Gore Endorsement Rumor Kicking Around Clinton Campaign

-

gore world twn.jpg
A well-placed spouse of a Clinton campaign insider just told me that a rumor is spreading like wild fire in Hillaryland that Al Gore is going to endorse Barack Obama.
My source emphasizes that this is rumor and may just be paranoia and hyperventilation of the campaign, but it’s important to know that this rumor is out there. Another source of mine inside Obamaland has told me that they have been working very hard to secure Gore’s public support and trying numerous avenues to “encourage” him.
Frankly, I’m surprised that Gore would do this — despite his clear disaffection for the Clintons. He is the undisputed king of the climate change franchise now, but even kingdoms can be assaulted, undermined, outfoxed, circumvented, ridiculed, and starved.
If Hillary Clinton wins this tight race — which she may still do — then Gore is gambling with his own status as a climate-change first-and-only transcendant politician.
It will be interesting to see what happens, and of course if Barack Obama wins the primary and then the presidency, Al Gore will get significant credit. The problem is that that can work the other way too.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

29 comments on “Gore Endorsement Rumor Kicking Around Clinton Campaign

  1. Felton D. McBride says:

    SUBJECT: PLEASE SHOW ME SENATOR OBAMA’S JUDGEMENT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA: SEN. OBAMA WILL BE READY IN EIGHT (8) YEARS
    1. Senator Obama as Chairman of an oversight committee with responsibility to fight Al Qeada in Afghanistan:
    Senator Barack Obama says he has the judgment to be president, repeatedly criticizing Clinton for supporting the Iraq war. I can’t just figure out the fix, right here: As chairman of an oversight committee charged with the force of fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Senator Barack Obama was too busy running for president to hold even one hearing. Senator Barack Obama, admitted: “I became chairman of this committee, at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007, so it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.” Is this the right judgement that will make America safe. We support Clinton because she is ready to secure America, with nothing held back. In fact, Clinton will Clinton will NEVER be too busy to defend our national security-bringing our troops home from Iraq and pursing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
    No wonder former admirals, generals, and senior defense officials, not long ago, gave their reasons for supporting Senator Clinton to be our next Commander-in-Chief. In a conference call with reporters, some of the nation’s most distinguished flag officers testified to Senator Clinton’s qualifications, experience, and strength of character.
    Distinquished Generals and Flag Officers, have endorsed and continue to endorse Hillary Clinton to be the Nation’s next President. Senator Clinton has received five endorsements in recent days, including those of General Henry Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Overall she has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. Remember, they are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton’s national and state veterans’ steering committees.
    These include, but are not limited to the following: General Wesley Clark
    Admiral William Owens, General Johnnie E. Wilson, Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
    Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy, Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak, Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath, Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr., Major General Paul D. Eaton, Rear Admiral Stuart Platt, Rear Admiral David Stone
    Major General Antonio M. Taguba, Brigadier General Michael Dunn
    Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote, Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr., Brigadier General Jack Yeager, Former Secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs Togo West, Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton
    2. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Sen. Obama’s relationship:
    Pastor for 20 years, Friend, Mentor, Spiritual leader, gave inspiration to write a book, ‘Audacity of Hope’, Was married by him, Baptized two daughters by him, Thanked him after he won the Senate seat, Consulted him before deciding to run for president, Prayed privately with him before announcing his candidacy, Member of his campaign team (resigned today),
    And was like an uncle.
    Sen. Obama said that he NEVER HEARD of this kind of comment from the pastor. I agree, Senator Obama used all the convenient words, denounce, reject, repudiate, condemn, e tal to turn off the heat.
    Please, you be the judge if Sen. Obama has ‘Judgment to Lead’ the United States of America, the most powerful nation on the planet, as you know, ‘judgement top lead is Sen. Obama’s campaign slogan)
    Back to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s relationship with Sen Obama. It is now an open secret that Sen. Obama took his two beautiful daughters to this church- are these the lessons Sen. Obama wants to teach his young children? What does Sen. Obama say to them when he disagrees with part of the sermon? As an honest American, would you continue to expose your young children to speech you disagree with and then try to teach how to reject a part of the speech? What does this choice say about Sen. Obama’s judgment and how much of what Rev. Wright says he rejects?
    3. Because Sen Obama was becoming the front runner and could end up as the next President, we have a right to know before we vote some of his explanations to what is in parlance today. Below are some questions to Sen. Obama:
    In a previous debate you told the Nation that you worked for the slumlord Tony Rezko just for 5 hrs. According to a report in Salon magazine, your relationship went back to 17 years; in fact Mr. Rezko has looked after your political growth, contributed a great deal of funds to your campaign and was involved in the purchase of your home and land. Mr. Rezko is in jail now. So please tell us the truth. Particularly that you made an error in judgement to have your life driven for 17 years by a slumlord from Syria who exploited the state and federal govts for millions of dollars, and he did not even provide heat and electricity to the housing units where poor African Americans lived. And you were his friend.
    Sen. Obama, you say that Hillary Clinton made an error in judgement in voting for the Iraq war. If I were in Hillary’s position, and had all the various documents from CIA and NSC, I probably would not have taken a chance with the safety of my country and would have voted for the war; I could not imagine President Bush by no mistake of his giving me false information.
    Sen. Obama, you were not a senator and you told that you would not have known, how you would have voted, were you a senator. Even if you voted yes I would not fault you because I do not want any one taking a chance protecting American citizens. If you were a senator, and did not know what you know now, how you would have voted? Justify your answer with your subsequent votes on the matter.
    Sen. Obama, you have been given huge campaign contributions by a nuclear energy company in Illinois, and the legislation to control deposit of nuclear waste was watered down by you according to NYT. What is your explanation?
    Sen. Obama, you simply are not qualified to be President. In your 60 minute interview you indicated your qualifications have to do with running this campaign and your Senate Office; and according to one of your advisors, your foreign policy credentials involve taking a course in foreign affairs while you were in college. Tell me please, how does this qualify you to sit with the Generals of the US military, and operation leaders in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and understand them?
    Sen. Obama, how many times have you visited Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and spend time with our forces and our offices there? What is your take from these visits.
    Sen. Obama, please tell America about your competence and substance about pulling the levers of the govt, and extracting accountability.
    Sen. Obama, why are African American population supporting you from 80-90%. Sen. Extraordinary margins of such support are unheard of in the history of democracy except in Islamic countries in the middle east and central asia where dictators run phony democratic elections and obtain 90% support from enslaved people. In addition, your devotees are pouring in contributions far, far exceeding the norm. To a lot of people you have become a God, and your rhetoric, and promises with no explanation of how are you paying for it, contribute more to this frenzy. You have made electing a President of a country into a carnival and showbiz hoopla. Do you think that this is good for the country?
    Sen. Obama, you continue to claim correctly that you opposed the war in Iraq in the beginning. But after that you have aided, just like Hillary, President Bush to wage this war. What have you done to stop this war after you became a senator? Your colleague Dennis Kucinich opposed the war from the beginning, continued to oppose it, and every chance he got, he voted against the budget for the war. Why did you not oppose the war like Dennis Kucinich?
    Sen. Obama, you say that you do not work with the politicians and corporate hacks who lobby; but you do at the State level, according to News reports. Do you? if yes, why?
    Sen. Obama, if you answer the above questions honestly you will find that you are not any different from any other politician inside the beltway.
    Sen. Obama, your messages of hope, unity and cooperation are slogans designed to be in resonance with the aspirations of the American citizens, they are just slogans, the available data show that you do not mean to live by them, just like any other Washington insider politicians. Your argument that you are free from the influence of Washington establishment is not true; the torch of the Democratic Party is being passed on to you by the Kennedys, by the titular head of Dems John Kerry, and you are being supported by the showbiz mogul Oprah, and you have won more delegates and more States and argue that you are an underdog. Is not this the typical Washington insider lie?
    We realize that you do not want an issue-driven debate because you are on a roll, and debates are dangerous; a moderator can ask you focussed question since there are only two people. But you will not be serving the country properly and wisely if you dodge American Demand Driven Debates (ADDD). If Hillary were in your position, in a roll for the nomination, obviously she will resist debating you. But this is OK because she is not promising a kumbayya Presidency like you, but a tough inside the beltway Presidency breathing competence, substance and accountability.
    We face an enemy that has repeatedly attacked us and remains committed to killing Americans and the destruction of our most cherished values. This election is about who is best prepared to lead and defend our nation and its international allies as Commander-in-Chief from day one. This election is about MAKING SURE we have the experienced leadership to guide us to victory in this war, protect the nation against future terrorist attacks, and support our troops and first responders who are on the frontlines of the war.
    We ALL like Sen. Obama, BUT we have the United States of America to govern in a very difficult time of Islamic jihad, the economy, health care, housing crisis, Iraq, nuclear weapons and our image abroad; the OVERWHELMING challenges confronting us in the 21st century. The stakes in this election are so very high, and it will take a leader with Hillary Clinton’s strength, will, resolve, determination and experience to tackle the challenges we face.If Hillary should succeed, America and the world would be changed forever and for the better, FOREVER.
    Not only is she the best qualified candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton will win in November, take back the White House, and deliver real tangible and VALID results for America and globally by creating a strong, secure, prosperous and globally respected America, AGAIN.
    Fellow Americans, there will be a clear choice November 2008, and I strongly believe that Hillary Clinton’s life has prepared her to lead our country, the country we love so very much in the transcendent challenge of the 21st century. God bless Hillary Clinton, OUR NEXT President for a secure, strong, prosperous and globally respected America. God Bless America.
    Reverend Felton D. McBride
    Los Angeles, California

    Reply

  2. John Lang says:

    I’d bet big on this: Gore won’t endorse during primary season. He’ll save what influence he has for when it would have the most impact — as we head toward a brokered convention. If Obama leads in delegates, states and votes, Gore will cite his own mugging in Florida to shame superdelegates into backing Barack. From the candidate who lost with the most votes, that’s almost certain.

    Reply

  3. John Lang says:

    I’d bet big on this: Gore won’t endorse during primary season. He’ll save what influence he has for when it would have the most impact — as we head toward a brokered convention. If Obama leads in delegates, states and votes, Gore will cite his own mugging in Florida to shame superdelegates into backing Barack. From the candidate who lost with the most votes, that’s almost certain.

    Reply

  4. jeebus says:

    check the politicking and psycho-jumbo at the door, puh-lease. Maybe Gore is a person, has a point of view, a world view, and thinks Obama is the better candidate and would make the better President. And, if Gore the Nobel Laureate really is a better public figure because he’s free of political calculations, then Gore endorsing the candidate that he as private citizen is more inspired by would make sense. Simple. End of story.

    Reply

  5. Justin says:

    Some things really should be clarified on the topic of nuclear energy. Simply put, nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and safest forms of power production currently available (certainly until large scale solar becomes practical). The stigma attached to it is irrational and dangerous. Even one of the founders of Greenpeace (who is still and ardent environmentalist) has become pro nuclear power.
    Basically, you need to consider several points. Uranium is as plentiful as tin and can be mined in an environmentally neutral manner. Nuclear power produces no carbon or toxic emissions and the average American’s lifetime energy use would produce about a cup irradiated solid waste if they used only nuclear power. Uranium has the safest track record of any power production method in the U.S.
    The biggest fears of nuclear power seem to center around disposal of (potentially weapons-grade) waste or the risk of nuclear accidents. Waste disposal is certainly a complicated problem and needs to be addressed properly, but it’s not untenable. However, the stigma attached to nuclear accidents is almost entirely unwarranted. The truth is that incidents like Three-mile Island and Kashiwazaki Kariwa are testaments to just how safe a properly designed nuclear plant is in the face of catastrophe. Of course, many people bring up Chernobyl as a counterpoint, but the fact is that no reactor in the U.S. has been (or could ever be) built and operated like Chernobyl, which was an example of everything you should not do with a nuclear reactor.
    In summary, nuclear power isn’t perfect, but any genuinely environmentally conscious individual needs to seriously consider it. The biggest danger is really the uninformed, knee-jerk response you get from people who haven’t taken an honest look at the issues. Of course, these are often the same people who claim to be environmentalists because they participate in community recycling of some tiny fraction of their waste. Didn’t they ever realize that “reduce” and then “reuse” come before “recycle,” and have a whole lot more impact?

    Reply

  6. Brady says:

    Jan. No he didn’t. That is a rumor flying around that is worse than the Obama endorsement (mostly cause its demonstrably false). Simple internet research shows Gore voted early and isn’t saying who he voted for. C’mon, if he has said that on CNN don’t you think the news would be everywhere. Probably a rumor egged on or started by Hilary supporters, or just someone hoping to cause a stir.

    Reply

  7. Jan says:

    Why would Gore endorse Obama when he wants Hillary to win??
    CNN aired the Gore clip on super Tuesday. After he voted, he was asked about endorsing, he stated “I’m trying to stay out of it but I hope “she” wins”. Further, he stated that “she ” is the only candidate who will implement a renewable energry/environmental plan.

    Reply

  8. questions says:

    Isn’t there also an issue with pollution from mining? Read something recently about how not-clean nuclear energy is even before waste disposal issues are dealt with.

    Reply

  9. AlvinBlah says:

    just to quibble with something else noted above…
    The water that becomes irradiated and heated by the nuclear rods is not always, and often isn’t the water that turns the turbines. Instead the initially heated water is used to vaporize water in a second system by a variety of means, that then turns the turbines. This is a safety measure that reduces the risk of irradiated steam escaping into the atmosphere.

    Reply

  10. jim miller says:

    —great comments…many were spot-on….no personal nasty attacks….fantastic
    —Obama won 8 states with 60% or greater to HRC’s 1 on super tuesday…that’s right 8 to 1.
    — if he can win 5 out of the next 7 endorsements will not matter
    —-never underestimate a Clinton.
    —will HRC still be viable by the time we get to Texas and Ohio? if yes, then obama seems to be in a position of strength financially/delegate–wise and momementum—meaning he can pick one and use the Iowa playbook for resources( people and money…except perhaps w/ double the budget)w/o a silver bullet seems like good night under either scenario yet I keep reminding myself to never underestimate a Clinto.

    Reply

  11. Beneatha Cadillac says:

    Sweeeeeeeeet!
    We Obama supporters would appreciate your endorsement very much, Mr Gore and you are most welcome to ride in the cabin on board the Obama train any time.
    Full speed ahead!!!

    Reply

  12. JohnH says:

    Everybody wants to be on the bandwagon of the winner. And today Obama has the mark of a winner. Voter and fundraising momentum are all moving in Barack’s favor (sorry, Steve). (Of course, it’s still conceivable but unlikely that momentum could still shift back to HRC.)
    Leaders rush to the head of the herd, and Gore is no exception, particularly since the Clintons did squat for Gore’s cause during their reign.

    Reply

  13. Linda says:

    gq,
    I am an older woman who has always been for Obama because I want to see a Democrat win in Nov. And Hillary will not attract Republicans and independents. She has not admitted she made a mistake in voting for the Iraq war. Edwards did say he made a mistake. She waffles and over-explains, and that will not win votes when she voted just like McCain.
    Lower income people, women, and immigrants will vote for Obama in the general election. It’s about who will do better in the general election.
    So if Kennedy,Kerry, and Gore all endorse Obama, maybe there is some “insider” reason for it–for the good of the party. What are you going to do if that happens? Call it a “left-wing conspiracy?”
    I’ll vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, but I think she will lose. Will you vote for Obama if he is the nominee?

    Reply

  14. VetDemInsider says:

    Rumor has some traction… and it would be a CRUSHING blow to the Hillary campaign, very demoralizing and might even effect extended and core campaign staff defections. The fact that she has to put in her own money and can’t raise enough on her own, even with Bill’s help, is hurting them publicly (as is the fact that they have this and possibly 15 million more in personal, liquid cash to put towards the cause… lots of curious questions and possible ramifications there).

    Reply

  15. VetDemInsider says:

    Rumor has some traction… and it would be a CRUSHING blow to the Hillary campaign, very demoralizing and might even effect extended and core campaign staff defections. The fact that she has to put in her own money and can’t raise enough on her own, even with Bill’s help, is hurting them publicly (as is the fact that they have this and possibly 15 million more in personal, liquid cash to put towards the cause… lots of curious questions and possible ramifications there).

    Reply

  16. gq says:

    We saw what the vaunted Kennedy/Kerry endorsements did for Obama in Mass. As a Hillary supporter, I would welcome a Gore endorsement of Obama because it didn’t do any good for Dean. Given that the Americans voting for Hillary Clinton are lower income, women and immigrants Gore probably wouldn’t influence anyone for Obama that wasn’t already in his camp. In fact, it would probably encourage more women/minority support for Hillary, much as K/K did in Mass. As someone who respects Gore’s work, though, an endorsement either way hurts his standing. The “wine-track” Obama supporters would eviscerate him if he endorsed Hillary. He would lose women and Hispanics if he endorsed Obama. A lose-lose.
    Oh, and for the record, can we quit the pretense that Obama isn’t an insider candidate? Kennedy, Kerry and (possibly) Gore are not exactly anti-establishment Dems. More like the opposite.

    Reply

  17. Greg says:

    Presidential endorsements generally don’t matter that much. If, however, you combined a Gore endorsement, victories in several of the upcoming states and perhaps an Edwards endorsement, that could lead to powerful momentum for Obama running up to Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
    (Btw Steve, my father is Shelly Williams, whom I believe you know.)

    Reply

  18. Linda says:

    I agree with Dan K. as the worst thing for the Dems would be to go into the convention having nomination decided by the super delegates. And remember that Albert Gore, Sr. was first elected to Congress as a Democrat in 1938–so I think that Gore would do it for the good of the party.
    If I were Howard Dean, I’d be talking with Gore and Edwards about both of them endorsing Obama later this month. Edwards could help a lot with OH and PA where unions are stronger.
    Forget about all the personality fighta, and just think that now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their party. But maybe this too is worth considering: If Gore endorsed Clinton and she is the nominee, Obama would continue graciously as Senator from IL. If Gore endorsed Obama and he is the nominee, Clinton would continue graciously as Senator from NY.
    There are no winners or losers here–just the usual threat that Democrats are so good at defeating themselves.

    Reply

  19. Stephen Daugherty says:

    Hillary would take the bigger gamble of the two of him if she decided to punish him for his endorsement. She needs all the help she can get, and petty internal rivalries would not be helpful to anybody’s cause, much less hers.

    Reply

  20. K says:

    Don’t do it, Al.

    Reply

  21. Jacek says:

    Just to quibble with something noted above…nuclear energy is actually very climate-friendly. There are no green house gases produced. Basically, the nuclear rods heat water, causing steam which powers turbines. It is the disposal of the spent material that is problematic. So, from a climate-perspective, nuclear energy is a winner. From an “environmental” perspective (in the sense of the soil/water), the disposal of said materials is problematic.
    As for Steve’s posting, history smiles on the bold. Being meek has never been rewarded.

    Reply

  22. Dan Kervick says:

    After reading about Howard Dean’s comments yesterday, I think the Democratic Party leadership is looking at a growing mess that it dearly wants to avoid. This unpleasantly long primary calendar is going to be working its way to slow completion for almost three more months. If the race is not decided before long, everyone is going to be suffering the effects of some serious candidate fatigue and candidate overexposure, and the party will be facing a backlash. The convention isn’t until August! All of the enthusiasm behind the Democratic party right now could be squandered by months of tedious campaigning, squabbling and wrangling – with each candidate saying the same things they have already said many times, over and over and over. People are going to be sick of both of them before long. The Democrats need a party leader who can start playing the presidential role.
    It’s possible that the party leadership and elder statesmen are feeling the need to coalesce around a standard-bearer and wrap this thing up. We are entering a stretch in the calendar where Obama is likely to win several primaries in a row and stretch out a bit of a delegate lead. If this rumor is true, it could be that top Democrats are beginning to prevail upon Gore to help them wrap this race up. Or perhaps Gore has made that decision himself.
    I too had assumed that Gore is now a global-level figure and international statesman, who would be inclined to stay above the fray of American electoral politics. But if he is starting to worry that his intervention is needed to help assure that at least *some* Democrat is elected in the fall, that might change his mind. I don’t think there are really any serious risks for him. No matter whom he endorses or who wins, no US Democratic president is going to have the option of stiffing the Nobel Prize winner of whom almost all Democrats are now intensely proud. The Clintons might be vindictive, but they are not stupid.

    Reply

  23. karenk says:

    What a slap in the face to Hillary. And not a wise move for Gore, who should just ride it out then support whoever wins the Dem nom for president against the GOP. His support would have more power in the presidential race, especially if Hillary wins after he endorses Obama.

    Reply

  24. Linda says:

    This-yet again, new rumor, is about the same as the ones predicting in September, October, then December and again a reprise of January and again for Super Tuesday, put out by the Obama campaign and supporters.
    It didn’t happen for a reason.
    Super Tuesday came and went.
    Obama doesn’t share Mr. Gore’s positions and policy on Global Warming, so I would guess that’s why.
    Obama pushed for a 2nd time a Lobbyist pushed Liquified Coal Bill, that environmentalists were screaming to pull for over 6 months, ’til it lost support in June 2007, after he revived it in Januar 2007. He supports Nuclear energy. Coal and nukes is not exactly friendly for the environment. He also has the smallest increases on CAFE Standards (mpg). Obama does not share Mr. Gore’s position on Carbon Tax and did not join the moratorium for Coal fired plants.
    Mr. Gore was very clear if he endorsed, they would have to share his position.

    Reply

  25. Jason says:

    Hmmm…I don’t think Gore realizes that part of his new stature comes from not being involved in politics. A Gore endorsement would be a great news story for a few days, but is it really going to change anything in the voting booth? Global warming barely registers on exit polls for people’s top issue.
    And if he is angling for political power or a prominent role in the next administration, I’d argue he could get that anyway based on his newfound popularity. I don’t see a compelling reason for him to endorse, but hey, it’s hi slife.

    Reply

  26. Daniel B Schwartz says:

    I’m a big Obama supporter, and I’d love to have Gore’s endorsement, but I’m not sure it would make a real difference. It’s not the voters who swoon at Gore’s mention today whom Obama is having trouble with. I don’t see women over 60, white working class, or Latinos in the southwest being all that bowled over. Maybe it helps expand his current coalition a bit, but nothing transformative.

    Reply

  27. Hmmmmmm says:

    Interesting rumor. Maybe Al Gore is looking at the climate crisis accomplishments of Bill’s 1992-2000 presidency and plans to make an objective assessment of how the alignment of his loyalty best advances his long term policy interest in the environment. According to the Nobel committee, Gore’s interest is hardly opportunistic or freshly minted, so he’s probably focused on results. It makes sense that if Gore is convinced that Bill was effective in advancing energy policy reform and carbon control while president that he’ll assign his endorsement loyalties to Bill’s chosen candidate for president. We should all focus on the record. Endorsing Hillary after Super Tuesday, when she most needs an extra boost, would represent the best possible timing for Gore to help Hillary defeat a fairly popular opponent if he feels she has earned his support.

    Reply

  28. Nobcentral says:

    It’s a hard question to speculate on as individual personalities play a huge role here. But, I don’t think an Obama endorsement would hurt Gore in the long run if Clinton won the Presidency essentially because there just isn’t anyone else to do what he’s doing. HRC isn’t going to take up the mantle of climate change like he is – at best it would be one of her many policy issues – and someone has to continue to sway public opinion in favor of action. Only Gore can do that which says that HRC would be forced to work with him in any event.

    Reply

  29. John Shreffler says:

    But if Clinton wins the nomination but loses the election, which I think is likely, then his endorsement of Obama augments his standing as much as if Obama takes the nomination. Obama’s the only way forward for the Democrats–Clinton and her crowd of Dem stalwarts are the problem the party has to overcome if it wants to regain power. From the Alleghenies to the Pacific Cascades they’re unpopular and MacCain can take Clinton thus. Obama is worth betting on for Gore. He could be the Climate Change Czar, the way Byrnes was the Deputy President for War Production from 1942-45.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *