183. Elizabeth in South Carolina

    What is the difference? Hillary stood by her man when he...you know.
    She downs Obama for standing by the pastor (he downed the speech). Now she says you can choose your minister and Obama
    should have walked out. I think she stayed with Bill not because she
    loved him that much etc etc but because it would hurt her politically.
    This week. she waited until the hoopla hoo died down and now that it has some-what, she's spouting off. She should be ashamed of herself... So Richardson chose Obama. Big deal! He has every right
    to endorse whosoever he wishes.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  184. Christina

    Jack, this is rediculous. Throwing Gore in the race would completely dismiss the election process that has already passed (delegates, primaries, caucuses). I just don't see it happening. I also think that this may only serve to further divide this civil war in the Democratic Party. It wouldn't be smart for the Democrats. Clinton should just back down and let Obama take his well deserved nomination.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  185. Twinhit

    Say no to Gore.
    No way, no how.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  186. Phil

    What is this, horse trading?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  187. Mandeline, Seattle

    Yeah, just what the Dems need, more elements to stir up the Convention.

    My answer is no, no third party, no Al Gore, no more elements, no, no, no. There are DNC rules in place and the two people in the running, should abide by the rules. The only problem is, one person never abides by the rules.

    Are you listening Hillary? I didn't think so.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  188. LB

    I have great respect for Al Gore. However that is fantasyland thinking. The DNC cannot give it's nomination to someone who has not been in the campaign. I am 100% behind Senator Obama. I believe he will be a great president and bring much needed to change to Washington. Now, how do we bring change to the media?

    OBAMA '08

    March 25, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  189. Mary


    It just goes to show how screwy things are down in Florida. Who thinks this is a good idea? Why not just put Bill Clinton back in office.I do think Gore should get involved and figure something out between Obama and Clinton (like Clinton give up). We Democrats need to have one candidate NOW and rally behind him to defeat McCain. Just one housewife's opinion from a "small" state.

    Mary, Wisconsin

    CNN please post...I never see any of my comments!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  190. Barrington of Cambridge

    So this primary process, which we suffered through for months was for NOTHING?

    Jack, I think we are witnessing pundants scraping their knuckles for story lines to continuing this primary train wreck, all in an effeort to sell more news papers, increase hits to their blogs and get calls from CNN to appear on one of their political shows.

    Barack has won! He is an American! He played by the rules laid out before him ... eveyone has a friend, family member, associate that has said something divisive! We are all grown ups here ... Let's move on!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  191. LaShaun from Marietta, GA

    I love Gore, voted for him against Dubya but I don't see it. Our democratic party is forever broken with the war between Clinton and Obama. I am an Obama supporter, however, all of this negative back and forth is getting on my last nerve. If it doesn't stop soon, i will not vote for a Democrat. The Republicans are watching us self destruct while McCain and his family are packing their bags for their new residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. What a shame!!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  192. tim from Ravenna, OH

    Seriously doubt it. The voters are talking revolt if this one or that one doesn't get the nomination. If the Democrats would pull in a nominee at the convention that received zero votes from the voters McCain would win 50 states by an 80-20 margin. As far as I am concerned Gore has shown that he is no winner.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  193. John

    absolutly gore is better then both of them, he has experience and good judgement.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  194. Marc in Toronto

    Al Gore would make an excellent VP to Barak Obama. Obama already has the support of African Americans and with the endorsement of Bill Richardson is bound to get excellent support from the Latino community. Al Gore as VP would help unite the Democratic Party and help repair all the damage done by the Billary spin machine.

    How many times are my American friends going to forgive Billary for blatantly lying? It's hard for me to imagine how Billary even manages to stay close in this race. Are my American friends not doing their homework?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  195. Karl in CA

    This would rock a few worlds. I could see Obama as VP, going along with it for the good of the country and party. Al Gore is about the only "old timer" that I think can even spell "change". Given the Gore-Clinton history, I don't see him running with Hillary. She's the reason the Democrats are at a point of having to reinvent the election in the first place. She has her supporters but no ability to attract new followers.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  196. Dedrick

    I agree with the notion that both sides (Clinton especially) are acting extremely childish and stupid. Clinton needs to stop all the negativity. When that happens, Obama will not send out any small arms fire back at her. People need to get over the 'prejudice' thing as this is a country of prejudices, right or wrong, it is. We need to come together and understand there will always be certain biases and the only want to combat those prejudices is through education and by becoming familiar with cultures OTHER THAN your own. I personally would love to see and Obama-Gore ticket, but to put Gore at the top would make much sense and is not democratic since he did not receive ANY votes.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  197. Rudy Pittsburgh, PA

    I dont respect Gore because he never fought to win. GWB declared himself the winner and Gore just accepted it. I dont know about Obama but Hillary would have fought with every fiber in her body for the Presidency. Gore is weak !!! He does not deserve a second attempt.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  198. Mick

    What the H___????? So then the votes of the people wouldn't matter at all!!! That's totally UNDEMOCRATIC and unacceptable! There should be NO superdelegates. Who the heck made them G-d? One person, one vote, that's how an election should be decided and no other way. (Caucuses should be eliminated too.) If they think it's necessary to put someone else at the top of ticket, then they have to have everyone vote on it. Since they can't even manage a revote in Michigan and Florida (where I live – and am totally disgusted with the DNC and the state Democratic Party), I can't imagine how they could pull this off!!! Democrats nationwide just might finally revolt!

    I like Al Gore, but that's obviously not the point.

    Mick, Fla.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  199. Malcolm

    How can anyone think of putting Al Gore back on the ticket after his weak effort in 2000. This would be a party of one poor ol Al and the rest of the party supporting a candidate on a independent party. It would be farewell to the Democrates.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  200. Janus Miller


    It IS a very sexy proposition, but one that would tick a lot of folks off! I hope the Democratic party does the honorable thing and picks Obama. He has worked too hard and too long to have someone come along and take the nomination from him like that.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  201. Joel, Minneapolis

    I can tell you right now, if the DNC completely circumvents Democracy and decides (in their infinite wisdom) on a COMPLETELY new candidate for their nominee (regardless of whether it is Gore, who I actually like quite a bit), I guarantee you that I will vote for McCain in protest. I didn't donate my hard earned money my candidate's campaign, stick a bumper sticker on my car, attend rallies, email friends, and spend 4 hours of my evening at the caucus FOR NOTHING. Howard Dean, if people thought YOU were a little bonkers after your win in Iowa, just wait... you ain't seen nothing yet. Because if you steal my vote (and the votes of millions of my fellow Americans), there will literally be fire spraying out of my nostrils. Have some sense. This conversation is beyond ridiculous. The idea that the DNC would allow these primaries (which cost all of us MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) to be null and void will certainly cause riot and pandemonium nationwide.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  202. Tom NC

    first Jack, some of your respondents have called Obama a racist. People that ignorant should not be allowed to post never mind vote. And on to your question. I think Obama may take vp to Gore, but I don't think he'd take VP to Clinton and I don't think Clinton would take VP to either. The way it looks to me is that Clinton will not be satisfied unless she is at the top of the ticket so a brokered convention won't work. It looks like the only thing that will fix this thing is an Obama win in PA. There is a way to go and that may be possible.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  203. Eugene Search

    The fact is if neither candidate has enough votes on the first ballot at the convention then those delegates are released from their pledges and are free to draft another candidate from the floor. This is not robbery, it is simply recognition that NEITHER candidate has a majority of the party's support, and thus cannot be expected to unite the party to win in November.
    My feeling is that this is the DNC sending up a trial balloon to see if this proposal will garner the support of the party regulars as a solution to the August train wreck that is coming around the corner.

    My Vote GO GORE!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  204. jack from indiana

    Al Gore would be a great choice,but would he accept the nomination,probalbly not. It's a shame because he has all the qualifications both Obama and Hillary lack.

    You want experence,how about 8 years as one of our most active V ice Presidents. Not to mention his work with Global Warming and a Nobel Prize.

    Can he win the popular vote,will he did in 2000 over Bush,and should have been elected President.

    A Gore-Obama ticket ,fantastc !!!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  205. DEW

    Oh yeah and troq away every vote that the people made for the Senators!!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  206. Rich

    A Gore ticket would be received as yet another reason to deny our first black candidate, and it would signal the new generation that it's still their father's democratic party. We need new blood. We need enthusiasm. Gore and Clinton share the 'experience' of the gridlock politics that has killed every initiative, except those involving earmarks or pork barrel 'deals'.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  207. David in NC

    Mark said:
    "But I am suspicious here: would the media turn on him by Labor Day? Would they be leading us down the garden path again? The way they have turned on the Clintons is instructive here; would it be the same for President Gore? (He was elected, by the way, in 2000.) "

    Get over it – Bush won, and when they recounted all the votes, he won again. Not that it's a good thing, but it's the truth.

    As for Gore, no that wouldn't be a good idea. The voters of this country have delegates which are "supposed" to vote at the convention to represent who the voters chose. Nobody chose Gore. People are voting for Clinton and Obama and the delegates should cast their votes for one of these two.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  208. Judie

    I think the Demoncrats have done enough to confuse and muddy this primary election. Al Gore would do as much good for the Demoncrats as Mickey Mouse would. Why would Al Gore have any place as a nominee in this primary? Well I guess the way the Demoncrats are acting nothing would surprise anyone at this point. Rules don't apply. As one candidate said "This is Silly Season" Let the games continue. This election has replaced "24" on my TV screen but I sure do miss Jack Bauer hey Maybe Jack can win the nomination that would be cool. At least we know what he stands for and he is cute.

    St. Augustine, Fl

    March 25, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  209. barry

    al gore would get my vote

    March 25, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  210. Corey, Maryland


    No matter what happens in this election I am going to vote for Barack Obama, for PRESIDENT. If he is already on the ballot that saves me from writing a little and cuts the risk of getting Carpal tunnel. But it is a chance i am willing to take if Hillary is on the ballot.

    Even though I like Al Gore he had his chance, and now it is Obama's turn.

    Obama Richardson 2008

    March 25, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  211. Deb (New York)


    I do not think so...suffice to say I regretably voted for Bush not to vote for Gore.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  212. Fitzgerald from Florida

    Bad Idea. When everyone's afraid that super delegates will override the popular vote, or pledged delegates will override the popular vote, surely nominating a candidate who didn't even run is a horrible idea

    March 25, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  213. Tracie Andrews

    Honestly in my opinon I like Oboma and Hillary. I voted for Hillary,but after all of the bad press between the two I would love to see Gore back on the ballot for the democrats. If it does'nt happen then I will vote for whom ever wins the nomination.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  214. Dominique

    No a Gore ticket would not be a good thing. If Al Gore wanted to run for President again then he should have thrown his hat into the ring with all the other candidates. If his name is at the top of the ticket, I believe there will be a mass exodus from the Democratic Party.

    Dominique in Arlington, VA

    March 25, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  215. WTH???

    So let me get this straight...you have a woman and an african american busting their butts campaigning for the past year and a half and the only way they can get nominated is if they allow someone who nobody has heard from since God knows when to be the President???

    ONLY IN AMERICA do the efforts of hard working people only benefit the slackers!!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  216. tired and frustrated (in the primaries)

    Are you kidding me?!!!? Why didn't anyone mention this earlier???!!! A Gore-Obama ticket would (in my eyes) be totally unstoppable! No way Gore-Clinton...

    Go Gore/Obama!!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  217. Paul

    When Hillary uses "kitchen sink", Obama is the one to blame. Every morning, the media goes to Clinton University to learn how can the candidate who won more States, more pledges delegates and more popular votes will not get the nomination! Again between John McCain and Obama, the choice is clear for Clintons. They will vote for McCain. Please, don't bring in Al Gore. We lost in 2000 because of the meaning of the word "IS" and Gore had to pay the price.

    Chantilly, VA

    March 25, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  218. lance

    Jack you must be kidding. After all the hard work, proper mudslinging and money generated by these candidates and for someone like Al Gore to come out of nowhere is Outrageous. If that were to happen at the convention in Denver there would be one thing all of us will have to state for the next four years. Hello, President McCain.



    March 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  219. Thomas , Michigan

    No. Dems should save Al for a key Obama Cabinet post. And, by the way, I believe you'd see an extraordinarily great Cabinet assembled
    by Obama.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  220. Jeff, Storrs, CT

    Seems like democrats are not interested to win back the white house. I wonder if we will wish Bush back after they take power!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  221. Richard, Washington State

    If a ticket led by Al Gore somehow emerged from a brokered convention, would that be a good thing for the Democrats?

    No this would not be a good thing.
    People didn't vote for Gore in the primaries and caucuses.

    Come on Jack, stop with the sidetracking questions, focus on the issues that help us decide a nominee.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  222. Ronnelle, Gregory, TX

    A ticket with Al Gore as the nominee for President would be hilarious.
    Then America would lose the chance to elect the best candidate we've had since John Kennedy due to our ignorance. No one's perfect so quit expecting it! We have a great candidate already. His name is Barack Obama.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  223. Matt in WI

    Sorry Jack, I voted for Obama in the primary not Al Gore. While i respect Al Gore, I believe his political skills would be best used, in the next administration, to help create a greener America. To help create green jobs and push for alternative energy.

    I think he's too disenfranchised to run for office again, wouldnt you be?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  224. Anne in NE


    March 25, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  225. Jeanne

    I just don't understand why people keep talking about a brokered election. This country is voting and the one that leads (you know it won't be an exact tie) should be president. Al Gore has not even said he would like to run.
    Obama is ahead and all this nonsense about Clinton is just her not wanting or accepting a loss.
    Why don't we hear about her pastor? We've heard about Obamas, why can't we hear from hers. "The Family" would make for a very interesting contrast. The right wing Family that she belongs to is THE right wing group that helped get Bush elected. Do we want another president that is a fundamentalist? Seems like she should take a walk and quit bringing such division to the party. Al Gore! How about Obama, he's winning.

    Denver Colorado

    March 25, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  226. Yvonne

    If the DNC ignores the choice of the people and puts Gore in, this election would have the lowest turn out of voters in the history of America.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  227. Karen Memphis TN

    The Democratic party is tearing itself apart. To have Gore as the Presidential Candidate would be a terrific solution. If Barack Obama is the VP, then the Dems could keep all the new young voters and the independents. Throw in saving the world from global warming and it's a winner!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  228. Sue

    No wonder Florida is in the mess. they are in. With a congressman making such an off the wall and ridiculous statement, I almost pity the residents of the state!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  229. Mike, Dillingham Alaska

    I don't care who the Democrats ultimately nominate so long as he, she or it beats the Republican ticket of McCain/Lieberman and the Democrats elect enough members of Congress to undo all of the damage that has been done by the Bush/Cheney administration.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  230. Ron Kepics

    Hi Jack:

    I think Al Gore should run. I doubt Hilary can read the writting on the wall. And Mr. Obama just dosen't have the needed background to run the country. If something does not change, and soon, the democrats are going to shoot themselves in the foot with the election.

    Ron K. San Diego

    March 25, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  231. TF

    If that happened say goodbye to the Democratic party.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  232. Jackie

    Al Gore should step in and tell Hillary to get out of the race, she cannot catch up in the delegate count or the popular vote count.
    I cannot believe that she would be willing to sacrifice the Democratic Party in order to move back into a house where her Husband cheated on her – I would never want to revist the "scene of the crime"
    If Obama should have left his church, she should have left her cheating Husband. I believe that it shows that she has no respect for herself and does not have the judgement to be the Leader of the free world, I wonder why the media has not said anything about this.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  233. Alex in TX

    Shame on Representative Mahoney for suggesting it. Shame on you for turning into an issue by reporting on it and therefore validating it. This rhetoric is no better than Clinton suggesting delegates are free to vote for whomever they want. The demise of the democratic party would soon follow should the will of the people be ignored.

    Time for a third party if this happens.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  234. Drew Mitchell (Kentucky

    Jack, I don't think that the American people would be very happy about having a candidate whom no one elected. If a Gore ticket was used, then every democrat in the nation would be disenfranchised. If we have had such a proble with disenfranchisement in two states, just think about what it would be like with 50.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  235. T. barton

    I was looking at Hillary Clinton press conference at 3:10 when the reporters started asking question. One of the reports asked about Rev Wright and immediatly she began to read her answer from what looked liked a prepared answer. Was the question planted?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  236. Sarah


    March 25, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  237. Moses

    This is a death trap for Gore.
    There has been too much mess around the Democratic party this election season so the only people who should rightly face it are Hillary and Obama. If Gore comes in and the Democrats lose, the blame will be on him not on Hillary or Obama.
    Gore should totally stay out of it!

    Moses Gibson, San Francisco, CA

    March 25, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  238. Dick

    Any scenario that produces a nominee from a brokered Democratic convention spells disaster. It would mean that a significant segment of the party will feel disenfranchised and would simply sit on its collective hands. Mr. Obama has done, and will continue to do, what is necessary to achieve a significant enough number of pledged delegates and popular votes to clearly demonstrate to the superdelegates that their only realistic option is to approve the will of the voters and make Obama the nominee. He already has way more experience, and much more brainpower, than the criminal in the White House at present. Hillary is not the "brilliant" leader she puts herself out to be, mythmaking notwithstanding. Al Gore is a very bright man who does not have the desire to be president. He is much more effective making the case for action against global climate change. See today's story about the huge new chunk of Antarctica that just fell into the sea. Mr. Cafferty would better serve his readers by demonstrating the folly of Hillary Clinton's continued underhanded efforts to secure a nomination that, if she were to win it in that fashion, would be worth nothing. I, for one, would simply write in somebody else rather than vote for someone like her who has so many ties to the same lobbyists and international cartel interests that Bush does that it isn't even worth seriously debating.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  239. Willis - Houston

    What are you talking about! Gore heading Obama's ticket - I don't think so! Gore has not been in the trenches this election period and will not get a "free" ride.

    The only open position is "Vice President" and that will be Obama's choice!

    It is amazing how you people want to change the rules yet again! Go get a beer and shut up already!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:19 pm |


    March 25, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  241. Bob - Denver, CO

    The current Obama-Clinton split in the Democratic party will guarantee that John McBush is elected this fall. The only way for the party to save itself from itself is to turn to the man who should have been president for the last eight years. Gore/Edwards 2008 – now that would be exciting!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  242. lee from Florida

    Al Gore has my support and great foreign support but has little American supporters, he would lose the election, yet again. He can serve a greater purpose by endorsing Obama, and uniting the party again before the convention. The Clinton's hardball ways, the Clinton's scandals, the Clinton's lies, and Clinton's lobbyist and secret donors be a thing of the past. Then and Only then we can all take a step forward, together, on to the stage, where Americans are waiting, the World is waiting...for us to change our ways.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  243. pete

    I would say that it would be a bad idea if anyone other than whoever is ahead in delegates gets the nomination. But atleast Al Gore hasn't been on tv selling himself out like so many of the other friends of Bill. You get the feeling that the only reason they are supporting Hillary is as a favor to Bill. I have lost so much respect for some of my former heroes from the Clinton administration.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  244. Ked in Mississippi

    Do my eyes deceive me, or did I just read a blog about Al Gore being the democratic nominee...the same Al Gore that has been on any ballot in the past 8 years?

    If that does happan, the patients would have offically taken over the asslym!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  245. Alex from Baltimore

    If anyone either than Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton is given the Democratic nomination, I, and others like me, will leave the Democratic Party. The purpose of the electoral process is for the people to choose their leaders. I see no way that the people's voices will be heard if the party leaders make it abundantly clear that they do not respect the people's choices. I voted for Sen. Obama in the primary election, and I strongly support him, but for the sake of the party, Democrats must support the winner of the popular vote, be it Clinton or Obama. Nominating Al Gore, Mike Bloomberg, or even John Freakin Kennedy as the Democratic candidate will not serve the interests of the millions who have cast their vote for the candidate of their choice.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  246. Terry from North Carolina

    I voted for Al Gore and I was disappointed he never threw his hat in the ring. You put forth an interesting scenario, why not the democratic party is so screwed up it wouldnt make any difference.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  247. tonyh

    I think it's the craziest idea I've heard in a while. If you continue to add insult to injury then the Dem Party is really a chaos. Forget about Al Gore. The milions of voters who have voted for Obama and Clinton will not accept that. Where has Gore been all this time? Home, watching his party at war within itself, and he has said nothing, nothing. He hasn't even supported either of the two. And now an idiot comes with the idea of putting the Nobel Prize Winner at the top!!! Disgusting!!! Long live Bill Richardson!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  248. John

    Is it technically possible for Gore to somehow jump into this race given how far we have already come? Yes, a Gore/Obama would be the dream ticket! It would be a far greater ticket than a Obama/Clinton combination.

    Al Gore, if you're reading this, please save our country! It's your destiny. You are the one and only politician who can save us now!!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  249. Chris Asa, Starkville, MS

    If this happens, it will absolutely destroy the Democratic Party and guarantee four more years of Bush's failed foreign and domestic policy. That anyone is even suggesting this is evidence that certain members of the party's leadership have lost their damn minds. I certainly hope that this is a joke.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  250. lisa - Florida

    I like Gore but wouldn't it be Obama – Gore or Hillary – Gore. If not this would truely be unjust. That's like sticking the dog in the middle of the turtle and hare's race . Obama is the hare of course!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  251. Jenny, South Carolina

    No chance in hell. I have a huge problem now with superdelegates picking the president especially when a good chunk of the superdelegates have financial ties to Clinton and Obama. To throw another anti popular vote wrench into the mix would royally tick people off like myself who are really tired of the morons in charge of the Democratic Party. It literally is a "PARTY"... like a free for all! Gore isn't a solution to the nonsense.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  252. mark

    NO! NO! and NO!

    thanks Jack!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  253. Marc

    I don't think this is going to happen, but I think nominating Gore would be the best thing for the party by far. For one thing, he should logistically be the president right now, ending his second term this coming January. For another, he's a much better candidate than either Hillary OR Obama. Hillary trumps Obama in experience and Obama is has superior oratorical skills, but the truth is the most remarkable thing about either candidate is his/her minority status in light of the presidential run.

    A similar situation arises in The Race by Richard North Patterson, and that did get me thinking about recruiting Gore. Again, I just don't see it happening and I don't know if Gore would even accept the nomination – he's come just short of making a Sherman statement in the past. And even if he does accept the nomination, who gets the vice presidential nod? The battle doesn't end there either. I agree with Miketherhino – Gore/Bloomberg '08. But I'm from New York too, so I'm biased.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  254. John

    Gore has already discovered that one can do much more good for the world outside of American politics. Clinton and H.W. Bush, Carter, all have been able to help people more after leaving office.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  255. Lisa

    That is completely ridiculous. How could Democrats have someone at the top of the ticket that never ran in the primary? No one has voted for Al Gore, at least not this time around. Were the Democrats to pick a third candidate I would never have any faith in politics again.


    March 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  256. Mary from St. Augustine FL

    Absolutely not!! It would be worse- if that could happen.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  257. Shakir

    This is pure nonsense. Where have I wasted precious time and energy to campaign and vote, only for it to be stolen by someone else at the last moment.
    This is not a slight on Gore but it would most definitely be a huge slight on Obama and millions of his supporters if this nomination is stolen from him.
    I hope Gore is not haboring this thought though. Give it a rest Jack. No Way.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  258. Wendy Theriault, New Hampshire

    I never, ever understood the allure Gore has for so many people. I don't see him as particularly learned or articulate. His military service in Viet Nam is of a type that would make him _very_ vulnerable to those who seem convinced that one must meet subjective standards of heroism in order to be elected to the Oval Office.

    All that and the fact that this would short circuit the whole very expensive primary process, I don't think this is a very good idea. I think we just need to get accustomed to the idea of a McCain presidency, because an awful lot of people are getting very turned off to this prolonged and increasingly nasty battle.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  259. Carolina

    Al is looking better (and smarter) than ever compared to the current field of candidates. I think he could pull the party together and possibly win the whole thing.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  260. Anne in NE

    I feel like we're living in Wonderland this election season. Suddenly up is down, down is up. In no other year would anyone even question that the person who has won the most pledged delegates and who is leading in the popular vote should be the nominee. It is only because of the strong-arm tactics of the Clinton's that the spineless leaders in the Democratic Party haven't already put an end to this. The best thing Al Gore can do is weigh in on the side of what is right and back Obama as the only person with a legitimate claim to the nomination.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  261. Richard Hill

    No Jack, neither THE HILLARY FATEFUL nor THE OBAMA HOPEFUL would be appeased if Gore emerged as the Compromised Candidate, as he would be viewed as an OPPORTUNIST, at the very least. However, if the superdelegates do engage in this form of DICTATORIAL PRESUMPTIVENESS, the Democratic Party will surely be divided; afterall, a decision like this, would be nothing more then a cop out by the superdelegates, and would in NO WAY REFLECT the will of the electorate.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  262. Dan in Goodyear, Arizona

    Lets get real Gore is not going to win the Democratic Nomination if he does I will shave my head bald for saying that he is not going to win the nomination.

    Goodyear, Arizona

    March 25, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  263. SuEllen Adkins-Raleigh NC.

    Al Gore is a class act, and he stood tall, for AMERICA, when he walked away with his head held high, all the while he knew, as do we, that election was stolen from him. If it had been the other way, and BUSH had been handed that same bad hand of cards, he and the rabid Republicans, would still be hollering, and having invesigations, to this day !!!!! --Mr. Gore would have made the best PRESIDENT, we will never have !!!!! -–Isn't that sad? I so hate it when AMERICA is the loser, and I feel the past eight years have brought our once world respected AMERICA-THE-BEAUTIFUL, to an ugly place !!!! –Thank you.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  264. Griffin, San Antonio, TX

    Dear Jack,

    Isn't the idea of Al Gore on top of the ticket just preposterous? To hand the nomination over to Al Gore would be disenfranchising the people that voted in the Democratic primaries and/or caucuses (the and/or only applies to Texas) because of two bad apple states that decided to break the rules. Just because Florida and Michigan delegates aren't, as of yet, seated, doesn't mean a compromise to have them seated isn't out of reach. Al Gore has received, sans a few write ins, 0 votes. He wasn't on any ballot, he did not campaign, and it would be a death blow to the "Democratic" Party if he is the presidential "nominee" in 2008...

    However, in all fairness, he would balance any Democratic ticket quite well...My question is: Would he play second banana in a Clinton White House again?

    -Griffin, SA, TX

    March 25, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  265. Rob

    de·moc·ra·cy – [di-mok-ruh-see] –noun, plural -cies.

    Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

    I thought that we lived in a democracy, but I guess I was wrong.

    Gore for president does not = democracy

    The ONLY hope for the Democratic party and our country is to put forward the candidate that was elected by the people. If the so called "super" delegates choose to subvert the will of the people who make up the party, then maybe it truly is time for a SERIOUS change in those people whom we consider our party leaders, or maybe we should just create a party that will actually reflect the true wishes of its party members. Not just the ones who are "Super".

    March 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  266. Sarah

    Neither side would have the bitterness from the past 2 months and coming months to rationalize voting for John McCain, and Al Gore does have the experience, the good of the people in mind and does not have question marks where a voting record should be. He would definitely have my vote!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  267. Jim Harris

    Talk about disenfranchised voters.
    This is the ultimate Super-Delegate scenario.
    Bad idea.
    In fact, this is SUCH a bad idea that it just might happen.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  268. lara

    OBAMA-Gore 08

    March 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  269. wsholar, LA

    I think a Gore/Nader ticket would pretty much cover the bases. Lieberman has completely alienated himself from the party, so he's out of the picture. If Nader is the VP candidate, we don't have to worry about his voters sabotaging the electoral college for Gore. Sounds like a slam dunk.

    Let's just write the last eight years off as a bad dream and move on.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  270. Tom Huntington,NY

    Aw come on Jack, don't the Democrats have enough problems without this monkey wrench !

    March 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  271. Robert

    An excellent solution. The Supers picking Gore would not slight the voters in any way as neither Clinton or Obama won the Primary Elections and neither can.

    Those saying that this is not fair because Gore didn't get any votes during the primaries need to realized that the Primary Season will end in a draw. Neither Clinton nor Obama won enough delegates to win the nomination. Thus, it is now up to the Superdelegates to determine a a nominee that is electable.

    A little common-sense shows that the party is split and it is their (the Superdelegates) job to nominate someone since the voters could not. The party rules do not say they have to nominate someone who ran in the Primarys and could not win.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  272. Gerardo from California

    There is no way that will happen, particularly if we are talking about a “Gore-Obama” ticket, that would represent the ultimate insult for Clinton. Hillary would simply auto combust and disappear in flames. That said, the Democrats would have the ultimate dream ticket “Gore-Obama.”

    March 25, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  273. Marilyn

    That's outrageous. If the Democratic Party continues to come up with schemes to derail Obama's path to the nomination, I'll be voting for Nader this year. The Democrats cannot continue to be Republican-lite and expect to win elections. If it's not Obama, this could be Ralph's year.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  274. Bonnie in PA

    VP Gore and Hillary Clinton would knock your socks off !! Two great minds,,intelligent people together .the greatest idea ever.Rock the world.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  275. Mike C

    Everyone is scambling for the next big story....let the election process play out and we will have the right candidate. I'm hoping for a Clinton 2008! If not, I will have no choice but to vote for McCain!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  276. Gail Nugent

    The Al Gore ticket emerging from a brokered Democratic Convention could be a victory for the Democratic Party. Let's face the truth Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 Election. George Bush just stole the election with the help of his brother down in Florida and that's the inconvenient truth. We don't need another Republican Administration that at the end of eight years all they can say is "So." Gail – Amherst NY

    March 25, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  277. Ken

    How can that be good? He ran a losing campaign in Florida in 2000 (remember, let's count some but not all the votes) and his global warming powerpoint is stale. He needs to stay in Nashville/Hollywood and make money.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  278. Don Parker

    Probably a short term good because the democratic party as we thought we knew it has been revealed as a FRAUD. Al Gore may be able to silence the doubt that I as a black man has for the democratic party. But if Obama wins the nomination and is somehow cheated out of it, I will take it personal and this will be the last time this lifetime democrat will ever vote for a democrat under their current rules and regulations of picking a nominee.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  279. Dawn, Washington

    NO, NO, NO! Putting in a candidate that no one voted for would be a slap in the face to every voter who has participated in the Democratic primary process. Not to mention that if the decision can't be made between Obama & Clinton about who should be the presidential nominee, how would it be any easier to pick which one would be the VP nominee?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  280. Anthony in Missouri

    The voters are choosing to vote for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, that's our choices!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  281. Dee/Warwick

    I think that is a ridiculous solution, but one I wouldn't put pass this country attempting to pull-off. What would be the difference between Hillary trying to steal the nomination and handing it over to Gore, what has Gore done to deserve this honor ? I suppose Obama should just pretend he doesn't exist and step aside?

    Obama has fought to be in the positon he is currently holding and all the people in all the states who voted for him would not want to see him or ourselves cheated out of this opportunity to make a difference. I doubt very seriously if anyone who truly believes that we can win this country back would want to see Obama hand over his legacy to anyone. Least of all two has beens.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  282. Reginald McClain

    If Barack does not win the nomination and he has the most popular votes and pledged delegates, he should then run as an independent candidate. That would surely spice up some things.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:36 pm |

    A Gore led ticket! That would be perfect for the GOP to take back Congress!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  284. deliseo


    Gore couldn't even win his own State of Tennesse back in 2000 which would of gave him the nomination. He was a stiff with no personality and he let dumb Bush light him up at the debates. I will never forget those debates at how boring he was.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  285. Mike Mccarthy

    Depends what your definition of if is.... Gore? The guy who invented the internet?..... Hillary? The gal that flew through all that sniper fire? Even suggesting the idea to Gore would make him fantasize to the point that he would insist he's the President next year. Hillary would never accept VP to Gore... too egotistical.... and Obama, well what would all the typical white folks think.... My point is what the hell is going on here?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  286. Brett

    Al Gore as a presidential nominee would make me extremely excited as a voter. However, I doubt this will happen because Gore seems pretty set about not running. I fully understand this too, because he wants to stay away from politicizing his global warming message and heck the last time he ran, he won anyways!!!!

    My wish is simply that we had more people like Al Gore, who is a man of great wisdom and conscience.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  287. Bassam F. Akasheh MD.

    Gore is a good man. However, this will make me loose hope in the Democratic process. After such a long eye opening primary season to take the nomination from the inspiring Obama will be literally Criminal and Un Democratic.
    Is the DEMOCRATIC party going BANANAS?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  288. jon

    Why Clinton didn't run in 2004?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  289. Raven

    Of course some brokered deal within the DNC naming Al Gore might be a very good thing for the democratic party. After all, Gore not stepping up early on in this presidential race is the reason the party is so split at this time..isn't it. Gore would unite not only the party, but the entire country and set us back on the right track, which is why Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Hey, we still have a right to dream in this country don't we? Then why not make it something worth dreaming.....President Gore!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  290. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    I have a better idea. Gore and Jeb Bush, that way the dems would carry Florida. How sweet it is was a Jackie Gleason saying but this would fall under sour grapes.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  291. Mike Mccarthy South Berwick, ME

    Depends what your definition of if is…. Gore? The guy who invented the internet?….. Hillary? The gal that flew through all that sniper fire? Even suggesting the idea to Gore would make him fantasize to the point that he would insist he’s the President next year. Hillary would never accept VP to Gore… too egotistical…. and Obama, well what would all the typical white folks think…. My point is what the hell is going on here?

    Mike McCarty

    March 25, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  292. Cale Forty(D)

    Hell no jack! I took my time to get involved in democracy at it's best, not the voice of millions being thrown away. I would lose all faith in the democrat party if Gore by some bolt from Zues were to be the leading candidate.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  293. Tdo

    Nothing amazing about the responses here. Hillary supporters think what we good for the ticket and think that would be a great idea , while black obama supporters who are voting skin color only say no, obama. obama, obama.

    If you add up the electoral votes both would have won so far hillary is way in the lead. And when the superdelegates overturn obamas win get ready to see why blacks are not ready to lead this coubtry. Remember what happened after the rodney king trial when the cops were found innocent?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  294. Judy

    I think the only fair thing to do to decide the Democratic nomination is to hold new primaries in Florida and Michigan. It seems the DNC and Democratic leaders do not want to allow the voters to make the choice and to once again disenfranchise voters, but this time not just in Florida, but also in Michigan. I firmly believe the revoting should be allowed no matter who has to foot the bill, and it should be done as soon as in early May.

    Oh, well, Jack, if Hillary does not get the nomination, a Gore ticket would be okay but NOT if Obama is on it as a vice president. As far as I'm concerned, it truly was and is a pastor disaster for Obama (as Wright's replacement appears no better). Oh, well, there's still John McCain, and if I'm dissatisfied with the outcome of the Democratic nominating process, I'll definitely vote for McCain. He's pro-life. That's a good enough reason.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  295. deborah Orlando, FL

    I still hold out hope for Clinton/Obama 08, 12 and Obama/? 16, 20....Please, please please? But failing that Al Gore is certainly a respected democratic statesman.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  296. mary sullivan

    Chris Mathews and Russert would be in shock; after all they have done on behalf of Obama!
    Think of it? Gore would be the candidate of color--–GREEN!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  297. CES

    Perhaps Rush can give us some insight since he seems to be more fixated than usual with the Democrat surge the past few days!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  298. Jean

    It may be the best thing for the democratic party and

    March 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  299. Amnesty is Treason

    if he stomps out illegal immigration amnesty; it'll be fantastic!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  300. Jerry Linnins

    More intriguing perhaps would be the possibility of a Gore/"Someone Else" TICKET and both Obama and Clinton then being given cabinet level positions to serve as their personal "bully pullpits." Although Obama could wait out an eight year Gore presidency, Clinton could not. That might scuttle any compromise. Then, a GOP win would probably be inevitable.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  301. Al, Lawrence KS

    Al Gore as president? I was looking forward to a fine orator like Obama. Don't think I can watch power point State of the Union addresses for the next four years. But then again, Bush's State of the Union addresses were never nominated for an Academy Award. With Gore, we can just wait for his speeches to come out on DVD.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  302. Tom from Boston, Mass.

    Leave it to a Congressman from Florida to suggest such a screwed up, anti-democratic idea. HELLO! The delegates DO count and Gore has none and right now Obama leads. Last time I checked we were still a democracy (OK, maybe a plurocracy) and we have to let this play out according to the rules. Once again Florida is demonstrating that it doesn't play by the rules (both in the 2000 election by denying Gore his win and this year by violating DNC rules and now thinking they can deny the DNC). Personally I think Florida should be penalized and sit out this election AND the next. Maybe by then they can get their voting machines to work and their act together!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  303. Gore fan

    Yes, Yes, Yes!
    This country – no, the entire WORLD – needs AL GORE.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  304. maw

    Looking at the destruction both Hillary and Obama brought to the party, it is reasonable to have an political veteran who was cheater by the big brother Bush and small brother Bush in Florida 2000 to come back and redeem the party from division and redeem the country from the nightmare and hardship big brother George brought on this nation.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  305. bri

    Hi Jack,
    I don't think that will solve problem. The best thing to do is to have the democrate with the most delegates as the democratic nominee. If not I think the democratic convention will be a big embarassment and there will be McBush for president for 4 more years.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  306. pamela bernier

    While I am an ardent fan of Al Gore, and personally feel a Gore/Obama ticket would be unstoppable, I fear the disenfranchisement of millions of Democratic voters would create more damage to the party than the bickering between the Clinton/Obama camps. And, in truth, Jack, a suggestion of this order seems premature. It appears Obama will ultimately carry a lead in pledged delegates, states carried, and popular vote, and will presumably be the nominated Democratic candidate. Infusing the notion of a Gore candidacy into this stew of distractions seems just more side-track blah-blah when the media should be focusing on issues (you know, like, the Economy, Iraq, World Health, etc…).
    Occidental, CA

    March 25, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  307. Marion

    No, I don't believe that in Al Gore we ever saw the level of brilliance, communication skills, nor ability to connect and lead that Obama has demonstrated time and again during this long , temperament-testing campaign. IDespite the sensationalism afforded news shows by playing the Jeremiah Wright tapes ad nausium, I believe Obama's beliefs – so different from his former pastor's – as well as his sound policy recommendations will, in the end, prevail. To have a brokered convention would be tragic for both the Democrats and our nation.

    Marion from Cedar Falls, Iowa

    March 25, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  308. Felipe

    I dont see how nominating someone who was not running for President is either fair nor just to the current runners. If Al Gore gets the nomination it would prove that the democratic party has a way of making a mess of a sure thing, like somehow finding a candidate that couldnt beat the war mongoring, ignorant President we have now....

    March 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  309. Bob Dobalina

    Not much to do with Gore here, but I keep reading people saying Obama is racist. ??????????????????

    Are you people really that stupid, or are you just trying to provoke a reaction of some sort? I'm just curious if the polls are correct when they say that the majority of Hillary's supporters are uneducated, old and underexposed to the rest of the world. Which scares me that she's getting as much support as she is, if that many people exist with that mindset.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  310. Jessica

    Gore should not be on any ticket. He did not campaign, he did not raise any money for the Campaign, He did not go through any of the rigors of what political campaigns is about.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  311. Aaron in Virginia

    The Dems have two qualified candidates who have driven unprecedented voter registration and turnout. They should hand the nom to a proven loser why?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  312. shirley

    No, young Americans who are voting and excited about Senator Obama's message will not come out to vote for Al Gore. These same young Americans are our future, we need them to be excited about Americas potential. Hillary needs to stand down while we still have a viable candidate. If she continues her 'kitchen sink' campaign, the Repubicans will win the election.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  313. Медведев

    Al, just run as independent against Nader. Gore would definitely get the majority of the Independent votes. Problem solved.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  314. Josh

    Jack, Al Gore did not run for President and nominating him would be a slap in the face to all the voters. What is his platform? What fresh ideas will he bring? Why should we choose him as the next President? Americans have a peculiar way of choosing nominees, but the fact is that We the People get to choose! The nomination of someone who didn't even run would dissolve the entire purpose of running and these primary elections! The aristocratic tendency of the parties, saying "lets fix the voters mistakes" using the closed door smoke filled room dealings has got to stop if this democracy is to survive.

    Champaign, IL

    March 25, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  315. Sherry in Kentucky

    I love Al Gore. I also love Obama. I would hope that Barack would get the nomination, but if something happened and Al came out with it, I would vote for him.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  316. Cathy, Los Angeles, CA

    Gore/Obama... now that is the DREAM ticket!!!!

    But I don't think that would happen.

    The nominee will be either Obama or Clinton. Based on the facts so far, Obama should be the nominee. I hope that is the eventual outcome.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  317. Franklin, Memphis, TN

    Jack that is the dumbest idea I have heard regarding this whole delegate issue. It would be a slap in the face to both Obama's and Clinton's supporters if neither won and as a voter I would feel disenfranchised. Look, somebody has got to lose and somebody will be the eventual nominee. They should have some sort of superdelegate caucus,immediately and get on with uniting the party and trying to win the White House.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  318. Jack

    Let's not give us who voted a voice at all! Too much power for the superdelegates!

    Gore lost, let's move on!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  319. sandra

    dear Jack: the only people to gain from a brokered convention is the american media. congressman mahoney has played right into their hands.people most always act in their own self interests and i expect the talking heads to give this story bionic legs.


    March 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  320. Tiffany

    I love Al Gore but if he had wanted to run for President he would have done it.

    If everybody is so concerned about the will of the people (attacking the role of superdelegates) why would this be okay? Millions of people have voted and millions more are still waiting their turn. Of course that doesn't count the people of Florida or Michigan either; their votes don't matter because their poltical leaders screwed up.

    So much for a government "of the people, by the people and for the people"!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  321. loretha

    Jack I wouldnt vote for gore because i feel he gave up and allowed Bush to steal the presidency and whos to say he wouldnt do it again if the votes are tight, and i used to think i would vote for Hillary but now i know i wont EVER vote for her because of her display of self entitlement to the nomination is destroying the democratic party and she continues to link herself with John McCain as though she would rather see him win over Barack and to me she is a party traitor and a sore loser.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  322. Anne

    I'm planning to videotape the Democratic Convention and add it to my collection of Bruce Willis and Rambo flicks. A little popcorn, some iced tea, and I can cheerfully wait for Mr. Gore to arrive in a cape and tights to save the day.

    This primary is becoming such a farce that I truely despair. I used to think that the Democratic party included some grown-ups, but I am really starting to wonder.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  323. Nancy, Cunningham, TN

    I actually heard this rumor months ago that Al Gore was going to be the Democratic nominee from the convention floor. How ridiculous was my answer! I was told that this was done once in the past. I researched the Internet, but found no such precedence being set. This election year is completely different from anything we have ever seen, but nominating Al Gore would be the icing on the cake. I say no and I am a Tennesseean who thought Tennessee should have supported Gore in 2000, but he should have run this time and put out the blood, sweat and tears like Clinton and Obama have done.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  324. Erik

    So Obama and Clinton have run themselves ragged (physically and mentally) for the last four months only to roll over and play dead? Thank about that. I'll give you a few more months.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  325. Jerry Wilson

    Anything would be better than a Obama ticket.

    Jerry Wilsoin

    March 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  326. Leevaughn Brown

    Jack, two words

    Hell no!

    Cinti, Ohio

    March 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  327. Mike NYY

    No, I was one of those people who hoped Gore would run but no, not at this point.

    Gore as a VP would be very interesting though for Obama. He won't go through the Clinton circus again but I could see him running with Obama. he would provide Obama with the needed experience and Gore can attack the republicans better than anyone else. He will serve as a reminder of the Bush years and how dangerous it would be to elect John McCain. Gore (and Obama) was against the war from the start and his dire predictions have become nearly completely true. On top of this it would bring global warming to the the surface of the public dialogue. The threat of global warming has been curiously absent from the messages of these candidates. The frustrating part is that actually moving to fight it help the economy as well.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  328. Vinnie Vino

    For the past year Al Gore has been the dark horse in the Democratic race for the Presidental nomination. If my pal AL should emerge to the top of the party's ticket after the Denver convention it would be the GOP'S worst nightmare. A Gore led ticket will be unearthly to stop in a General Election, like it was back in the 2000 Election when he won the popular vote for the Presidency...

    C.I., New York

    March 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  329. Leah DiMarco, TX

    No – Gore needs to just get off the fence and endorse Senator Obama and get this mess done with.

    Obama – our next President of the UNITED States of America!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  330. Jean from Texas

    I just want the Democratic party to work together – we can't afford another Republican in office. Whoever is elected is going to have to clean up the horrific mess that W. and his crook cronies have made. I want a Democratis candidate who can win. I think Gore could do it.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  331. Ulysse in Canada

    The only good thing Al Gore could do at this point would be to endorse Barrack Obama to show the way to all other superdeleguates who have not yet made up their decision. I trust Al gore, he is a very intelligent and respecful person and I know he would never endorse Hillary Clinton because he most certainly know her.

    Of course, right after that somebody will call him a traitor and a Judas since it seems thats the only thing the Clinton campaign is able to do.

    I hope this time my message will appear in the blog, I am beginning to feel like the liberty of speech does not apply to me on that CNN site. I thought it was an american value. Althought I dont physically live in the US, I live in North America so in a way I also feel as an American because everything that occurs in the US is always affecting us directly.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  332. Greg from Mechanicsburg, PA

    Jack, that is just plain dumb. Dumber still is seating the Florida and Michigan delegates without a revote. Even dumber is playing into the hands of the Republicans by voting for Hillary Clinton. Yet even dumber is to believe anything that is said by the Clinton campaign. It's enough to make me want to change my party affiliation.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  333. Gemmeg

    Al Gore doesn't know the secret behind the global warming. He is the most dangerous man on this planet. What is he doing right now?
    He does see how the fight between Obama and Hillary is damaging the party and giving more chances to McCan to win. Don't inflict at Obama and Hiilary the same pain they did to you.
    You have to come out as soon as possible to endorse someone otherwise your mission to save the planet is over. You have a very difficult choice.
    1) If you go for Hillary because you have a good relation with Clinton. Sen. Hillary is going to be the winner but your mission will die.
    2) If you go for Obama, your mission to save the planet will survive because the world knows through Obama the planet will be saved.
    1/3 americans want Hillary to win but 2/3 americans + the rest of the world want Obama to win. Now you can make your choice dear Al Gore.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  334. Peg Duncan

    That's worse that this superdelegates fiasco. They can't follow the voters wishes, so they give us a candidate we didn't even vote for? I'd leave the democratic party, which I may do if they can't represent the views what this party is supposed to stand for. If they do anything to go against the voters choice the party is finished.

    Traverse City, MI

    March 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  335. Kandi from Virginia

    To quote a line from one of my favorite, and relevant movies, "The American President", "in the absence of water, people will drink the sand." All of this conversation proves that dragging this contest out will damage the party. A brokered deal is out of the question, and whoever suggested it should be reminded of the fact that while flawed, we still have a democratic system in place within this democracy we call the United States of America. How exactly does Obama vs. Clinton = Gore? If I didn't know any better, I would say this came from a Clinton staffer, and is just today's fear mongering spin..."vote for Hillary, or you may end up with Gore!"

    March 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  336. Toby Younis, Boyce, Virginia


    I read your question.

    The thought caused my kung pao chicken to return for a short visit.

    Stop it.


    March 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  337. Dave in Astoria

    Jack WHO???

    March 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  338. Dave

    Ok people...this is crazy! let's just pick a name out of a hat.
    let the process finish, and if the election is lost to the republicans,
    then so be it. I liked both Obama and Clinton for the issues, but neither will have the unity to win. McSame!!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  339. Jack

    Let’s not give those of us who voted a voice at all! Too much power for the superdelegates!

    Gore lost, let’s move on!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  340. Michael Allen

    No, of course not, Jack.

    Although Gore has a lot of respect within the party these days, we have to remember how he ran his campaign in 2000. Secondly, why should Gore get the nomination? He has gotten no votes, or delegates. All of this talk about Obama being damaged beyond recognition will vanish after a few months when Hillary concedes and he's wailing away at McCain.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  341. Phil

    Gore will do good to support Senator Obama! He had his turn and blew it!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  342. Chris C. Benton AR

    No, but I think a Obama/Gore or a Hiliary/Gore ticket would be intresting, as well as something they should consider...

    March 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  343. Lauren

    How about Obama-Gore, that would be great.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  344. Allen L Wenger

    I think it is definately worth considering. His negatives are low and he is more than qualified. Too bad he didn't win the electorial vote to go along with his popular vote win 8 years ago, we would all be in a better position today.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  345. Ali, Philadelphia

    My comment should get air time today.

    Jack, is this the best question you can come up with? I know there is currently a drought in the election season, but come on Jack, you can do better than that.

    The question should be: Do you think Tim Mahoney is a moron for thinking of such a stupid compromise?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  346. Tim (Blacksburg, VA)

    Absolutely not Jack. I don't remember Gore's name on our primary ballot and I don't believe Gore can bring together a working majority the way Obama can.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  347. Matt in Fredericksburg, VA


    March 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  348. Adam Nguyen Glendale, Arizona

    This is a great idea. I go for this......AL GORE.....FOR PRESIDENTTTTTTTTTTTT.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  349. Red Dog from ND but now in Floida

    In one word NO.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  350. Sean, Boston, MA

    Gore is yesterday's news. I'd move to McCain if Gore were on the ticket.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  351. Annette from California


    But, I'd LOVE Gore to be Secretary of Interior, or leader of a totally beefed-up EPA.

    And Hillary as White House switchboard operator, so she could be johnny-on-the-spot when those 3 A.M. phone calls come in.

    So I could rest easy at night.

    And Nader as Secretary of Labor. Would THAT stop the Republicans in their tracks, or what?

    Gore would be a good choice as VP, but that position has no real power. He has the ability (and desire) to actually accomplish something.


    March 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  352. In a Heartbeat

    I would vote for a Gore led ticket in a heart beat! Too bad that he would have to have either Clinton or Obama on the same ticket with him though. I am so tired of listening to both sides at this point. I don't think McCain would stand a chance against Al Gore.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  353. Glenn Keiffer

    Why can't people see what's going on in the primaries? Clinton will win PA. and all the other states that will go democrat in the general election. Ohio, Fla, Cal, Mich. N.Y., Mass. Obama won the states that democrats never carry in the general elections. So why shouldn't we look to November and put someone that will win the White house back?

    Best Regards Jack,

    Glenn Keiffer

    March 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  354. Diane M

    Noooooo! It't time for real change, not more of the same old. Please don't let this idea fly.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  355. mars

    that is a terrible idea.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  356. Chryssa

    Jack, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

    Boise, Idaho

    March 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  357. Marrissa in Burlington, NC

    Jack, I would have to say this might be appealing to a lot of voters but a bit disturbing. With so much talk about disenfranchised voters and superdelegates deciding against the voters, THIS would be the topper of them all! We should let the process work the way it was planned and AGREED UPON! This includes the consequences of the choices Michigan and Florida made. As far as Mr. Mahoney's idea of the wonderful Mr. Gore – HE SHOULD HAVE RAN and no amount of wishing will change that fact!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  358. Yemi

    I may just change my party. There seems to be no democracy at all if our precious time at the polls have been wasted just to crown someone who has been on the sideline "KING" Sorry Jack, this party is becomign too messy. I should be an independent.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  359. Peace

    The party is to be careful that they do not lose those who have shifted the party from Republican, indipendents, without forgetting the overwhelmingly young voters who are hungry of CHANGE.

    The only favour Gore can do is to endorse Obama. Obama should pick Edwards as his running mate. Edwards had a lot of supporters in 2004 and are now supporting Hillary.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  360. David

    Let's be realistic: Obama's going to come into the convention with more states, more pledged delegates, and more votes. If the superdelegates overturn the will of the primary voters, it's not going to make people happy. That said, I think handing the nomination to Gore would be less damaging to Democrats than handing it to Clinton.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  361. brl


    March 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  362. Ethan

    How is that a compromise for anyone?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  363. Kat from NH

    Gore/Obama.......... now there's the dream ticket !! They say that the third times a charm !! But then there's the chance Florida will get involved and somehow give the nomination to Clinton..........

    March 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  364. jane

    No way!!!!!.
    people did not vote for al gore in primary why would he get the credit. Obama is the one that people did vote for. No OBAMA will be our next PRESIDENT . We don't want Hillary

    March 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  365. Kevin

    Once again the Dems. confusion is going to cost them the election. Al Gore's possible entry in the campaign will just drive the stake in to the flawed party's heart. Bill Richardson had the right answer on Larry King last night, so did Lewis Black.

    Warren, MI

    March 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  366. QG of Georgia


    If this happens, then I can't see remaining a Democrat. At least not during this election cycle. Dealing with the Super-delegate mess is bad enough, so I don't think the Gore idea has legs at all. It would definitely split the party.

    Personally, my fall back would be to just Write-In the Democrat of my choice. If there is no solvency in the party, then making the prevailing movement one of an independent campaign will suffice.

    Change sometimes requires a fresh start and new people.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  367. Ted R.


    Four words: Been there, done that.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  368. Michael Sarabia

    It would be the absolute wisest decision this party has made in a long time.

    Gore has the type of experience Hillary wishes she could claim legitimately. He has built up tons of political capital in that he's been right on the major decisions affecting our country today (Iraq, the environment, etc). And, quite frankly, he's the candidate a lot of us Dems had wished, last year at this time, would have just announced his candidacy.

    In short, he would not be a compromise candidate. He's the ideal candidate. Both Obama and Clinton, in comparison, are just candidates that merely suffice.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  369. Joe - Virginia

    No. No. No. I know you wrote Al Gore but I presume that is a "typo" and you really meant Al Bore instead. Please Jack, you know the saying the second time is "shame on me."

    March 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  370. Caleb

    Gore-Obama '08?

    Man, I could DEFINIETLY get behind that. I'd rather Obama be president, but after serving under Gore he could definitely run again. And no one could say he's "inexperienced."

    Chalk it up to bad luck and misunderstanding that he's even dropping in the polls now.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  371. Lee

    It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone besides Obama or Clinton to be on top of the Dem ticket. If Gore wanted to be considered, he should have been campaigning while there were state-based elections. As much respect as he may get as a statesman, he would lose it all in this cockamamy plot.
    It does look like a brokered convention. It does look like there is no way for Clinton to win either a majority of pledged delegates or the popular vote. Is there really so much fear of Obama to keep the establishment from moving to support him? Is the Dem party being taken over by people who believe in Obama's politics or being destroyed by the establishment unwilling to release their power structure?

    March 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  372. Carter Fisher

    Yes. But only with Obama as veep. It would be much better to see it worked out the way it is supposed to, but if it doesn't decisive measures will need to taken.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  373. John

    LMAO. That's a good one!!! So they are gonna give the nomination to someone who didn't recieve a single vote in the election process. If they do that then they must really want John McCain to be president. Am I supposed to vote for Al Gore because he won a Nobel Prize? C'mon lets get some serious analysis here..

    March 25, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  374. Rob

    How incredibly stupid. Why not bring Walter Mondale back? Remember how he ran for the senate after Welstone died...and lost! Again...and again...stupidity prevails within the DFL. Why not draft the ex-president of Cargill to be your figurehead. That would at least make some sense.

    Your welcome.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  375. John Mazza

    Everything that is right with the process is being mixed with everything that is wrong with the process.......the people should be allowed to speak....the democratic national committee needs to shoulder the responsibility for the Florida and Michigan fiascos. With something that looked like a sure win for democrats, now looks like the party is slowing shooting itself in the foot as well as killing itself with words of acrimony directed at itself. In the end, we deserve whatever we end up with...because we helped to create it.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  376. Megan

    The republicans don't like Gore. The independants wont' be as into him as Obama. I think Gore is still the "old" regime and the Dems should make a stance for our future. Obama can beat McCain, I don't know if Gore can.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  377. Clifton

    Gore should of been running for the presidency long ago...then we wouldn't have this giant mess!

    March 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  378. Brian From Fort Mill, S.C.

    That would make absolutely no sense! Imagine you have a very tight Nascar race between two drivers, and it turns out to be a photo finish. Then, instead of picking one of these drivers as the winner, we go to someone in a Volkswagen, who hasn't even watched the race on TV, and declare him the winner.
    The only thing that would make sense is to pick the one who's ahead at the finish, and declare that person the winner.
    I'm supporting Obama, but if Hillary were one delegate ahead of him, I'd choose her.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  379. Dave

    Please, not going to happen.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  380. Ben

    I think Al Gore could be the one to re-unite the Democratic party, and even the country as a whole. And his nomination would not tear apart grassroots organizations of America as some have suggested would happen, as there has been a large grassroots support for Al Gore to get him nominated in 2004 and 2008. I believe if he was on the ballots in primaries this year, we would never have had this problem to begin with and the Democratic party would have already had their nominee by now.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  381. crystal morris

    Can we stick to the issues? If the media would just do its job and report on substances then fiction we might a be able to do something. The media needs to be held accountability for it's action , when it pick and chose what story deserve to be put out there this should be fair all around. The media played up Senator's Obama story on Rev. Wright, until we where sick. But what about Senator Clinton the lies she has been telling the America people, where is her taxes?????What about the story she told on the coming under heavy gun fire??????? Or what about NAFTA, she clearly lied to the people on that. We need Obama in the white house, he has the lead, he's qualified, we as a democratic party needs to rally around him, so that we have a strong chance of winning.We do not need any outside forces.

    March 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  382. joe

    The idea of a Gore ticket would completely disenfranchise all the folks that have worked tiredlessly to support either one of these two candidates. That shouldn't take away the fact that he might be a formidable candidate.

    But my advice to Al Gore would be jumping into the ring behind Obama, who stands to be the people's choice at this time.


    Ottawa, Canada

    March 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  383. Tim

    I'd go for Gore-Obama in a hearbeat.

    Stevens Point WI

    March 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  384. Mark

    For at least the past 30 years, political pundits have loved to speculate about "brokered conventions." You know what? It has never happened. Isn't it time to stop publishing such foolish speculation? Be responsible, CNN.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  385. Don from Decorah Ia.

    Not only are you right , Mr. Gore would win it all.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  386. Steven Hanley

    Al Gore? Now that rings a bell.

    It seems like just yesterday when Al Gore was dodging sniper fire on his way to pick up his nobel peace prize.

    Ah, memories...

    March 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  387. Eric, Suburban Detroit, Michigan


    March 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  388. Barb

    I feel that the office of President has become diminished. It is now quite beneath Al Gore to consider four years back in the political arena while his important work suffers. The only thing the next president should do is listen to him.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  389. Bruce Marshall

    Jack I don't think it is a good idea, He has not been out campaign and the voters have not voted for him in the primaries. I voted and had to duck sniper bullets to do it.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  390. ker

    If the super delegates were to vote to give Al Gore the nomination, it would go against all our democratic principles. The Democratic party is having enough problems as it is, why throw in another wrench?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  391. John Q. Voter

    I think it would upset a lot of voters who have been through this whole process and want to feel that their votes meant something. Personally I would love to see Gore on either side of a ticket with Obama. But what do I know? I'm just John Q. Voter.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  392. Alex, NJ

    YES, DO IT!!!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  393. Lancer

    Nope, that would be even more disenfranchizing than saying that obama wouldnt get the ticket


    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  394. Jane Zacek

    I think having Al Gore head the Democratic presidential ticket this year would be GREAT.

    I would NOT be happy if Hillary were the VP candidate, however (I don't think she'd take it anyway). I rather doubt Obama would take second place, either, but then who thought LBJ would take it in 1960?

    Jane Zacek (registered Democrat)
    Albany, NY

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  395. Tom C

    Speaking only for myself, a Gore led ticket would most likely draw my vote in November. did I mention that I always vote for the Republican?
    Roch, NY

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  396. Carol

    Would Gore be good for the Dems? Gore is who I have been waiting for....YES!

    Gore/Obama – yes. Gore/Clinton – no way.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  397. Paul

    There is nothing wrong with the delegates acting in the best interests of the party, and in this case, the country, too, after their commitment to other delegates has expired. Delegates are commited for only a few ballots; after that they are free to vote for whomever they choose. At that point, only someone who has not been involved in the Clinton-Obama battle could unite the party. Whether it is Gore, Edwards, or someone else, that person would be able to unite the party and keep the Clinton faithful or the Obama faithful from staying home in November out of revenge against the other side. It sounds good for me; much better than having Clinton or Obama be the next McGovern to lead us to ruin down to the local level.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  398. Derek Jagels

    Give me Gore or give me death.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  399. Ralph Taliercio

    I think it would be the equivalent of letting McCain run unopposed.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  400. Terry Wood

    There is no doubt in my mind that Al Gore is the man to lead this country. He has all the credentials to beat any and all republicans.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  401. maryland

    do you honestly believe that millions of people that voted for hillary or obama would let gore sneak in an steal the nomination?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  402. Tennessee Tuxedo

    Al Gore being on the ticket would be just another page in the book of same old same old...which has done nothing for this country but cause divisions and misguidedness. Time for some new blood in Washington with new ideas and new ways to move this country forward.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  403. linda koziar

    Maybe this is a good time for John Edwards to "unsuspend" his campaign!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  404. jess_meadow, hartford CT

    I like the guy .. Gore is extraordinary

    The BEST we can have is :

    HILLARY / Bloomberg

    and the second best we can have is:
    HILLARY/GORE '08....

    A nightmare would be Obama/ Richardson....

    HILLARY/BLOOMBERG '08 is the way to go...

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  405. Wendell

    Either way Obama will win. Because Al Gore would choose Obama. Obama will get the Clinton votes and Obama will attract the new votes. And in eight years Obama will be the next president.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  406. Anthony

    Well the answer is simply no for the reason that all the people who voted for their canidate will scream bloody murder saying that they don't have a voice lets let Gore stick with his little movies and leave politics to the big kids.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  407. Linda, Ocala FL

    Yes. Gore should of won FL in 2004. However, his VP will be the decider for me.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  408. Tia

    No, it isn't. I'm tempted to rant but I won't . He's isn't a cure all either. If he wanted to run that's what he should have done. Another annointment by the media. If the DNC goes that route They will lose the base. Tricks of any kind is not going to happen.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  409. Mary

    The only one I'll vote for is Obama.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  410. Suzanne

    Gore could not even win his home state in 2000! Why would we vote for him now?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  411. Orlando Cuevas

    No it would kill the party. It would appear that a white male was the only choice again. Gore is good but he is part of the Clinton past

    Hillary should do the right thing and suspend her campaign.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  412. oscar

    The power ticket of the real american dream. a smart guy with a vision and understanding of the u.s. and the world. Keep it up jack – I was starting to change my mind about obama after your over endorsing him (without you actually saying it) after gore it would be clinton them obama. make more noise about gore jack.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  413. donna

    I would never in a million years vote for Obama, But I would be the happiest camper around if the ticket read Gore/Obama or Gore/Clinton. That news would cause me to celebrate.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  414. Paul M

    As a staunch Democrat, I'm in for any candidate that has a good chance of defeating the Republican nominee. Gore would do quite nicely, however, I would still prefer Hillary.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  415. Pat

    Well Jack,
    would you say that if Truman came back from the dead
    would be a good thing for the Democrats?
    ..cause at the rate they are going at each other's throats they are going to need it.

    Stuttgart, Germany

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  416. Jan, Oregon

    Absolutely not! I voted Republican, the first thiem this happened and would do it again. What a mess!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  417. tylar

    I don't think that a Gore led ticket would be a good idea. I do believe that Al Gore would make a good president he also I believe would have to have been voted on by the people. All of the elections would be over by then and that would mean that what the people voted and stressed about for months would mean nothing. If Hillary or Barack won't have enough pledge delegates then he certainly won't either, How is that fair.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  418. Roger

    Al is just a flawed as the other two – come on guys you must be able to do better than this!

    Pleasanton, CA

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  419. Toria from SC

    I do not think it is fair because it is not what the millions of people that have cast their vote has signed on for. Mr. Gore has not campaigned and how do we know he stands for the same things that he stood for all those years ago. Florida's elected officials screwed the pooch on their Democratic process and now wants the country to bail them out of it. The mess created in Florida and Michigan is not the rest of the country's cross to bear, but the elected officials that decided to hold the primariers early. Florida should not be dictating to America what will happen in this election year. We have let Florida dictate Presidents in the past (Bush), so why should we trust them to do the right thing now!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  420. Thom

    I think it's a terrible idea, and I love Al Gore!

    All the brouhaha about a "brokered convention" seems silly. I remember when I was a kid the thing that was most interesting about the Democratic convention was that it wasn't decided already (as opposed to the Republican conventions).

    A brokered convention means we are still working and struggling, but Al Gore hasn't been considered by anyone and would be a BAD IDEA.

    I also think he's too smart to take the bait... I hope.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  421. Clara Gray-Bartek

    The thought of Al Gore being the Democratic nominee is the best thing I have heard in months! I am sure many of us wish the election eight years ago would have flip-flopped the other way. I say GO GORE!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  422. Donna Johnson

    I would definitely vote for Al Gore. He not only earned the presidency by garnering the popular vote in 2000, but has also won the Nobel Peace Prize and the Acadamy Award for his efforts to publicize global warming. My winning ticket would be Gore-Clinton. I don't blame him for being bitter, but if he is really interested in public service, the country needs him now more than ever. The DEMS are squandering what should be a shoo-in election with this divisive, vote splitting intra-party bickering. We need someone who can get elected!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  423. Bob L. Philadelphia, PA

    I think that would be a great idea. I believe thay Gore is the best Democrat for the job and I was upset that he did not run. As a Democrat, I would accept Gore or Hillary Clinton as the Dem nominee. If he is not the candidate, I think whoever wins in November should make Gore the head of the EPA or Secy of Interior.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  424. Anthony

    I am voting for McCain, but if Gore were to run, I might vote for him. He'd have knowleadge and experience over Obama and sincerity and credibility over Clinton. One problem – there would be NOTHING democratic or even republican about his nomination. It would appear oligorchical to the rest of the world.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  425. Melissa

    If the battle between Obama and Clinton gets heated enough that Americans are voting for one candidate simply because of their disdain for the other, a Gore ticket may be just the answer - especially if Democrats begin realizing how much this battle could possibly destroy their party's chance of winning the election in November. If nearly half of Democrats don't want to vote for the Democratic nominee because of all the fighting has convinced them that the other is unfit to be President, they are going to lose out on everything they stand for - except their hatred of Obama or Clinton.

    Cincinnati, OH

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  426. Orlando


    Seeing as how the Democrats are experts at shooting themselves in the foot, seeing Al Gore as the candidate would probably be the most logical next step in this comical process. Who would his running mate be, Martin Sheen?

    New Jersey

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  427. Dennis Ohio

    Why bother with a Primary if it can result in a nominee who was not on the ballot? Let Al Gore announce his preferences and go from there. If Al Gore wants to run, so be it, but let's not dump the two people who have tried so hard to make a case for their nomination.
    No surprises, please!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  428. Tanya Turner

    This would be good for a Hollywood production. This move would be the same done by Hubert Humprey in 1968. It would be undemorcratic. Sen. Obama has won more votes and delegates-he should be the nominee. Gore can win another Oscar and not the coverted Presidential position. This would also be letting the DNC off easy by not doing their job and running this campaign in a fair and just way.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  429. lizjohnson

    No, because a candidate that primary voters didn't have a chance to vote for would still disenfranchise the electorate. If Gore were to come out and support one of the two candidates, or if he were to announce his intentions to run as VP alongside one of them, that would probably be the icing on the cake.

    Liz Johnson
    South Bend, IN

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  430. Beth

    I like Al Gore... really I do, I just have zip respect for him. He never stood up to Billary during her "VP" years that she's now touting around as her "experience". He has done well for himself and he needs to stay focused on keeping our planet safe over global warning!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  431. chris

    I would rather see G. W. Bush than Gore on the ticket. This is between Obama and Clinton. If the Dem's can't sort it out prior to the convention, they won't have my support. Why do i get the feeling that once again the Dem's will find away to screw up and disappoint so many of us, while failing to seize the opportunity for change.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  432. Dylan

    Yes! He's the most qualified person in the country to run; he was vice president for 8 years, won a popular vote, won a nobel peace prize and an academy award! I dare the public and media to find anyone on the planet more qualified. Qualified and leading progressive world issues? Sounds like experienced AND ready for change. Can't lose.

    –Madison, WI

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  433. Lawrence

    Are you on PROZAC? He is not running. Get real !!!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  434. Steve M.

    Please Mr. Gore save America, it's been a long 8 years and i can't take 8 more of the same lies, corruption, and war that we are so used to. Mr. Gore we need you please,

    Al Gore 08'

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  435. Charles Alan Satterwhite

    Yes! Al Gore getting the Democratic nomination would be a great. Democrats would get to leave behind two candidates lacking experience and creditability and pick up a proven politician who's actually had executive experience. McCain's advantage on foreign policy would disappear. Only it would have to be a gore-someone else to work and leave behind both Obama and Clinton.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  436. Sharon Whetzel

    I voted for Al Gore the 1st time he ran and would MOST CERTAINLY vote for him again. He' a man of integrity and has demonstrated repeatedly the dpth of his concern for our country and, in fact, our world. PLEASE THROW YOUR HAT INTO THE ARENA MR GORE!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  437. Faith McGinley

    The party needs to do something and quick. If Al Gore was put forward I believe it would make every Democratic American and some Republicans happy. Mr. Obama's core supporters would certianly not be happy . The race issue would be even more divisive at that time than it is now. I believe the Clinton's want what is best for the country and would be willing to do whatever it takes.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  438. Johnny

    Wow! I think this would be a win, win for the Democrats. Gore was the leading choice among most Democrats about two years ago. It would bring some fresh air into the campaign and become part of history books for years to come.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  439. Brandon

    Mr. Gore has too much humility to ever let something like that happen.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  440. Edward Porter

    Let me understand the question. Would having Vice President Gore, the most qualified person in either party be acceptable to me as the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008 in case of a brokered convention.

    Heart be still. But let's find a different running mate for him...Vice President Edwards has a nice ring to it.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  441. Rob

    Yes, absolutely. Al Gore's position on glabal warming could benefit not only the Earth but America's foriegn policy as well.

    I think a Gore/Clinton ticket would be unstoppable. I have completely ruled out Obama after learning that he supported a spiritual institution with such radical views. Bad judgement calls cannot be made as the leader of the free world.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  442. Ruby Coria, LA. CA.

    Jack, it seems that everyone is trying to fix thier own election: like Obama is ok if Fl. n Mich. don't vote. The Hill is ok with her on what ever ticket. Now you're or we're talking about AL Gore, how about we have 4 Presidents! and there.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  443. Lois, California


    This is a crazy discussion. First of all, what about all the hard work both campaigns have put in. The money people have contributed. I have contributed to Hillary's campaign. I believe that by the time the convention comes along, there will be a nominee. What I don't understand, is why the superdelegates are stressing over this. Draw up a secret ballot and questionaire. Once the convention starts, bring it out and distribute the votes. I had my reservations about Howard Dean being the party chair. He has failed on leadership. I'm glad he wasn't elected president. This is a mess. I'm also tired of people blamining Hillary for this mess. She is a viable candidate. She will step aside if Obama gets nominated. Yes, she will be disappointed, but I think she'll gracefully bow out. I think she is a lady, whether anyone thinks she isn't. She believes in the process.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  444. MN Indepenent in TX

    Let's get some real contenders in the race – bring on Ventura/RFK Jr!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  445. Jeannie

    Whatever it takes to keep HIllary out of the WHite House. I'm a life long Democtaat but will vote for ANYONE but her.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  446. Andrew (California)


    I respect Al Gore, but the American people did not vote for him during this current 2008 primary season (his name was clearly not on the ballot). So this would be like nominating Hillary Clinton when Obama has more states won, more popular votes, and more pledged delegates. This too would just silence the voice of voters. Let's face it, if Senator Clinton was simply Sen. Rodham with no Clinton affiliation this race would have been over in February. Can we say nepotism?!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  447. Erik

    The Democratic Party needs to be saved from itself. I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I'm so disgusted that I'm preparing to change my voter registration to Independent. The party is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Al Gore is the only one who can save it. I believe him when he says he doesn't want to return to politics, but I also believe he's a patriot who'd step in if it's the only way to save us from four more years of Republicans running the country into the ground. A Gore-Obama ticket would be unstoppable, and the best thing for the country in so many ways.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  448. shirley wershba

    I think it's a GREAT IDEA. Let's not forget that Al Gore actually won the election of 2000 (with a majority of the popular vote, for sure) and probably had the recount been properly handled in Florida, he would have been inaugurated more than seven years ago. He certainly has the experience and background to serve, and the intelligence to put this country back on course.

    As for a running mate? I would trust his judgement on that one. My personal choice would be Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  449. Mona

    No!!! Al Gore needs to put an end to this nonsense and step up to endorse a candidate ....AND t's time for all Democrats to urge our final superdelegates to speak out and begin to endorse the front -runner, Obama! Each day Hillary opens her mouth and speaks negatvely (need I say Wright?), is one more step toward another Republican President.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  450. Jonathan Bing

    Absolutely not, that would be horrible. This is an election about change. The Dems would ruin their base. A Gore led ticket would say that the Dems, and America is not ready for an African American or Female nominee, let alone a President. I have decided which of the 2 candidates I only support, but I refuse to support the same old politics and not taking a chance on change. I think that Dems would be saying that only a white male can be president.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  451. Nick

    Here's a new and fresh idea...how about we give the nomination to the candidate with the most delegates, popular vote and contests won...just so happens all 3 of those would mean that Obama should be the nominee as of RIGHT NOW and stop all this negative press that will be ultimately the demise of any hope for a democratic president...with that being said if they give it to Hillary, I'm moving to Mexico.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  452. Bryan Jacoby

    Al Gore should have been the one everyone was talking about as the nominee from day one. If no compromise can be reached by a convention, rather then hurt their own party Obama and Clinton should step aside. Gore has proven a capable leader who would be a GREAT president!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  453. Richard

    This is a moot point think about it. The big idea this election is new voters and who would bring the most...Obama... If thats the case then it would have to be Al Gore/ Obama based on this idea...Whats the point of putting a major candidate who has legimate claim to number 1 at number 2 to form a ticket where he is bringing what Al Gore needs to win and not get the top job? this sounds ridiculous. Best odds are to put the most legitimate winner forward broadcast the rules that they agreed to nationwide and unify around the legimate leader which would probably be Obama with Al Gore in the second spot. Because in my mind Obama is very similar to Al Gore. If Obama died or something I could easily live wth Gore. PS – Slash and Burn is not a good policy! (Richardson's treatment by Carville for endorsing Obama) Gore would never work with another Clinton anyways ...He knows what we the public are now starting to see about how the Clintons operate.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  454. Tommy

    Obama has resurrected the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party and sits atop the situation now. Hillary represents Republican Lite, the DLC wing of the Democratic Party. Al Gore no longer has the stomach for electoral politics in the US after his 2000 adventure, which will be one for the history books. Don't look to Al Gore to rescue the Democratic Party when it didn't stand up for him in 2000. Are we going to do the past or the future? Is the Democratic Party going to be as stupid as it was in 1968? Is the Democratic Party establishment capable of learning from its experience?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  455. DLT

    I would vote for Al Gore in a heartbeat. Both Obama and Hillary have attractive qualities and if either is the final choice, I will certainly vote for the choice. However, Al Gore stands head and shoulders above both in terms of policy positions and stature in the world. He should have been the President in 2000 except for a stolen election in Florida.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  456. David

    Yes, yes and yes! Just once in my life, I want to feel passionate when I pull that lever and not just resigned.


    New York

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  457. lee

    Bad idea Jack, Al Gore will endorse Sen. Obama soon and others will follow, they are beginning to realize the time is quickly approaching for them to save the party.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  458. Tom Bruce

    Don't hold your breath. The Democratic party would be challenged to organize a one car funeral procession, so to think that they would do anything to calm the waters is wishful thinking. Maybe, since he couldn't do it through primaries, this is Howard Dean's way of getting the nomination. Everybody scream!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  459. Diane Boyd

    No way, I think we need fresh faces in the White House.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  460. Karena Williams

    Hello Mr Cafferty,

    At this juncture in the debate for the democratic nominee, Al Gore's name has not been listed on any ballot for any primary or caucus for this tenure and has not participated in these contests. Although I am an avid Barak Supporter, It would simply not be fair to Hilary or Barak for Al Gore to sit on the sidelines and is the one who is rewarded at the finish. Although I greatly admire Mr. Gore, he has had his turn.


    Karena Williams
    Douglasville, GA

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  461. tiger

    Jack, everyone knows including Al Gore that a brokered ticket with him at the top would be disenfranchising to BOTH candidates and the American people. You should look at where this is coming from, the Hillary Clinton campaign, Rep Tim Mahoney is a super delegate supporting Hillary Clinton. You see Hillary can't stand the idea of Obama winning the nomination, therefore she will do whatever it takes to stop him. It's pretty sad when you think about it, she would rather support John McCain than a member of her own party.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  462. Cherie

    I agree with Channell from Boston : Gore/Obama would rock!!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  463. Augustus

    If that happens or if it is confirmed that the idea is something they are even talking about then it clearly says what most of the countries in the so called third world have been saying for decades , which is "there is no such thing as a true democracy, you only make the rules as you go and stack the deck against your opponent".

    Milton, MA

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  464. Teri B., Birmingham, AL

    Sure Jack. Lets just disregard all the voters, not just he ones in FL and MI.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  465. Travis_The_Hobo

    Why am I responding to this?!?!?! )^8 This is IMPLAUSIBLE MR CAFFERTY

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  466. Jason B

    If Obama is our future we are in deep trouble, he offers no change at all just some 92 Clinton mojo. Hillary has a the charisma of a broomstick and suddenly Al Gore with his 25 lbs of Nobel prize weight and his Gordon Gecko hairdo; he looks like a breath of fresh air. He won the presidency once I'm sure he can do it again. Sorry republicans and day dreaming demobamas but that is the inconvenient truth!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  467. Karen

    Gore and Obama! That's a "dream" ticket! Been my hope for almost two years! This way we get not just 8 years, but 16! It will take that long after 8 of Bush. Gore now to take the flac and the worst of the "clean-up" and Obama later after some experience, which seams to be what some think is lacking. Gore-Obama-08 YES

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  468. Anne

    Eh. Not gonna happen. This guy is just spouting off.

    Barring some kind of catastrophe, Hillary's not going to be the nominee, either. I'll be glad when the MSM does the math and figures that out.

    Right now my money's on Obama/Richardson. They'd have my (very happy) vote, for sure.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  469. Larry R Mead

    You must be joking to even suggest it. What a nightmare that would be.

    Larry Mead

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  470. Ann, Newton, New Jersey

    I'd welcome it! Considering what we have to choose from right now, with all that is coming out about the candidates, Al Gore would be a breath of fresh air. After all, didn't he win the majority vote last election?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  471. Jon

    I wouldn't mind a Gore-Clinton ticket. I'm a supporter of Clinton but since Al Gore actually won in 2000 it would finally right that wrong and Clinton would have the chance in 4 or 8 years to win the presidency. I'm not so sure that Gore wants the job anymore though.
    Gore/Clinton or Clinton/Obama '08.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  472. John Anderson

    I wish it weren't so, but Al Gore getting the nomination after the Obama and Clinton camps have damaged each others' electability would likely anger the entrenched believers in both camps, and thereby lose the Democrats' chance to win the election. The best opportunity might be for the Democrats to announce an irresolvable stalemate at the convention, and then for Gore to run, perhaps with Bloomberg for VP, as an independent ticket (which the Democratic party could then support).

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  473. Charlie (Los Angeles California)

    How about Gore-Lieberman Act II?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  474. Alvin


    Oh yes! what a team that would be. We would be seeing greens all the way.


    Oh no! We would be seeing schemes all the way.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  475. J

    Thing about Gore is that he should have run in the first place. Then we wouldn't have this conversation because he would be the Democratic nominee, hands down, and he would be leading McCain in every national poll by 20 points and he would eventually go onto claim the job he won in 2000 but was denied. The best possible ticket for the Dems, that often discussed "Dream ticket," for reasons of policy and reasons of politics, is Gore/Obama.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  476. Stacie Haynes

    I've had a "Save the White House, Save the World – Gore 08" bumper sticker on my car since the fall and I refuse to take it off. I would be so relieved to have Al Gore the democratic nominee. I can't take Hillary and Barack fighting with each other any longer.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  477. Ernest

    I don't think this would be a good idea, considering how Obama has rallied the nation by converting Republicans, and bringing in the Independents. This would look like another overbearing move by the powers to be, to take away the voice of the people. The momentum that the candidates have built, and the people behind them, would feel slighted, and this could lead to no one showing up in November, giving the presidency to the Republicans. They are behind this divisive question, and so many others in this contest. Florida vote being pushed up, (republicans), governor spitzer(republicans) trying to get the seat back they lost. After Texas Hilary workers , stealing ballots, and her recently lying about foreign policy experience, she needs to graceful bow out, she can't win, and she is giving them fuel against party member(Obama). The people like Obama. Obama is running for President, not VP. Give him some respect.

    Wilmington, Delaware

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  478. Ken

    I think its about time we dump the whole electoral college and delegates mess. America has grown out of its invancy. We should have one day for primaries where you vote for the person you want to represent your party in the main election, the person with the most votes wins, and the same with go for the national election in November. Though I'm a repbulican and Bush won by electoral votes and not by the popular vote, I would have stood by with Gore as President. This is the reason the democrats are in this mess!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  479. Adam Rosen

    So tell me again.....What is the purpose of voting? If this is the case, then again my rights gain have been compromised. Spread democracy around the world, when we can't even do it right at home?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  480. Leoanrd Larsen

    Maybe! At least it would be an alternative to Sen. Clinton.

    I am an independent and was thrilled to support Sen. Obama. I still would want him to get the nomination and would be very disappointed in the Democratic party if he does not receive the nomination.

    I would then have to look at his positions and go through the whole process of deciding on a candidate (I think he would have the edge up on McCain).

    We would also have the issue of ignoring all the people in this country who voted for Sen. Obama (and sad to say Sen. Clinton)

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  481. JeffofPeoria

    I hope not. I would hate to hear about GLOBAL WARMING until November. I think it would be good for Republicans though

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  482. Alex

    What a horrible idea this is, why would it make any sense to put a man in power when a.) He already lost a campaign to Bush b.) He has done no campaigning, and would not be readily accepted by democratic voters. If only my candidate were running, Stephen Colbert, we would not even be having this discussion because obviously any intelligent man would cast their vote for Colbert and his running mate Putin.

    State College, PA

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  483. Jordan Baker

    I was too young to vote back in 2000 (or 2004 for that matter), but I still endorse Gore for all of the things he has done in the past decade. Presidential candidate? Doubt it – simply, many people would feel shafted that the person they voted and campaigned for is no longer in the spotlight. VP, however, I would see very easily; neither Obama or Clinton would probably have each other on their ticket, and Gore would be a very strong candidate for both to pull an otherwise divided party together.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  484. Jeff Spangler, Arlington, VA

    Gore-Obama is a long shot after several ballots at a riotous convention, but Gore-Clinton is impossible. Just ask Gore how much he loves Shrillary.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  485. Carmen

    Somebody pinch me!! That would be a dream! I'm a native Texan and didn't vote for Bush then or when he ran for president. It's sad that the country( or for that matter Texas) didn't see or want to see the incompetence back then. Al Gore IS and HAS BEEN the right choice for this country.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  486. Jeremy Los Angeles, CA.

    Gore-Obama in '08 is the real DREAM Ticket .

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  487. Terry Teele

    So tell me what is the difference between Clinton & Gore ? They both have exagerated their resumes – Gore with the I-net & "Love Story" & Clinton with snipers and extensive foreign policy experience. A Gore/Clinton or a Gore/Obama ticket would almost ensure a landslide victory for McCain and put the Dems back into wilderness for another 4 years.
    It would be more fun to see a Carville/Richardson ticket....and I will leave it at that !!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  488. Paul - Melbourne Beach, FL

    Jack, I think that would only show further how fouled up the party is right now. We have enough problems with the image of the democratic party just by the way the experienced one throws dirt, temper tantrums, and does what he/she can (without being caught) to let the air out of the hope of America. Leave bad enough alone and pray that a miracle occurs despite the ugliness of it all.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  489. Doris

    Gore would be great, but it would take away Obama's hard earned
    right to be the nominee. It would be divisive for the party. Clinton
    seems to be trashing Obama so that another 4 years of Republican
    rule would leave the door open for her to run the next time.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  490. Emmanuel

    I am amazed at the level of intelligence of Mahoney how he could have came up with such an idea. He is a dreamer! Of course, he is not the one who has been walking the cities, towns and the states at large for almost two years only to concede at the end of the race that someone else takes the lead. How gratuitous of him to give away what he has no right to be it in law or moral. If the Democrats wants to lose the November general election then they can go ahead and listen to Mahoney and his likes.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  491. Pat in Columbus, MS

    While I love Al Gore and I voted for him when his election was literally STOLEN from REPUBLICANS in Florida, much the same situation is occuring again in Florida – after it all, it was REPUBLICANS in Florida that had control and changed the primary date thereby disenfranchising voters and the DNC is a partner in this crime as well.

    I would support a Clinton/Gore choice or vice versa, but I will cross party lines and vote for McCain if Obama is involved in any "ticket". I shudder at the though of Wright being a guest in OUR White House if Obama is Pres/VP and consider that defiling all Americans. It would be like Hitler sleeping in the Lincoln room.

    So the DNC needs to wake up and do so fast – I don't know how many other Americans that are Democrats are considering switching parties, but I am certainly one of them – the DNC is SO obvious that they don't consider voters rights of importance at all by disenfranchising Michigan and Florida – it is clear they had Obama in mind all along and since Hillary won Florida, they won't allow a new primary. So yes, this will hurt the Democratic Party for years to come.

    Pat in Columbus MS

    March 25, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  492. Dan L

    Profoundly ignorant and almost completely devoid of democratic ideals. No disrespect to Al Gore, who has emerged as a terrific global citizen.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  493. Mike

    Wouldnt shock me at all. Somehow some way in my gut I know they will screw Obama out of the nomination. Everyday this goes on its becoming so clear to me.

    Obama 08

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  494. Peter Scott

    How can Gore lead the ticket when no one voted for him? If they can pick fantasy candidates then why not choose John F. Kennedy or Superman? I like Gore a lot but let's not forget that he LOST in 2000 – by which I mean he failed to get the landslide victory that any candidate opposing George Bush should have been able to get. He even lost his own state, which is just inexcusable. Gore was the man for 2000. Obama is the man for 2008.

    Peter Scott
    Port Angeles, WA

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  495. Donna in Canada

    I really used to enjoy following American politics but it seems with the media constantly reducing the issues to the lowest lifeform its has just become sad.
    Not long ago – in fact a very short time ago – people were saying the Democratic race was the most interesting and exciting race in years and that both candidates were generating buzz and voter interest not ever seen before. Now the media has generated comments to the effect of 'neither one of them could get elected now'.
    Why cant people just stay with the issues that really matter to the country and the world? How quickly you can toss off discussions on the environment and economy and relations with the world at large so you can focus on who's pastor said what and who released their tax forms quicker? Whats the matter with you people??
    Could anyone in the media try, please try to just stay with the big picture??

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  496. Gail Davenport

    Gore was always my first choice. I don't care who the V-P will be. For all those Obama and Clinton voters who say they will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination: just remember it's the Supreme Court stupid! Do they want more Roberts and Alitos?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  497. Peter Bogdan

    A Gore/Obama ticket would be unbeatable. It holds out hope for all age groups. Our middle aged and older citizens mourn the America of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and even Reagan. Al Gore's balance, common sense and concern for the future will reach them, as well as the younger Americans that have to wonder how they will ever pay for the waste of lives and treasure of the past eight years. Their combination of wisdom, intelligence, youthfulness and tolerance can lead America back to the optimism, respect and moral strength that we once enjoyed.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  498. Frank

    Gore should be the candidate. The two idiots have beaten themselves for McCain's benefit. Clinton actually endorsed McCain in a TV add (telephone at 3am...Bill's still not home). Gore would crush McCain, while the other two would have a struggle.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  499. Bryce, IL

    At this point, I am becoming very angry with the DNC. I lean more to the Democratic Party, and I do think Gore would be a good Nominee but he is not running. I am at the point now that I am waiting for a third party to show us someone that has followers that are not interested in destroying their own party. I can not understand how people in the DNC just smear each other, when we all know we have to be on the same side come Novemeber. We need Clinton and Obama to shake hands and let the election decide who is on the ballet. I am sickend and disgusted with the behaviour of what I use to call my party.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  500. Earlene

    i am a democrat who will vote for the only person running who opposes amnesty.

    pilot point, tx

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  501. Ron, Kittery Maine

    Who would want to vote for a party that cannot decide between a highly visible candidate for change and the people of the country, and a highly visible candidate for special interests and personal power?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  502. RangerRik

    Mike The Rhino –

    Start printing the banners... I'm on the Elephant's side of the aisle and I'd be hard pressed to find a reason not to elect Gore – Bloomy!

    Might be the best parade in the Canyon of Heroes in decades!

    Light 'em up!
    Rik, NYC

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  503. Benjamin Underwood

    As a resident of Florida, I refused to tell friends that I voted in that 2000 fiasco. To even mention Al Gore as a possibility brings up too many bad memories of hanging chads, pregnant chads, and Katherine Harris. Let Hillary and Obama duke it out until the convention. I would rather see what detriment this has on the national election than see a brokered convention.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  504. Lawrence

    It seems so easy for some to utter that Obama is racist. Obama has never spoke one racist word towards anybody. His campaign has been supported by all, races, color, and creed. The nerve of some people.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  505. robert taylor

    it is amazing that a person elected to congress would even float something this stupid.

    Al Gore would no more have anything to do with Hillary Clinton than he would give up his passion for the environment.

    And the voters of America would go crazy if Obama was being forced into the second slot.

    get real, is this congressman under heavy medication?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  506. Sonia

    The one thing that could hurt the dem. party more would be putting a person nobody voted for as the the democratic candidate. I'm sorry, I would love Gore as president and all but the fact of the matter is that if we just brush aside the millions of American votes to just say "hey Al Gore is going to be running against McCain now!!" would just be absolutely LUDICROUS! What needs to happen is by the next state is whoever remains in the lead with popular votes (which is pretty much going to be Obama) gets the person with the least popular vote's (Clinton) superdelegates. This whole process has been made into such a huge ordeal. The superdelegates should be voting along the popular vote in this case. We realize that the system put into place right now is not going give a candidate the amount of votes necessary to get their name on the ticket. So how about we work and think intelligently and stop this stupidity.

    NO to Al Gore. I want my vote to count and the democratic party to have some dignity at the end of this who ridiculous ordeal.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  507. Rachel P

    Yes, instead of agreeing with the millions of new voters in the country we should disenfranchise EVERYONE and override the whole process. Millions of dollars wasted in a pointless primary season – sounds like a great idea. Somehow, I can't see the American people going for this plan. By the way, I liked Gore, and still do – but if he wanted to run, he should have started a year ago. This is the worst idea the Democrats have come up with yet.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  508. Dan B.

    Considering that millions of democratic voters have already cast ballots for either Obama or Clinton, there could be a mammoth backlash against the party if Gore is chosen as the nominee. Disenfranchised voters, (those who currently support Obama or Clinton), may feel as though they had no say in deciding who their party's nominee will be. I don't see that as a positive move for the party to make. At the same time, there is certainly a sense of disenfranchisement already with the super-delegate system. Voters are already upset that the party itself, and not the voters may ultimately decide who the nominee is. I think the best move the dems could make at this point is to encourage one of the candidates to graciously drop out with a promise of a V.P. nomination. An Obama/Clinton ticket, or a Clinton/Obama ticket seems like a strong one. Either way, I believe that if the decision ultimately winds up being decided by the super delegates there will be an outcry for an overhaul of the primary election process. This is America after all. The citizens want to decide who their candidate is. If the party makes the decision, you can bet that many people will feel as though we are one step closer to establishing a dictatorship.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  509. Shawn - Georgia

    Anything would be better than what we have right now. What this country really needs is a none-of-the-above candidate. The remaining candidates claim a wealth of experience, while in actuality the ones that have dropped from the race have, at least in the realm of foreign policy, been better qualified. The worst part is that this election actually boils down to REAL issues – not just the ones driven by Christian conservatives and those trying to drive the wedge further into our society for political gain. Unfortunately, we don't have any Democrat with credibility to address them. Gore may be far enough removed to get the job done. At least he can't come back and say things like Global Warming are voodoo science.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  510. janet, georgia

    Jack –
    This would be a great idea – a ticket headed by Al Gore with Hillary Clinton. Obama is too radical and is damaged goods. He got where he is by using blacks just the way Karl Rove and George Bush used Right Wing Evangelicals. Many blacks don't know he came from a priviledged ivy league background.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  511. Brian Habib (Columbia, S.C.)

    Jack, it would be the best thing possible for democrats. Obama, and Clinton continue to slip in nationals polls against McCain as the election continues. All democrats respect Gore, and he would be fresh. He would have the added advantage of watching the election unfold thus far and be able to use this in the general election. He can still continue to focus on his current work, he would just be able to have a greater affect on it. It's a win win for America and Gore. Wake up Al, your time is coming!.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  512. Karima

    Jack, if the dems decide to pull a stunt like that............tthey better be ready to lose in November. The people have spoken, Obama is the front runner and will continue to be, if they steal this nomination from him, that is a guaranteed loss in November. What's the problem, Hillary can't handle the fact that she will lose to Obama, the "new" Senator!! Get over it and over yourself. Nothing is guaranteed in this life, certainly not the Presidency!! Especially if your NOT IN FLORIDA AND A BUSH!!!

    March 25, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  513. Nolbaz


    Don't start nonsense rumors. You in the media are running out of stuff to report. Isn't there a conflict in Iraq or some genocide in Darfur you could cover?

    March 25, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  514. Corey

    Gore's time has come and gone. This would be good for Republicans and bad for Democrats.

    Rockford, IL

    March 25, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  515. Cicero

    BAD IDEA !!!!! Something like this would be a major setback to all the work Hillary and Obama have done to energize a new base of young voters. Before this election, most young voters felt like there vote did not count so they just didnt vote. You bring in Gore, who has no delegates and has done nothing in this election and you'll be reinstituting that thought process. I'm a Clinton supporter, but have no animosity toward Obama or Gore. This country has a political process, and though it is flawed we should let it run its course. Hillary and Barack both make the claim that they have what it takes to unite the party against the redumblicans, so let the process run its course, and whoever the nominee is, let them put forth there best effort.

    Here's the best combo: Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton – either way its unstoppable

    March 25, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  516. Kelly

    Dream Ticket: Gore/Powell as Independents 🙂

    March 25, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  517. Goose, N. Richland Hills, Texas

    Al Gore's role in this election should be to first endorse Hillary Clinton. Then to sit down with Barack Obama and explain to him that it would be best for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee, simply because she's the best economist, she's more experienced, she's the one with the specics and plan to turn this nation around. And that once Hillary has had her reign (for lack of a better word), he can come back in the 2017 election and win by a landslide. That he, for strategic reasons, needs her to go first, because I doubt he can implement the change he so passionately speaks of without the repair needed in this country, which only Hillary can do.

    My point: Gore's only role in this election should be to play mediator.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  518. Anita Mason

    Been there. Done that.

    March 25, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  519. Pat in Columbus, MS

    Jack I really believe the Democratic Party is already hurt and perhaps it will take YEARS AND YEARS to overcom this mess. I believe it will become a jumping point for a third party to strongly emerge. When a state can not decide when it wants to hold their Primary, and have it recognized, then it is time to delve deeper into the reasons that the one in charge of the DNC is really upholding Obamas choice to disenfranchise voters.

    Many do not realize that Obama really does NOT have the popular vote because of the DNC decision to deny the voters in Florida and Michigan. If they did recognize the votes, Clinton would be ahead. The press needs to push that point and put pressure on the ignorant DNC that they are sinking fast in public opinion and will lose democrats over this.

    If they uplift a candidate as President that hasn't even run, leaving voters choices by the wayside, then the Democratic Party will find themselves in a quamire of quicksand that will insure a third Independant Party will rise higher than the Democratic Party. If Clinton CHOSE Gore to be her VP, that would be great. But again, if Obama is involved in any way to the Pres/VP ticket, I for one will cross my party's line and vote for McCain.

    Pat in Columbus MS

    March 25, 2008 at 4:41 pm |