<p>Granted this is just a scenario but stranger things have happen. Franklin Pierce had not even campaigned when he became the dark horse candidate in 1852. </p>
<p>[The</a> Democrats? Dilemma | Newsweek Voices - Eleanor Clift | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/119851]The”>The Democrats' Dilemma)</p>
<p>hmmm. Curious question. I was really hoping that Gore would run again…Although I’m thrilled with the prospect of a historic “first”, I’m more than a little afraid that racism and/or sexism will come out of the closets of America in November. I think Gore would easily win vs. McCain.</p>
<p>I think whoever gets the nomination and ultimately the presidency will be a one term president…we are in for a rough ride no matter who takes office. I just hope for minimal additional damage in the next four years. Doesn’t matter who is there, it will be an ineffective regime, with little or no change.</p>
<p>Times magazine thinks Gore can easily win; i’d vote for him.</p>
<p>^^^ why ? Based on what ?</p>
<p>We’ve had the highest democratic primary voter turnout in recent history, and let me tell you all those people didn’t go out to vote for Gore. If he ended up being the nominee, a LOT of people (myself included) would be pretty mad at him, the DNC, and the whole political system.</p>
<p>Well, stay tuned for a brokered convention. There will be plenty for everyone to be mad about. How about Al Gore and Ken Salazar?</p>
<p>I am not one, but why in the world would Democrats vote for the man who virtually invented NAFTA?</p>
<p>Because he could be the least worst alternative, mini.</p>
<p>If there is to be a brokered convention, the party may need to turn to someone other than Obama or Clinton. As far as I can see, the only available alternatives are John Edwards (who carries the stigma of being a loser) and Al Gore (who came very close to being a winner eight years ago and who has done some useful things since then). Gore is the lesser evil.</p>
<p>Or, to put it in terms instantly comprehensible to people who followed The West Wing: Think of the brokered convention at the end of the sixth season. Al Gore = Eric Baker without the problems with his wife. If not for the semi-scandalous situation involving Baker’s wife, wouldn’t Baker, rather than Santos, have gotten the nomination?</p>
<p>No way in hell Gore could get the nomination. He can’t win enough delegates by the time of the convention and there’s no way Clinton/Obama supporters, who have backed their candidate for a year plus, would all of a sudden decide “hey, lets nominate Gore!”</p>
<p>If I understand the rules correctly, pledged delegates are committed to their candidates only on the first ballot.</p>
<p>If neither Obama nor Clinton comes in with a clear majority of pledged delegates, and the superdelegates (unpledged delegates) do not vote in such a way to give one or the other a clear victory on the first ballot, then anything can happen, including the possible nomination of someone who did not run in the primaries.</p>
<p>It all depends on the outcome of the first ballot.</p>
<p>I believe Marian is correct. And,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At some point it is either nominate someone else or not have a nominee.</p>
<p>Gore and Obama. Can I vote twice for that ticket? It would be a landslide</p>
<p>I agree with LaxAttack here. Can you imagine Hilary allowing that to happen?</p>
<p>No way- especially since Gore has said a zillion times that he doesn’t want to run. </p>
<p>They’ll figure it out at the convention. The supers will decide if they must, and the party will go along. It may be messy, but it will be Obama, or,depending on what happens in the next several weeks, possibly Clinton.</p>
<p>I watched an interesting Meet the Press this week where discussion surrounded saving the Democratic Party with an either Obama/Clinton ticket or a Clinton/Obama ticket for the sake of the party. Otherwise, I think both groups are fairly entrenched from what I can see here and elsewhere, this split will allow McCain to take the election. Just a thought, to think about…</p>
<p>Perhaps something like Gore running would be another possibility…but I don’t think he could beat McCain.</p>
<p>Remember, the only way JFK won was by taking Lyndon Johnson as a running mate. His brother never got over it, but it was a brilliant move.</p>
<p>Maybe there is another combination out there for either Democratic candidate that would work the same magic. But the entrenched groups are not helping anything.</p>
<p>To op, one can only hope not.</p>
<p>If there’s a better dream ticket (from a Republican perspective) than Clinton, it’s Gore. It would immediately take the Iraq issue off the table - I’m sure there must be videos of Gore urging the “final solution” to the problem of Saddam that he presented to the Council of Foreign Relations a full year before the invasion. The same speech where he praised Bush for his Axis of Evil pronouncement against Iran, Iraq and N. Korea. I would love to be on a advertising team creating ads with all of the potential sound bites that Al has contributed over the years.</p>
<p>Heck, I think even Romney would be innoculated against flip-flops if Gore were heading the Dem ticket. Gore is a gold medal caliber flip flopper.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why vote for the “least worst” when you could vote for the “most best” - John McCain!</p>
<p>I’m having a chuckle about all this. How fun would it be for my side if Hillary steals the nomination at the convention and black voters stay home in November?</p>
<p>zm - yeah, I was envisioning an announcer at the convention saying, “And now, the moment you’ve all been waiting for! Please welcome the Democratic Nominee for President of The United States!”… </p>
<p>… And HILLARY steps out from behind the curtain!</p>
<p>What a moment that would be!</p>