(CNN) – His name continues to get mentioned as a Democratic elder who could hammer out a resolution in his party's deadlocked presidential race, but former Vice President Al Gore said Sunday he's not interested in the job.
"I'm trying to stay out of it," the former vice president said on CBS' "60 Minutes" of the prolonged race for the White House.
"I'm not applying for the job of broker," he also said when pressed about the possibility he will be one of the few neutral Democrats who could sit Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton down together.
The comments follow increased speculation that Gore, the party's 2000 presidential nominee, may be called to forge a compromise between the two candidates, or even appear on the top of the presidential ticket himself.
In the interview Sunday, Gore laughed off that role as a modern day 'Boss Tweed.'
But last week, Democratic Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida suggested Gore, the party’s 2000 presidential nominee, could assume the role of a compromise candidate if neither Clinton nor Obama could reach a deal themselves.
"If it goes into the convention, don’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket,” he told a Florida newspaper, adding Gore could be that choice.
Gore shrugged off that suggestion: "I doubt very seriously that I'll ever be a candidate again," he said. Though in a CNN interview last December, Gore said if he did make a return as a candidate, it would only be as a candidate for president
But Gore isn't staying out of politics completely. The former vice president also announced Sunday he's funding a massive, bipartisan ad campaign to raise awareness on global warming. The $300 million venture, funded largely by profits from his Oscar-winning film "An Inconvenient Truth" and the cash component from his Nobel Peace Prize, will feature political rivals jointly calling for action on the climate crisis.
"Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich, two people who don't agree on very much at all...are doing an ad together" Gore explained. Reverends Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson will also appear together, among others.
TIME.com: Is Al Gore the answer?
– CNN's Alexander Mooney and Peter Lanier
New controversy brewing: Church bulletin reprinted articles seen as anti-Israel
Al. Why have you not spoke out against Mr Wright
thanks, Al. don't care that much for you and your more-holes-than-swiss-cheese inconvenient "truth", but you are right to stay out of the mess the party is in.
I would never vote for Gore as President. Please, the man did well
outside of Politics and that is where Mr. Gore needs to stay.
""Obama / Gore would be the best ticket ever.""
Been there, done that. Gore has already been VP, and has no interest in doing so again.
He *might* grudgingly accept a compromise ticket with him at the top, but only if Obama were his VP. Gore would NEVER have Clinton as his VP – he knows what a miserable experience sharing executive duties with a Clinton is first hand.
""The thought of Obama in the White House is absolutely horrifying! He will NEVER win in a general election.""
If he could NEVER win the general election, then why are thinking horrifying thoughts about him in the White House?
Actually all current accounts said gore won Florida if the recounts were allowed and had he won Florida he would of had both popular and electoral votes to win the nomination. But the other points said are true it make no sense to have a person whos not even running this far into the primary to suddenly head his own ticket. That solves no problem and only creates new ones. Sorry cnn this solution seems like a filler at best....
Some of you are mistaken.
Not all Democrats will vote for Obama out of party loyalty.
To some of us, HOW you win is as important than than the win itself.
Caucus format favored Obama.
Not counting the Fl and Mi votes favors Obama.
Getting superdelegates to abandon their purpose and vote for Obama...well, that obviously favors Obama.
Playing the race card against the Clintons in SC, favored Obama.
Playing the free speech card in support of Wright's comments favors Obama. Note: I believe in free speech and do not agree that Bill Clinton was out of line in SC, much less racist.
Calling on Clinton to quit, favors Obama.
Declaring a lead, without counting the Fl and Mi votes that are sufficient to turn the lead Over to Clinton, well... that too favors Obama.
Doesn't anyone wonder why ONLY Obama is blocking a revote in Fl and Mi?
Al Gore....one of the very very few good things out of the Clinton Administration
Hey, great idea... when no one has gotten to the arbitrary number of delegates needed without all the party elite "superdelegates", lets not look at who the most people voted for... lets just nominate someone that NO ONE voted for. Because thats how democracy is supposed to work, right?
Meanwhile, North Carolina's seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group — just one has so far — before that state's May 6 primary, several Democrats say.
And when they run again in the house they will be defeated for endorsing Mr Obama before their state gets to vote and chooses Hillary
In the end times a peace maker will come promising peace to all and goodwill to men. Enemies will come together. That is scary that Pelosi and Newt are doing an ad together. Al Sharpton and Rev. Pat Robertson on the same platform. Strange times or is the end near.
No Gore – and TOP of the ticket? Are we living in lala land lately?
Im still a little confused on how Hillary Supporters think Hillary still has a shot to win via pledged delegates...and if they dont, why is it ok for her to demand that the SD's overturn the will of the people?
I have maintained all along whomever WINS the most delegates should WIN the nomination...I will vote for Hillary if she can managed to take over the lead in pledged delegates (not SD's), however i will not vote in the national election if Obama has the delegate lead and the nomination is handed to Clinton.
PERIOD. Clinton supporters who THINK the rest of the dem party will vote for her if she is handed the Nom have another thing coming.
The more I hear from Hillary, the better I like Gore.
Cheat says in his/her comments, "Shame on Obama for being willing to win by cheating." Are you forgetting or willing to overlook the fact that Clinton wants the Michigan vote to stand as is, when Obama's name wasn't even on the ticket!! Do you really think it's fair to have that vote stand as is, when one of the candidates name wasn't even listed as an option? Now who sounds more desparate to win?
And who are these "thugs" you are referring to in the Obama camp? I've been following this election daily for almost a year now and I haven't seen anyone in the Obama camp who can even be mistaken for a "thug."
Bottom line is the DNC has rules and they must be adhered to; the Clintons are not above those rules. Obama is winning by the popular vote and the pledge delegates, he has no reason to cheat. Get over it!
The votes need to be counted- ALL the votes- even those for Hillary.
The Fl and Mi votes need to be added into the tally before we spread the illusion that Obama is leading.
This rigged election will and SHOULD implode the democratic party.
When you disenfranchise your own voters and swiftboat your best candidate... I say the heck with the party.
Side on the side of democracy, fair play, fair elections and the people's voices.
good thing he's putting this ridiculous idea to rest
The comedy show that has become the Democrat Party of 2008 gets more surreal as time goes on. This is more fun than a barrel of monkies, especially for Republicans and Libertarians. Please, someone stop....my belly is hurting and my face is sore from smiling so much. Please, stop. LOL.
I think Gore as a presidential candidate is a poor suggestion, as bad as McCain.
So we let some dude from Florida decide that Gore should replace Barack Obama? How about you ask the PEOPLE? No, Gore is not the answer–otherwise he'd been a candidate right now.
Mr Gore is one of the most respected and distinguished politician around the world. His work is an example of REAL change and doing something fundamentaly importnat for humanity.,
I saw something interesting the other day concerning delegate counts. They had actually looked at the current numbers from the perspective of electoral votes. Clinton actually had a significant lead over Obama. I do think this is something to be considered when the Super delegates have to make this difficult decision. Should they simply go by who one more states/popular votes/delegates even if those will most likely be Republican states in the general election?
The Great Gore is not necessary. The DNC will be just fine, if they can get Hillary to act like an adult.
Why should the citizens of Florida and Michigan be punished for the poor decision of the DNC not to count their votes?
Hillary is a stronger candidate than Obama and would be the Democratic nominee with the victory she would have in those two states.
It doesn't seem like a fair nomination without hearing from those two states, and why anger the people of Fla. and Mi. and have them vote Republican in the fall?
After 8 years with the Clinton Administration, wouldn't you expect an almost automatic endorsement from Gore for Hillary?
So why hasn't it happened?
Is this "on the fence" approach retribution for what happened in 2000?
Or does Gore know something we don't and he's keeping that back so we decide for ourselves?
What made you vote for Bush in 2000? I really and sincerely want to know.
I have been saying from the beginning that our party needs to bond. Obama and Clinton need to set aside their egos, and come together or our party never will. They need to lead by example. The last thing this country needs is another Republican in office, and they are setting the stage for exactly that.