I would absolutely LOVE it if Gore were to jump in.  I worked for him more than for any other presidential candidate in my lifetime in 2000, partly because I was particularly disgusted with Democratic purity voters and Naderites who did their best to throw the election to Bush.   If Gore comes into play I would happily work for him if he makes it in.  To me Clinton and Gore meet my personal requirements for what a credible presidential candidate should bring to the table.  

 I think his entry would make this an instant two-way race between two excellent candidates.  Why would I "dread" that or "better hope" that not to be the case?  

I rather doubt that Gore comes in, but if he does, I welcome that with open arms.  I still have all the paraphenalia from 2000 and all I would have to do is dust that off a bit.  :-)

Of course it is not guaranteed.  That is why I said "more likely."   Absolutely the people will decide.  

Look what I had to work with:

"Is a 3rd place Hillary finish possible at this point in the entire primary process?

Looks like it more and more every moment. Please Edwards and Obama just crush her to pieces in the Iowa Caucus."

I made my second (for $5) to Obama a couple weeks back. My first was to Tim Walz last cycle, and I'll probably give more to Obama and Walz before this one's done.

I totally agree with the comment about young people getting involved for the first time. In every state, there is a large network of student groups with field organizers, communication directors, etc. College students and young people are excited about the Obama campaign

Can we just add that there is still plenty of time for him to build up his buzz?  

I have said this before, Obama and Clinton is not the netroots candidates, they are NOT.

They do not court the netroots, nor many bloggers, and that angers many that run these websites.  They want "inside" tidbits, that are not given to them, as John Edwards.  Edwards has been courting the netroots, bloggers since he lost in 2004, that is a fact.

Though Obama is NOT courting the netroots, he is courting the rest of American, obviously.  Who gives to a dying campaign?  Not many.  

I think he is running this campaign, his way.  And Clinton and Obama are bashed, on the regular on many blogs, just for the netroot factor.  But most Americans don't read blogs, they don't care about that.  For a candidate to have thousands of folk show up for a 30 min rally and PAY $25 is saying something.  Who want to pay, yet waste time on a politician when you can be doing something else.

Now, Obama has to up his game.  Debates, tighter run campaign, communication.  If he moves forward on this during Q3, and their is indication that movement in the communication part is being done, he should move up in the polling.

Why do you say this?  Because he does not come and blog on MyDD or DailyKos?  Is it because he does try the netroots approach to politics?

His buzz is not dying and I would argue that other candidates who have a better relationship with the "netroots" are not doing that good.  Furthermore, Obama's only shortcoming is differiating himself with Hillary during the debates.  Most of his lowered polling numbers came from the debate and I suspect that his campaign intends to correct this.

And for this, and Clinton too, they do get negative stories written about them.  Now if Obama or Clinton, let you bloggers/owners of websites interview THEM on the regular, the perspective and blogs, would be different.  It would.

I would like to see him outreach to blogger more - he is right on our issues...and it is a large untapped marked for him.  I think he has been hesitant to be get the label netroots canidate, because he wants to be beyond Dean.

You didn't answer the question which was who exactly is this "we". I guess the people participating here does not qualify for the we, it is must be the people who started this site, fair enough. But considering his internet site gets more hits than this one, what exactly does "netroots" mean. I sense a resentment that ownership of the netsroots has gotten away from you.  I saw this on the DKos piece on the Obama donations: "To put that in perspective (his 250,000 contributors), that is roughly twice as many people opening up their wallets and donating their hard-earned money as have registered at Daily Kos since the site was founded (including sockpuppets)."

But I think you are very wrong about him not caring what your group writes.  I thought the piece he wrote on DKos during the attacks on Feingold for his support of Justice Roberts was one of the most thoughtful pieces I've ever read on DD or Kos.  He clearly didn't agree with what was going on and the tone, but he also clearly was listening, thought it important, and was responsive. If you don't know what I'm referring to, here's the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/ 102745/165

Not Hillary and Obama supporters obviously.

The gatekeepers?

The uncritical attitude towards Edwards' obvious pandering to the netroots is also annoying, although I cannot say that you (Stoller) have bought into that. Edwards panders to the netroots because he has nowhere else to go. It's a strategy not a conviction. He tried DLC and the establishment in 2004, now he tries the netroots when being shut out of other possibilities. Every press release, every statement is designed to impress the netroots. And unfortunately a lot of people falls for it.

Blogs are just one of numerous outlets/activist centers.  Any successful candidate, especially on the national level, will have to be responsive to many of them.  

I think Obama is a tremendously talented politician but I sense he is still a little green on the national level.  To use a sports analogy, he reminds be of Jose Reyes circa 2003-05 (I am big Mets fan).  He hasn't put it all together yet but if he does could be a great candidate.

What does "doesn't listen to the blogs" mean?  You and some others are not clear about what your beef with Obama is- spell it out.  He has reached out to the netroots but he has not embraced them.  He is not defined by them nor limited by them.  Is that it?  

Can you lay out the way or strategy that a fire breather pushing the farthest left views can get 65 million votes and govern a divided country?

Here's why.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/6/28/1 01711/779/97#97

I only mention it because you could have just copied and pasted your post from hundreds of posts by the people who represent the Clinton supporters here. What is it down to now, 5% of MyDD readers?

It's worth a try, and would be a nice little earner, too.

No way!

That would actually REDUCE his Funding.

ROFLMAO!

In other words, there's not enough Hillary Trolls out there to equal one donation to the Obama Campaign.

Ha Ha !

Or- Maybe we should call it. "Tips"

Whatever we donate, add a dollar just to spite the trolls? Naw, we don't want to look like some other desparate supporters out there.

So what?  Did you see the Suffolk poll?  Does that tell you that her support is rock solid?  Things will change.  Just wait and see what happens after Labor Day.

Probably.

When you have all the buzz but can not translate it into real votes, it won't matter much in the long run.

This is very true, but it applies to every candidate, not just Obama.

I donot believe any votes have been cast yet.

Polls don't change at all.  Obama is going to lose.  Just look at Dean... He sailed right through to the nom...  What?  You mean after weeks if not months of polling the number 1 spot Dean fell apart with a gigantic shift towards Kerry?  IMPOSSIBLE!  Early polling is never wrong!

The 'Dean model.'  You mean leading in polls and fundraising then suddenly tanking.

Maybe. But the most visible impact is still fundraising up until today.

LOL. Delusion has no boundry.

about this issue? We are left to speculate.

I don't have proof except for the huge amount of donations every single major candidate is pulling in...

Which I think is fairly decent fodder for making this "speculation."