2006-11-08 01:52:47 · 14 answers · asked by three6ty 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the public and the democratic party was still a little upset with his performance in the first election and weren't willing to give him the primary.. and he would have hurt the democrats if he'd have ran as an independent
2006-11-08 01:54:48 · answer #1 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Al Gore realized that, after the election was stolen by shameless neo-cons, that all attempts were futile. This ended up being prophetic as the '04 election was outright stolen as well. I don't blame him for being disheartened after Americans were ripped off! It would have been very discouraging to see that the neo-cons had all bases covered. There was nothing anyone could do about it, not even him.
Thankfully, times are changing, and Americans are finally starting to see the big picture. Despite the American mainstream media.
I just wonder if Dems are going to actually go after the White House criminals now. I hope so!!!
2006-11-08 02:00:50 · answer #2 · answered by Truth Seeker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont know but I cant stand that pompous idiot Kerry he sucks and all he does is talk about Vietnam. He sure as hell didnt have any plans for Iraq. All he does is bash everybody. Hes an arrogant a hole. Yeah Al should have run but I think he is going to in 2008. If he had to vote democrat which Im not since Im an independent. I would vote for him before I would vote for Hilary.
2006-11-08 02:14:30 · answer #3 · answered by . 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a Democrat, I'll tell you Kerry has let me down more ways than one.
2004 is in the past. In 2008, Barack Obama will be the man!
2006-11-08 01:54:13 · answer #4 · answered by Villain 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
During 2003/2004 Al Gore was growing a beard. US politics and beards are generally incompatable, and have been since slightly after the civil war.
Gore's decision to wear significant facial hair made him all but ineligible to run for public office.
2006-11-08 01:59:44 · answer #5 · answered by Guy Norman Cognito 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Al Gore tried but was defeated for the Dem's candidate, Kerry.
2006-11-08 02:03:06 · answer #6 · answered by justawondering 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Still sore after losing in 2000...Personally, I feel it was a good choice for him to step aside. The unfortunate thing that happened was that Kerry got the nod. They'd have been better off with Edwards or someone less...suspect.
2006-11-08 01:55:47 · answer #7 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know why they don't pay attention to history.
Northeast liberals never win, and Senators never win. The only exception to either of these rules in modern politics if JFK.
The only reason Kerry got as many votes as he did was because he got a big block of anti-Bush votes. (Conversely Bush only won because of the anti-Kerry voters.)
2006-11-08 01:57:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He did not want to go through the process again. He is happy with what he is doing.
2006-11-08 01:55:13 · answer #9 · answered by messtograves 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because he already had his chance and lost
expect to see Hillary though..i'll be surprised if she doesn't run in 2008
2006-11-08 01:57:22 · answer #10 · answered by kimandchris2 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋