Gore?
I'm with people who say that we don't need Al Gore to run in 2008 as some sort of rescue candidate because the Democrats are already running a very qualified bunch. At this point, I could see myself pretty happily supporting Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Richardson for president, though I'd prefer any of the first three with Richardson as a running mate.
Still, speculation continues that Gore might enter the race.
If he does, I'd at least say that I'll be even more undecided. While I don't know where my primary vote is going at this point, I do know that adding Gore to the mix will make me more undecided in the primary but will give me one more guy I know I could vote for in the general.
I hope he runs. Why not strengthen an already strong primary field?
posted by Mike M. @ 5:25 AM
1 Comments
1 Comments:
The juiciest part of Gore not only running but in fact winning would be the 2011 Supreme Court decision in which Chief Justice John Roberts wrote on behalf of the five-justice majority that held that since Gore had already won both the 2000 and 2008 elections, he would therefore be ineligible to run for a second term.
That decision would almost immediately lead House Republicans to call for impeachment proceedings against Gore for having "negligently allowed the 9/11 attacks on America and then treasonously weakened the military and America's standing abroad by allowing the unnecessary invasion of Iraq and the disastrously planned occupation that followed."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home