I don't know if Mr. Gore is for sale. I don't think he is yet to run as a Democrat would suggest that he is. Is there any chance he would run as an independent? I hope so.

I wish he would run but maybe he is even more effective as an analyst and activist. Global warming was a "liberal" subject for many years, but since he is not running yet still kept pushing the issue, I think it's finally getting taken a little more seriously by the general population.

It is doubtful any true statesman would aspire to the particular flavor of politics that serve our so-called democracy. Gore's current posture does more to inform us (and the world) of how broken our system is than could ever be done from political office. Only when we, as an electorate, re-prioritize statesmanship will the real leaders return to us. From what I have seen, even little of the conversation on this site aspires to that essential truth.

BobHerbert laments:

You look at him and you can't help thinking how bizarre it is that this particular political figure, perhaps the most qualified person in the country to be president, is sitting in a wing chair in a hotel room in Manhattan rather than in the White House.

***************

Just because Al is very smart, well-prepared, well-connected, and waiting his turn does not mean he has the right to be seriously considered as presidential material. Richard Nixon should have taught us that much.

Al Gore is actually a hypocrite it you think about it. All of the electronics he uses, suv driving and travelling he does certainly is not "green". Yes it's great that he's raised the ethos of people in our country regarding this subject, but is he really walking the walk. His huge home requires so much energy!

Electronics are one of the most polluting devices we have, from their production in Mexico to their disposal! This is just his way of capitalizing on global warming

For a better insight into the real Al Gore, be sure to read "AL GORE: A USER'S MANUAL" by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. You won't regret it.

Gore the lively liberal commentator has to be distinguished from Gore the candidate or Gore the president who never was. Had the latter come to pass, Gore likely would have followed in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who, in the Bush years, has been striking for the timidity of his criticisms (after all, Gore didn't have any problems working with him for eight years). After 9-11, he would not have been surrounded by neo-cons urging him to invade Iraq, rather, he would have been surrounded by liberal hawks (as well as the Clintons themselves) urging him to invade Iraq. Probably we would have heard less about weapons of mass destruction and more about spreading democracy, a favorite theme of liberal hawks. Whether his best instincts would have surfaced under these conditions is difficult to say. Since the policies undermining civil liberties began during the Clinton years, with not a peep of complaint from Gore (recall that Arab American organizations, outraged at their treatment, endorsed Bush in 2000--strange world), there is no reason to believe those would not have accelerated under a post-9-11 President Gore. For a sense of what Clinton/Gore politics looks like in power during the Bush years, look no further than the United Kingdom under Tony Blair.

He isn't perfect, but he is an improvement. He has redeemed himself in some areas and has broad appeal on genuine issues. My sense is that his path has veered away from the DLC Clintonistas, which is not to say he shouldn't be held to account. He is likely to share the legacy of a Democrat in the mold of Carter as opposed to Clinton who keeps company with BushI. The Democrats have become irrelevant as the vehicle for the Clintons and the party has been unable to move on. It is at a crossroads now--either have meaning for the future or die completely. It won't be easy for anyone who sincerely wants the job for the right reasons but it could be the only flicker of hope on the near horizon. I do believe he may be the only figure who has the ability to unite the party as a force to be reckoned with.

The Goracle.
ha

Mainstream journalists despise any politician -- especially a president -- who's smarter than they are. Of course, that's not a hard thing to be these days. Had Gore taken the White House, he'd have been given the same treatment that Bill Clinton got -- which means they'd have crippled him at every opportunity. Yes, the US desperately needs a president with a few brains, but your mainstream media will never let him succeed, as Gore, like Clinton, doesn't know how to pretend that he's stupid. Just have a look at how Gore has been treated in the NYT and WashPo this past week. You're better off having Gore on the outside where, like Carter, he can actually move the ball a few yards on progressive issues.

There are a couple of issues here that should not be muddled. First, any President of the United States will have been elected because s/he played along with the system to some degree. In supporting the (idealized) 2007 Gore for President, a pragmatist would be saying that Kucinich has no chance (the media will never let him, and he really won't play the game enough even if they did) and that the other "top tier" candidates (i.e., those in the media spotlight) have yet to criticize the fundamental problems of the US system of representative democracy to the degree that Gore has. (Edwards sometimes comes close, but his performance in Sunday's debate suggests that he lacks poise, confidence, and the eloquence necessary to guide his more challenging remarks -- Obama and Clinton bullied him, and he didn't stand up well.)
So, if you have to vote for a Presidential candidate who has a chance of winning in November 2008, then Gore, if he runs, would seem to be far and away the best choice. And he's actually called for 80% reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050! And a carbon tax! Sure, that isn't enough fast enough, but you could go weeks in this campaign without hearing the candidates discuss this enormous issue.
The second issue that seems to be muddled by some of the posters here is that the US system is fundamentally corrupt and that no single person should have that kind of executive power over 300,000,000 people. And no, Gore will not address that problem -- and nor would Kucinich. Only we can address this problem.
If we want our system to be corrected from the terrible harm inflicted by Bush, Inc., then Gore seems the obvious choice. (And yes, he would be far more effective as President than he would as a speaker/filmmaker -- don't let Bush lower your expectations of what a President can constructively accomplish -- it doesn't always have to be destruction.) But if we want a new system that might succeed where our 200+ year old system has failed us and the rest of the world, then we need revolution, not a better candidate.

Al Gore may not be the savior some people in the media make him out to be. But the truth is he doesn't need to be a savior.

Nothing changes the fact that Al Gore is the best candidate for the job.

Gore says that the job of president requires dishing out a lot of BS that he no longer has the patience for. I hope he gets it that he won't need to. Not when the country is practically begging him to run!

America might want to look at the next presidential candidate as "damage control". Kucinich would certainly improve our horrid international image, but DC would put him through the meat grinder worse than they did Carter.

Thirty years later we would listen to drunken country club socialites bitch about how Kucinich caused them a bloody fortune in the stock markets! "Worst American president ever!" they would say.

Hilary and Obama might help America's greedy cowboy image a little. Again, damage control is what we need.

Let's take Gore and Kucinich's issues and combine them with Gravel's permanent solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=995fEp7Ci7Y

Al Gore Would Make a Great President

by J. R. Century

(Re-printed from "The Post," a Parkland Institute Publication)

I've known some really good "Al's" during my lifetime and
some rotten to the core.

Although far from perfect, Al Gore stands tall in the goodness category. He's made great efforts to save the world from itself and if goodness prevails, could be introduced on Jan. 20, 2009 as the new President of the United States.

After attending Gore's lecture to a sold out Jack Singer
Auditorium in Calgary this April, I'm convinced that the world needs this man in the Oval Office.

However, whether it will happen is uncertain.

During this year's Academy Awards celebrations, Gore appeared larger than life in accepting an Oscar for his
documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore's mocking statements at the Oscars suggested he was on the verge of
making a political announcement for his presidential candicacy, but despite being egged on by Leonardo DiCaprio,
he stopped short, leaving the stage, Oscar in hand.

After watching the documentary and reading Gore's book of the same title, I wrote the environmentalist to thank him
for his enormous contribution to the cause. Gore's work
communicating to a global audience the necessity of tackling climate change and global warming was unprecedented.

At the time, I figured Gore should abandon any White House
aspirations and become the United Nations 'Czar' of climate
change and global warming, in much the same way that Stephen Lewis was the UN special envoy for the HIV/AIDS global crisis. Given the enormous challenge in finding solutions to the growing volumes of greenhouse gases being
generated in the world, especially from coal-fired power
generating plants in the U. S.,China and India, Gore's
expertise seemed essential.

Gore's office responded to my letter by requesting that I
tell as many people as possible to attend a showing of An
Inconvenient Truth, which I did.

I've changed my opinion since then. There are other capable
people to advise the UN. Gore is sorely needed in the White
House to correct the present administration's poor environmental record, with Bush having repealed the nation's better environmental policies.

What's more, few presidential candidates stand to do a better job. The Republican camp offers only politically challenged candidates, in stark contrast to the charismatic
Gore.

As a 20-year dual Canadian/U. S. citizen, fewer moments
are as spine-tingling as the introduction of a newly elected president as the virtual leader of the Western World to an enthusiastic joint session of the U. S. House
of Representatives and the Senate in the capital.

"Mr. Speakerrrrr," the House Sergeant of Arms drones. "The
President of the United States of Americaaaa."

I sincerely hope that man man will soon be Albert Arnold
(Al) Gore, Jr., who will provide much needed, progressive
leadership, not only to the U. S. and its neighbors, but to
the entire world. President Gore will have strong opinions
about controlling Alberta oil sands, as well as tar sands and heavy oil production in other countries - including
Saudi Arabia, the U. S., Venezuela, Russia and China - to
establish a flat playing field for these obscenely carbon -
rich fossil fuels. In my political dreams, the Democratic
party runs Al Gore for President and for Vice President,
Senator Barak Obama, who hails from Illinois, my home state.

At the end of his Calgary performance, Gore-the-environmentalist received a well-deserved standing ovation
which was topped off with an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from the University of Calgary. Gore was gracious
in his acceptance, saying the Calgary invitation and reception was something that Houston never offerred.

If for whatever reason, Gore doesn't make it to the White
House this time, he should accept a top UN role and title
for himself such as the "Czar of Global Greenhouse Gas Compliance." He would go down in history as the man who did
more to save us from our wasteful lives than anyone else.
David Suzuki made a similar suggestion some time ago when
he encouraged Al Gore to consider becoming a Canadian Prime
Minister. Eh ?

Why does everyone forget that Gore was one of the most powerful leaders in this country for at least 20 years. He was an influential Senator, a candidate for President and then Vice-President of the United States. Yet he acts and talks like he's some powerless outsider.

I saw one article on the book talking about the concentration of corporate media and how its hurt our democracy. Are we supposed to forget that the Telecommunications Acts that allowed this very concentration were passed while Al Gore was part of the Clinton\Gore adminsitration. Anyone remember him criscrossing the nation then warning us of the dangers of those acts?

I'm not at all sure that the Iraq war would not have happened if Al Gore was President. And if not, its only because he felt he had better ways of causing death, destruction and misery in Iraq. Bush has killed some 600,000 to 700,000 people in Iraq. But Clinton\Gore killed some 500,000 children under five by denying food and medicines. Anyone remember Madeline Albright going on TV and saying 'its worth it?" Anyone remember Al Gore making a vigorous case that it wasn't?

Al Gore certainly would have attack Afghanistan in 2001. I don't believe a Gore administration would have prevented 9-11. And there still would have been a massive conservative push to attack Iraq, even without Bush in the White House. Gore has a long record as a militarist. He made his name in the Senate pushing Reagan's MX "Peacemaker" missile. And he always strongly supported all the Clinton wars and military actions. I don't take it as a given that he wouldn't have wanted to "look tough" in Iraq, especially with the massive right-wing attacks and pressure he would have faced. The right-wing noise machine would have been in full voice demanding an attack on Iraq. Nothing I've seen in Al Gore's attitudes and beliefs convinces me that he was certain to have stood strongly against that.

This man supported an illegal and immoral war in Yugoslavia. Is it a given he would have opposed an illegal and immoral war in Iraq? Its easy for him to say so at the time since he was on the sidelines. Even then I remember largely a silence only during the real debate. It was only after that he seemed to become a critic. Anyone remember Al Gore leading the fight against the war when it was actually happening. If anything he only made one speech and then went back to his energy consuming mansion. I remember Scott Ritter. I remember Ralph Nader. I remember Michael Moore. I rememeber Code Pink. I remember groups like "Not in our Name." Funny, I don't remember Al Gore doing much of anything.

The man's a phony who will say anything to be elected. Last time he was a loser looking to get back to the White House he wrote a book on the environment in the late 80's. Then he did nothing once he was back in power. After 20 years of not doing squat about these issues when he was one of the most powerful men in the country, now suddenly he tells everything that happened in those years was wrong? Why they heck wasn't he doing something to stop it then!

And don't even mention Kyoto to me. Gore's role was to negotiate the Europeans down from the 10-12% cuts they were asking for to the 5% that actually made the treaty. And he was instrumental in adding in all the carbon credit type of loopholes that would have made that completely meaningless. Gore was out to detooth and kill Kyoto as much as Bush. The only thing that can be said is that he was more subtle in his approach.

PS ... Al Gore was certainly for sale when he was a Senator and candidate for Vice President and President. Anyone remember the Lincoln Bedroom sleep overs for $ during the Clinton\Gore years? He's a founding member of the DLC which strongly believes in pro-corporate Democratic candidates back by corporate dollars. We've got a long track record on Al Gore, and he was always for sale.

Vern--bringing up Carter brings up some interesting comparisons. Gore--VP in the administration that bombed Serbia. Carter--among the only prominent Americans to criticize bombing of Serbia. Carter--author of a book that provoked the wrath of the Israel lobby. Gore?

Gore isn't running for president, people. Were he to suddenly decide to do so, he would quickly become enmeshed in the politics of pleasing corporate donors. Passionate Al would retreat, replaced by the return of Wooden Al.

you should definitely check out the cockburn/st clair book on gore.

gore has bro't a lot of attention to the environment, but his solutions to the problem are a joke. his personal lifestyle is not the issue, but his willingness to exploit a very serious issue for personal gain is.

three hegemons above is right: the problem is systemic, and all this hooha over a "savior" still leaves the system intact.

and what is the system that leaves us fawning for a savior to the numerous crises the system created? www.wsws.org

I don't want to see Gore run in 2008; that would be a waste of his talents.

Gore summed it up best a few years ago: I have found other ways to serve.

All this nonsense about Al Gore not being perfect or the system is too rotten to fix. What do you have in mind -- another American Revolution ? If so, put up or shut up. Better yet, come up with something constructive or is that
just too hard ?

With all my due respect to Bob Herbert, he is not up to Al Gore dilemma. As good journalist in mediocre Paper of Record he is simply not up to the task.

The problem that Al Gore finally faced is not what to do with Iraq: American President has seceded his control of events the moment he decided to stay in Iraq; compare Bush with European Emperors, Kings and Presidents at the end of July 1914. His "Climate Change" problem is even less controlled by any single human being no matter what is his or her title.
The main problem is that former VP and presidential candidate finally realized the core of all problems and the ugliness of it: it is unwinding of reason among species armed with Absolute Weapon. And there is nothing he can do about it.

Worse, he can expect to be assassinated, character or otherwise, while talking truth. Not to power, God forbid, but to Their Majesty American People, who utterly unprepared to hold attention for any serious matters.

I don't blame Al Gore if he decides not to run not only because I still remember that he was part of Clinton Administration, which pushed Rubinomics, NAFTA, WTO and Beograd bombing. I don't blame Al Gore because he has better position as educator.

Berthold Brecht in his play Galileo has such a dialogue. After Galileo repudiated his teaching under threat of torture his disappointed pupil said "Woo upon peoples who do not have heroes". Galileo corrected him: "Woo upon peoples who do need heroes".

At this point everybody sing Internationale.

If Bob Herbert and Al Gore aren't up to the task -- who is ? Common sense beats intellectual cynicism every time even more so with global warming, the bomb and the army in Iraq while America is at the Mall. If you're not part of
the solution you're part of the problem.

Al Gore, 30 years of promoting nuclear power.

Al Gore, the Origins of a Hypocrite
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

...in Gore's supposed devotion to the environment there has always been a vast rift between stirring proclamation and legislative reality. Back in the late 1970s two of the hottest environmental battles concerned the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and the Tellico Dam, both within the purview of the TVA. As planned, the Clinch River reactor not only was a $3 billion boondoggle of the first water but was also destabilizing in terms of the arms race, since it was scheduled to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The Congressional battle over the planned reactor stretched from the mid-1970s to 1983, when, amid growing national disquiet about nuclear power, it went down to defeat.

Gore was a fanatic defender of the reactor, the most ardent of all in the Tennessee House delegation. When the Republicans briefly captured the Senate in 1981 the senior senator from Tennessee, Howard Baker, became majority leader and made protection of the Clinch River project one of his prime tasks. He and Gore kept the fight going until the end...

full article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03032007.html

After reading Alexander Cockburn's ridiculous piece on how global warming is nothing but hype designed to sell carbon credits, I really can't take much that he or Jeffrey St. Claire says seriously. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/alexander-cockburn-the-l_b_48956.html - even leftist Marxists are getting into the denialist camp, apparently.

Al Gore has done a good job of getting the science of global warming directly to the public. As far as the notion that he's promoting nuclear power, see this quote from Gore: "I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now."

Even the nuclear power industry is complaining that Gore doesn't support nuclear energy: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-doesnt-al-gore-embrace-nuclear.html

Not only does Alexander Cockburn have zero understanding of basic climate science, he misrepresents Gore's position. Anyone who looks into nuclear power realizes it is a dead-end technology, due to limited uranium supplies and the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation.

When both the leftwing and the rightwing political hacks go on the attack, you know something's up. Could it be that the fossil fuel interests are just trying to snowball the climate issue by all means possible?

Abbyt, you are apparently sitting in your cave pedaling a bicycle made of compost to power your biodegradable computer so that you are able to post blogs. If only Al Gore would also live in a cave then we could deem him worthy of our votes. If, of course, he had a better platform than all of the other cavemen.

Atheo: if that data is right, then maybe Gore is a born-again environmentalist who's seen the light!

"The Bush crowd, he said, has jettisoned logic, reason and reflective thought in favor of wishful thinking in the service of an extreme political ideology. It has turned its back on reality, with tragic results."

This is the core reason for all the trouble we have had over the last six years, the difference between those of us in a reality based world and those in a faith based fantasy. It explains everything from the resistance to the evidence for global warming to the resistance to the evidence for evolution to the resistance for the evidence that the Iraqi invasion has failed to the resistance to just about anything that is evidence based. You notice that it is largely the same group of people who do not believe evidence in any of these cases and the same group that acts on the basis of that evidence. The unfortunate part is that reality does exist and is entirely oblivious to faith. When faith is opposed to reality, reality always wins, always. If our leaders are basing their programs on faith rather than reality, then eventually the programs will fail. And the rest of us will have to suffer.

that gore may be a candidate in '08 should not be a preoccupation of anyone seriously interested in fundamental change in this country. he would lose a lot of lustre once in office, as will any other politician/actor
because in merely installing the latest "figurehead," we won't have addressed the pivotal issues we all dance around: how to more fully engage in bringing about change - how to deepen understanding and be more effective in communicating - how to better resolve conflict, with family, strangers, adversaries - how to do more with less - how to love. the u.s. presidency matters, but these matter more.

Until Cheney came around a Vice-President had no power. They just waited in the Sidelines for the Pres to die.

I have an idea. How about a Gore/Nader ticket as Co-Presidents?

I hope Gore does not re-enter political life. Some people are more effective outside the system. (Jimmy Carter comes to mind.) The Presidency is a mind-prison that bends its occupant to the will of others -- supposedly, "the people," but more likely, moneyed interests who can deliver on this or that promise.

Let Gore be the barnstormer who answers to no one. Let him be the truth-teller, unfettered with the need to compromise. Don't ask him to put on that presidential straight-jacket.

This is what it comes down to for me:

I can pull the lever for Gore.

As a practical choice, I believe that he has broader appeal and could actually move that ball in our direction, on many issues, instead of away.

He is not perfect, but he is palatable, while still being viable.

I can not vote for Hillary, or the empty suit Obama. Nope, not gonna do it. Move over Cindy Sheehan. But I could conceivably vote for Gore because he does have some honorable intent and the potential for populist support. So to those who rip him down, like the MSM rips him down, would you rather we have Clinton-Obama, who the MSM has selected as their choice for us?

I wouldn't put it pass the top Democratic hopefuls to pay commentators here to weaken the case for Al Gore to run.

"Is it a given he would have oppossed an illegeal and immoral war in Iraq?"

Wow. Yes, I think it would have been unlikely. The worst foreign policy disaster falls on Cheney & Wolfowitz. Would a president Gore appoint Cheney as VP and Wolfowitz as Deputy of the DOD? No!

Too bad we can't just grab all of our current crop of politicians and pull em out like a root or a snaggle of wires, put Mr. Gore in charge for an interim period til new elections are organized with totally public and no corporate financing. Of course all new office seekers, news directors, military brass and would-be CEO's would need to pass a psych test for inherent decency before being allowed to be candidates, purveyors of news or formulators of any policy.

dkm: The "faith" defense is a very strategic one as there IS no basis for proof. One can argue that is their perspective when in reality, they have faith in nothing but Mammon (the power of $). Still, this Orwellian position allows them to gain the following of all those loyal church followers (mostly evangelicals); and not have to ANSWER to "reality." IF Bush has faith that history will prove his Iraqi policy one that "brought democracy," when it's so clear a nation has been ravaged to the point of abject ruin, its middle class in flight, too many left dead or maimed... how "convenient" that faith poses an alterative (universe) view! Same with global warming or that our economy is doing well. Doing well, with the existing debt and trade imbalance, with wages falling and prices rising? Doing well? I mean LIES sound a lot better when they fall under the self-proclaimed rubric of faith!

Reason over passion.

After 6 years of a complete fool in the White House I can't believe some of you people tearing AL Gore apart.What's wrong is Gore too smart for you?Are you forgetting that a half million more people voted for Gore than for the moron the Supreme Court appointed president.No wonder Bush has taken this country to hell. You people don't know an intelligent man fron a an uneducated idiot.

I agree with Clyde Paige... it's disheartening to see people on the left bash Gore. He would be a great president. His knowledge and experience are unequaled by any of the Presidential contenders. And, he has a clue....

Come on, Mr. Herbert! You know damn well what would have transpired had Gore hung in there for ALL the recounts and ALL the court cases...and been sworn into office. Here's what would have happened (just in case you haven't yet figured it out):

Gore's VP Lie-berman, AIPAC tool and PNAC whore, would have acceded to the presidency only months later, upon the assasination of Albert Gore Jr.

The PNAC/Cheney warmongers had everything in place, they could NOT RISK a Gore win, which explains why they STOLE the election. But their back-up plan was indeed Lie-berman...just in case.

Gore is simply not being honest about anything here.

Do you really believe that disengenious speech about not "being very good at politics."

What BS (in the Harry Frankfurt sense).

And why talk about global warming, when you have first hand experience of the corruptly stacked Supreme Court.

Good at politics or not, how can Gore sit back and talk about global warming when you're looking at the total abdication of the people, of the Congress, of the Military, of the Press, of Supreme Court and the justice system to tyranny: In fact, now pretty much a dictatorship supported by 29 percent of the people, (not counting the democratic Congress - as aptly described by Mark Twain).

What he is saying is akin to a retired fireman sitting back and watching a house full of people burn down and saying: "I'm really not very good at fire fighting."

He doesn't seem to have any heart.

He should come out and talk about what's REALLY prevented him from speaking out.

Cindy Sheehan wasn't very good at politics either, but she's done a helluva lot more service for the country than Al Gore has at this point.

He's done what even Richard Nixon (that most infamous President of modern times, before Bush who might surpass him)...Gore has quit. He's trying to be a fashionable quitter.

That's why I refused to go see his movie, and spend ANY money on Al Gore (I voted for him in 2000).

His movie is trivial, because it is overshadowed by his gigantic negligence towards the people who voted for him in the first place.

He should get off his large rear, and enter the race.

I probably won't vote for him: But, he should get out there and start pounding the streets. He owes this to the American public, who supported him in the White House.

Let's remember that his half of the Clinton Ticket in 92 is what really helped get Clinton's image off the ground.

Gore is good enough at politics. But he's not much of warrior for democracy.

He should speak up. He should write a book about the 2000 election, and about the corruption in it.

He should be running an alternate daily newspaper (he's a professional journalist by trade).

He's not doing anything.

He at minimum owes the public an explanation, a TRUE explanation.

As far as this voter is concerned: Never, never, would I vote for Al Gore again.

Einstein:
If you had watched the movie, you would know that Gore is not "sitting back". He has written several books, he has traveled around the world studying global warming, educating and campaigning for reform. The list is exhausting but I will leave it at that.
Are you implying that global warming is trivial?
Why do you blame him for everything that is wrong with our country today?