Latest Column

Not going to happen.

For once, I agree with Chutzpah Joe. There are enough racists left in America to deny Obama the Presidency, and Gore is superbly qualified and historically cheated. Bring on a brokered convention and a Gore/Obama ticket.

America will still run out of petroleum, but at least millions of us won't die in a McCainiac nuclear war.

I have to say that as a non-white woman, I would be very upset if a white man who never won a vote in this election defeated the first serious female and African-American candidates running for President, both of whom have won millions of votes.

And I really like Al Gore.

Pish-tosh, I would say (if I used phrases like pish-tosh), though a new, last-minute candidate is interesting (though not fun) to imagine. Rather, I'd like to see Gore end this now by simply stating who he'll be voting for as a superdelegate. If it were Obama (I can't image that it wouldn't be), enough others would fall in line to finish. Perhaps after a near tie or surprise win by Obama in Penn. will do the trick.

Rose, good points. Gore would just as soon stay out of this fight and get on with the task of convincing the world to do something about climate change so we don't all have to grow gills.

Yup. Crazy.

Even so, it beats any solution that results in Hillary and her Swift-Boat II team sticking us us with either four more years of hyper-partisan deadlock, or four years of Forgetful Old Grandpa and his determination to keep getting it wrong.

Yeah, right. It's an extremely unlikely scenario, though there are members of my family who are hopeful. You guys in the media rehashing the nonsense of 2000 doesn't sound appetizing to me though. Really Joe, this article is pointless.

Again congrats on the fine Siegelman piece by Nagorin today:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1668220-1,00.html

I know this is off-topic but your topic sucks IMO and since you have contacts w/ those really important dudes who wear medals and salute n stuff, what make you Joe Klein of this story:
" But to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur.

With the award last January of a federal contract worth as much as nearly $300 million, the company, AEY Inc., which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, became the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/asia/27ammo.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

And just to add some spice:
'By [2005, when Diveroli became president of the company at the age of 19, taking over from his father], pressures were emerging in Efraim Diveroli’s life. In November 2005, a young woman sought an order of protection from him in the domestic violence division of Dade County Circuit Court….

Mr. Diveroli sought court delays on national security grounds. “I am the President and only official employee of my business,” he wrote to the judge on Dec. 8, 2005. “My business is currently of great importance to the country as I am licensed Defense Contractor to the United States Government in the fight against terrorism in Iraq and I am doing my very best to provide our troops with all their equipment needs on pending critical contracts.”…

On Dec. 21, 2006, the police were called back to the condominium. Mr. Diveroli and AEY’s vice president, David M. Packouz, had just been in a fight with the valet parking attendant.

The fight began, the police said, after the attendant refused to give Mr. Diveroli his keys and Mr. Diveroli entered the garage to get them himself. A witness said Mr. Diveroli and Mr. Packouz both beat the man; police photographs showed bruises and scrapes on his face and back.

When the police searched Mr. Diveroli, they found he had a forged driver’s license that added four years to his age and made him appear old enough to buy alcohol as a minor. His birthday had been the day before.

“I don’t even need that any more,” he told the police, the report said. “I’m 21 years old.”'

What do your contacts say?

Do not want.

"...one of the Democrats biggest problems is their hell bent tendency to look backward for solutions. The Clintons counted on exactly this tendency when Hillary Clinton began her campaign: she was absolutely convinced she was a lock for the nomination because she knew dutiful Democrats would fondly recall the 1990's and just assume all we needed to do was elect another Clinton and voila - it's the 90's again (well...maybe not everything about the 90's - just the good stuff).

I love nostalgia as much as the next person, but what evidence is there that Gore could do better if given another shot?

On the other hand, an Obama/Gore ticket has always interested me. Gore brings executive experience, foreign policy chops and is the world's leader on climate change issues. Obama/Gore.....now that is interesting."
(from http"//swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com)

Like they say, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and again. Congratulations Joe Klein!

After all the work Obama's done, there's no way he's going to let Al take over his job. He'd walk first.

Klein: A crazy idea.

Yes. I agree with you, Joe. Crazy.

Discuss.

With everything else that's going on in the world, I find it incredible that your musings about an imaginary Al Gore nomination made it to the print edition of Time magazine, Joe.

I just can't see them saying, "Well, you both made great efforts, but since neither of you quite made the cut, we're going to go ahead and give it to Whitey. No hard feelings, right?"

That said, I would much rather vote for Gore than Obama or Hillary.

The thing is, while I've heard Gore referred to as the "elder statesman of the Democratic party" and whatnot, I don't really see him that way, nor do I think he sees himself that way. To me, it seems like he has abandoned politics in favor of, you know, honesty.

If Gore wants to be on the bottom of the ticket maybe.

But, no.

This satisfies nobody.

And, frankly, I strongly doubt Gore would take it,if offered in that back room. He hated campaigning, and it wasn't the primaries he hated.

Now, Joe, what's your take? Is this the nationalist push that's been waiting for developments? Is Maliki out? Does Bush have another puppet he can prop up? Or is this offensive the statement of Iraqi independence?

grape-crush

They're getting cranky. There's nothing to write about in the presidentials.

Joe, next week, if things are still dead, you could talk about the possibility of a tsunami in the House and Senate. A Democratic majority that leaves the republicans as an old, white, racist, southern party.

I'm frankly stunned that TIME's editor-in-chief actually put this "story" on their cover.

What a joke. And clearly, Joe knows it.

I think a Gore-Obama ticket would be a smashing idea!!

Let's think this through a little more however, Al Gore, or should I say Global Warming Gore, the great climitologist who invented the interent that we are able to blog on sites such as Time/CNN. He slides into the driver's seat, with Barak Hussein Al-Obama.

(stage right to fairytale land)....then, B.H. Al-Obama brings up in the first cabinet meeting with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Hillary Clinton, "I believe our educational institutions are in such shambles, we need to pattern the american education system after the madrassas I so fondly remember as a child".

(stage left to fairytale land)... the camera pans slowly left, and Global Warming Gore is fast asleep, his now very plump body slouching in the leather chair of the great Potus he has so dreamed of all his life.

(center stage)... Secretary Hillary rises up out of her chair, eyes blazing...then screams out, "NOT UNTIL WE ENROLL ALL THOSE LITTLE RUG RATS INTO THE CHIPS PROGRAM AND ALL OF OUR LOYAL BASE SECURED IN MY UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE"

I think I smell a Question Hillary in Rusty Dog's clothing.

Off your meds, Rusty?
Yikes.

Joe,

The line between sanity and insanity is sometimes very hard to distinguish. In this case, most of us will agree, you have crossed over the line. Welcome to the world of insanity. "Let's go back to the white man to save us all." As we say in the south, "That dog won't hunt" in this election cycle!

The election is over!!! The only one who doesn't know is Hillary. Write something to tell her it's over, instead of wasting your time on the "white man will save us all" card.

From an old white guy!!!

Well.......(said in my best Ronald Reagan style "well")

Mr Klein did say, "crazy idea. discuss"

Oh, I forgot to clarify in my fairytale as to how our dear democratic elect vice president, Mr Obama got a name change....

Due to the enormous flack over the Rev Wright "controversy", Barak made a visit to his father's village, was coverted to the muslim faith.....

hence......Barak Hussein Al-Obama

Rustynail,

Race baiting is never cool. We've already been living in 'fairytale land' for almost 7 years. The most recent episode involves the 'surge' "working". Cut stage right to Bush shrugging..

Barack Al-Obama. Gosh, Rusty that is so funny. Here, you've taken a nasty rumor about Obama, and changed his name to reflect that. How clever! Arabic-sounding names are funny, aren't they? Especially if they're similar to a terrorist organization that kills Americans. Hilarious!

Yep April is the silliest month (as well as the cruellest). Joe's idea is a non-starter anyway, but, the latest pools appear to show that Obama is holding up OK post the Rev Wright kerfuffle.

The problem is that in the likely event that it will come time to tell the Clintons it's over, there appears to be no-one in the party with the stones to do it.

I'm reminded of a great line from a pundit here when the federal cabinet were trying (and failing) to get up the guts to make John Howard retire... "like a bunch of 7 year old schoolgirls poking a brownsnake, lots of squealing and running around"

That's a very fun but very silly notion. I'd of course have a fit if we nominated somebody who didn't run in the primaries, even if it's some one like Gore, who I like.

Also, sorry but you really can't have the primaries end with the first credible woman candidate running against the first credible black candidate and then nominate a white guy who we haven't heard from in months.

Ooops. That should be "latest polls", what the pools say I have no idea

Clinton would be foolish to withdraw when she has such a commanding lead in Pennsylvania. Things could look very different after April 22. She won't catch up in pledged delegates, but if Obama loses big in Pennsylvania the Superdelegates will be concerned about his chances in a general election. And his desperate attempts to avoid revotes in Michigan and Florida don't project a lot of confidence in his ability to win swing states.

Obama is obviously the strong favorite for the nomination, but his candidacy does face some big problems. It is hard for him to make the argument that he is more electable if he can't win swing states. Not impossible, but it does require some very strained logic. The other problem is that while both candidates have (misguided) supporters who claim they won't vote for the other candidate if he or she wins, Clinton's supporters are more like to vote for McCain than Obama's supporters, who are more likely to stay home. Statistically, those dissatisfied Clinton supporters are probably the bigger problem, although both Obama and Clinton will have problems uniting the party as the nominee.

Another problem is that Clinton could still win the popular vote. And if that happens the Clinton campaign and many of her supporters - myself included - will make the argument that Texas has shown caucuses produce different, less democratic results. That argument is helped by the fact that it's true. In fact, that's one of the unintended consequences of the Obama campaign's arguments against Superdelegates voting against the pledged delegates: They have made the legitimacy of delegates a matter of debate. At the start of this campaign no one was talking about two different categories of delegates. In July we could all be talking about three different categories of delegates.

Anyway, it is very unlikely that Clinton will win. But Obama still has some problems in this campaign.

It probably catches readers' attention, Joe. But nah. Won't happen.

Why do you save your worst stuff for the print edition?

I find this whole thesis insulting. What's wrong with the candidates we have?

People are too passionate a out thier candidate! Maybe we can put up somebody else, so they don't get so motivated about this election.

We have two very viable candidates. That's why people are so worked up in support of their guy -- it's a close primary that will be decided by voters instead of annointed by the DC chattering class. No one showed up for the Republican Primary because no one liked any of their candidates.

This exercise in political escapism is -- and would be -- an utter abdication of vision and leadership.

Here's a much better use of your time: Look into Hillary's 15-year embrace of Doug Coe's theocratic power cult aka The Family.

This shadowy, exclusive, fundamentalist-"Christian" network of covert political influence -- which may now be Hillary's strongest formal religious association -- has fascist roots going back to 1935. Family members persistently have been anti-Semitic, anti-worker, and homophobic. This is a group who helped broker the anti-communist and -- at least on a certain phone call with Richard Nixon -- anti-Semitic Billy Graham's entree into Washington. A group who made the religious right possible. A group who -- having never really trusted Nixon or Ford or Carter or Reagan -- decided that, in George Bush, it could have the presidency it always wanted, and worked to make that a reality.

It also is a group that has had, and maintains, links to what one observer called "some of the most savage, bloodthirsty regimes of the twentieth century." In backing the Iraq war -- in part, through its connections to PNAC -- the group has stood lockstep behind one of the greatest moral crimes of the twenty-first.

And all of this has been done in the name of Jesus.

In fact, this network of (mainly right-wing Republican) political, military, and business leaders uses prayer "cells" and "prayer breakfasts" as a religious front, to push a theocratic foreign and domestic political agenda that starts at "America is a Christian nation" and goes from there. Only it's not just pushing. These people get things done.

More than one observer has called The Family a "power cult." I've been calling it Bilderberg for Jesus.

In February 1993, The Family chose Hillary Clinton, recruited her. And she chose them back, by joining and remaining an active member for the last 15 years.

Doug Coe -- whom Hillary has called "a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God" -- models the group's organizational structure on the mafia, Hitler, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Bin Laden. And brags about it.

It is unconscionable for Hillary Clinton to parse Christianity and morality so as to place Jeremiah Wright beyond the pale, while genuflecting at the altar of Doug Coe and The Family.

If you want a real cover story, this is it.

Joe,

Your column looks like a way to try and sell a few magazines.

I don't know Al Gore, but there is nothing in what I have seen in his post 2000 behavior that leads me to believe that he would want to step into the middle off a mess like that. Of course he has a big ego. Anyone who runs for the Presidency needs one. But he would never want to be a two time loser and this situation that you are gaming out is not exactly one that would engender Gore with rank and file Dems. Gore would only consider stepping in at the convention if there was serious polling that showed him with both the blessing of democrats and a big lead over McCain. In other words, I have a better chance of marrying Scarlett Johannsen than Gore jumping in.

If you want to write a column about that, I'm all ears!

There was a time early on when I thought something like this might be a good idea, but no longer. As the Clintons have shown, it takes time to get back in the rhythm of campaigning, and Gore, never the best campaigner, would be a disaster trying to start in mid-race.

I too think it unlikely that Barack's constituents (if he's still ahead) will be any happier about giving this to Gore than to HRC.

As to why he'd do better this time? He's been vindicated on climate.

I heard Hillary today saying cheerfully to a campaign rally that of course the Democratic Party would unite behind the eventual nominee, because whatever the differences between her and Barack, they were nothing compared to the differences between either of them and McCain.

Is she responding to the NBC poll numbers that have shown her negatives rising?

Is she trying to lull those on the fence again?

Does she so believe in the likelihood of her winning that she's telling all the rest of us that of course we're going to unite behind her?

I agree with most that it is indeed crazy and somewhat insulting to the candidates who have sweat and bled in this campaign. That said, given this six-week lag between primaries, I actually kind of welcome this little bit of idle speculation as a respite from Rev. Wright, Bosnia, and Sinbad. I think a little mental electoral fun sure beats listening to Chris Matthews et al rehash those stories for six primary-less weeks.

Let's have some more fun. Joe...give me a scenario where Chelsea becomes Secretary of State!

Why bother?

The same media stooges (Matthews, Huffington, Russert, Dowd, Sullivan, Rich) that assassinate Clinton on a daily basis now, will do the same to Gore, just as they did in 2000.

It would be a sad commentary for democrats to insert a white establishment candidate now that the black guy is winning. Obviously they like having minorities as victims who sereve as automatic votes and nothing else (just like republicans and the religous right).

I can gaurantee you if the wife of the ex president was the one leading now Obama would have been foreced out of the race a long time ago.

What if a giant spaceship flown by dinosaur people landed in the rose garden?
CUMMON!?! Gore isn't running and it seems, even in America, that running is sort of a prerequisite to being elected.
Seriously, they paid you to write that? You're usually much better.

Joe, I like that you are thinking outside the box! While I doubt Gore really is the answer, I do seem to recall that many democrats (including myself) felt that the Supreme Court robbed Gore and the nation of that presidency and look where that has gotten us. I have thought more than once this cycle that Gore has quite a cult following with the young folk interested in global warming and could get their vote today.

I also agree that this is silly season. After all of the adrenaline of the earlier primaries, it is such a downer to be left without a resolution. So the pundits tend to be bored and stir up trouble. From years of following politics closely (maybe too closely) I am clear that what seems important today will be overtaken by some other seemingly important issue tomorrow. We have a LONG way to go to November. We have a little time to let things settle out. I don't know why everyone is in such a hurrry.

Also, I have learned in life that 'this too shall pass'. I think that whoever the nominee is, the party will get behind. There will be those voters who won't make it to the polls, but I am not so sure that many of those were going to make it there anyway. The electorate is fickle. What is exciting today may be boring tomorrow and frankly, I only know one person who would consider voting for McCain and that is my father - a diehard republican.

This is giving us a little taste of the 'freak show', but just an appetizer. Whichever way this nomination goes, Obama, Clinton, or even Gore (tee hee), it is going to be an interesting election. Thanks for thinking outside the box Joe.

Crazy. Silly. Outrageous. Insulting.

The fact that you would even entertain such an idea is indicative of the contempt with which you hold the citizens of this nation - the ones who have been casting votes and exercising their rights and duties as free peoples. It is not just the appalling sexism or racism implied by substituting a white man for the heavily supported African-American and female candidates. It is that you would discard so casually the thoughtful votes of millions of Americans for the backroom conniving of a few hundred.

It was a silly column founded on a silly idea at a time when every printed word is extremely valuable. I find that insulting. Stop engaging in these masturbatory displays of your own cleverness and focus on something more realistic.

Finally, I would suggest that if you really wanted to set yourself apart from the rest of the punditry herd you could try the angle that this prolonged primary battle is not nearly as destructive to the Democratic Party as everybody is so eager to portray it. To my knowledge there has been no dramatic collapse of popular support for the Democratic Party and no huge upswing in support for the Republicans. Just because the members of the press corps(e) and the punditocracy are anxious to see this thing finished does not mean that everything is going to Hell. Take a week off; spend more time with your family; go see a show...the sky will not fall while you are away. There is no need to dream up these White Knight scenarios.

In fact, a very good argument could be made that it is better for Obama to have his oppo research come out now than during the general. A good argument could be made that the organizing that is being done at the state level by both Clinton and Obama is necessary to ensure a satisfactory outcome in November at the top of the ticket but also, and just as importantly, all the way down the line. If the nominee is chosen now then the states which have yet to vote would remain unorganized and unenergized.

Everybody just needs to calm down.

I like creative thinking, but it's a bad idea. Gore has admitted he never liked politics much; he likes being the guru of global warming. He's doing great work in that role. Beseeching him to become the democratic nominee would produce an even more pedantic Gore than we had in 2000. And doesn't it suggest that the black man and white woman who are currently pulling in more voters than ever before aren't up to the main event?

A column almost craven in its lack of intuition and imagination.

But in all honesty I appreciate your updates on the situation in Iraq. Please keep up the good work, and the informative posts.

More good reporting about Iraq, less baseless horserace speculation, please.

The Clintons has a fraud case process: use link

Below is the case number of the actual case against Bill and Hillary Clinton for campaign finance fraud.
'
www.lasuperiorcourt.org

Choose Civil - then Case Summary - type in the Case Number BC304174

Case Summary

Case Number: BC304174
PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
Filing Date: 10/14/2003
Case Type: Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
Documents Filed | Proceeding Information
Parties

CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM - Defendant/Respondent

CLINTON WILLIAM JEFFERSON - Defendant/Respondent

D. COLETTE WILSON ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

DOYEN MICHAEL R. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE - Defendant/Respondent

KREEP GARY G. - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn

LEVIN JAMES - Defendant/Respondent

02/28/2008 Notice of Ruling (on Ex Parte Application for Extens ion of Time to Serve Pleading )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

02/28/2008 Summons Filed (ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/21/2008 Order-Case Management
Filed by Court

02/21/2008 Ex-Parte Application
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/21/2008 Notice of Ruling (on Ex Parte Motion for Order Short ening Time & on Motion to Discharg e Gary G. Kreep as Counsel of Reco rd )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

02/21/2008 Statement-Case Management

oh I get it. This was for this coming Tuesday's edition? Wait. No.

Seriously, I really can't believe they published this drivel.

This is bad news for Democrats either way. If Gore refuses to run, it's a failure for the party. If he does run, they're stuck with a polarizing and divisive nominee that the country soundly rejected in 2000.

Asinine idea, but I'd take it--bottom line, it's strategically the best shot dems would have. I love O but have sneaking suspicion he's irreparably harmed by the scandal that will not be named (in a gen. election). He will be the nominee and he will pick a solid veep, but unsure if that will be enough with Scherer and the rest of Mac's base tilting the fall dance. BUT he won't be asked and I don't think he'd accept.

However, the irony is uber rich--8 years later the media finally treats Gore with some respect. Flash FWD to 2016, Obama, a bit of winter in his beard, as the Gov. of IL, having been destroyed by the selfsame media in '08, is seen as the great salvation for the dems with their latest shining star being savaged by sages like Joe.

And R-Dog, one can only hope you have children that leave your cave in the future--a daughter or son that turns out to be gay, marries a black or Muslim et al. Meanwhile, one can only hope you're beaten with a 100 flaccid rods.

TomT: "that the country soundly rejected in 2000" Are you on crack? He won the popular vote! It's H20 under the bridge and I'm not one to question the legitimacy of BU$H since I respect our legal system and I even suppose one could argue that Gore was deeply flawed to lose with the tailwinds he had, but your statement is objectively absurd.

JoeK: Are you on crack too? Al Gore is fab; I wish he had run. But the Dems have two very good and dynamic candidates and are simply having trouble picking one. Your argument boils down to somebody having trouble deciding between the veal and the lamb chops, so you suggest they should get the mutton and then try and convince the rest of the country to order it too.

I found this article disappointingly stupid. I have come to expect more from Joe Klein.

Is Al Gore the Answer?

I suppose it really depends what the question is. The whole premise behind the supposed need for a Gore candidacy is that the Democratic Party is becoming split because of the divisiveness between the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Is that really happening?
All we have is about a week’s worth of polling numbers and a popular fad among weekend talking heads. Polls are fickle and so it the opinion of the undecided/independent voters.

Look at the huge swing Giuliani’s numbers took from the beginning of the race until he dropped out. Likewise Hillary Clinton’s numbers swung quite a bit. The further over a horizon a certain event is the less reliable polling results are. Right now very few likely Dem voters have seriously asked themselves what they will do if they are faced with the choice between the GOP candidate and the Dem-candidate who is the one they don’t currently support. And when you ask them now as part of a poll you’ll get the un-considered response, which is almost as good as a coin flip.

After the next primary, and as the super-delegates start stepping up to state their support, then voters will start forming an idea of who they’re willing to support. I strongly suspect this whole “suck a lemon if I don’t get what I want” myth will pretty much evaporate.

The idea of an Al Gore candidacy is a fun “what if”, but it’s about as newsworthy as a game of charades.

TomT: "that the country soundly rejected in 2000" Are you on crack? He won the popular vote! It's H20 under the bridge and I'm not one to question the legitimacy of BU$H since I respect our legal system and I even suppose one could argue that Gore was deeply flawed to lose with the tailwinds he had, but your statement is objectively absurd.

FYI, when I write about something being bad news for Democrats, it's satire.

Great idea - let's have a bunch of old white men get together in a smoke filled room and take the nomination away from the first woman candidate and the first minority candidate in history and decide to give it to an old white man who wasn't even running.

I can't believe Time has nothing better to print than this.

I give you a lot of credit for your guts to think outside of the box, Joe. However, I've got to question the practicality of this idea. Gore himself admits that he is a lousy politician.

And what sense would it make to nominate someone who wasn't even in the '08 race? I think that, if it's necessary for Democratic delegates to consider a "compromise candidate," and it may be, the first place to start would be among the 10 or so actual candidates in this race.

I'd suggest that the first place to start looking there would be John Edwards. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden might also make viable candidates.

Then I'd consider the candidate surrogates. What about John Kerry? What about Wes Clark?

And then, what about Howard Dean?

Then, I might consider Gore. He's definitely an elder statesman of the party, I just think he's too far-fetched.

Thanks for provoking an interesting thought though.

edwards08!

I'd also suggest that the campaigns take a good look at Obama surrogate Governor John Richardson and Clinton surrogate Senator Evan Bayh.

You're late with this, Joe. Polls show that Obama's weathered the Wright storm. And the bottom line is very simple: Gore chose not to run, he took himself out of the arena, he didn't want the bruising battle, he hasn't earned it. Oh, and Obama has run an infinitely smarter, stronger, braver campaign than Gore did when he had the chance.

Can we go back and time and have 2008 Al Gore run for the 2000 presidency?

ditto that, Observer

Al Gore isn't the answer, he wasn't in 2000, and he's not now. The idea tht we have huge turnout and enthusiasm for two Democrats now, so we need to "fix that" by tossing all the efforts and votes in the trash and bring in a retread of the 2000 election seems logically incorrect and rediculously undemocratic.

I have two problems with this. (1) I can't imagine Democratic voters accepting a nomination that COMPLETELY ignores every single one of their votes. And (2) Al Gore ran a fairly terrible campaign in 2000. Yes, being out of politics for a while has made him look pretty good. But look at Bill Clinton: Everybody was so impressed by all the good works he was doing after he left office, and now he's drawing criticism from all over the place again. Somehow I think the same thing would happen to Gore.