Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIn recent days, the word used more and more frequently to describe Hillary Clinton's march to the Democratic presidential nomination has been "inevitable." She consistently leads public opinion polls across the country by a good 10 points over her nearest rival. Hollywood, after a brief infatuation with Barack Obama, is now, according to the Los Angeles Times, consolidating its support behind the junior senator from New York. Rupert Murdoch employee Peter Chernin extracted a cool $850,000 from wealthy Angelenos for the former first lady at a recent event in his home. A few days later, she was endorsed by the King of Hollywood himself -- Steven Spielberg.
I wonder if Mr. Spielberg will change his mind when Al Gore declares his candidacy this fall.
I have never met Mr. Gore. I make no claim to any inside knowledge on this question. I have no idea whether he's gaining or losing weight.
But I think he's coming.
I think he's going to find it impossible to resist.
And I think progressives should get busy, right now, working to hasten the day.
Many Prefer Gore Over the Entire Democratic Field
I have been working on Democratic political campaigns, international policy analysis, and anti-nuclear advocacy for a couple of decades now -- usually finding myself on the left side of the room. So, although I was somehow left off the invitation list for the event at Mr. Chernin's, I have met a great many rank-and-file Democratic voters over the years. And -- like other political junkies -- I have been talking with them a lot recently about the 2008 presidential contest.
The majority of my Democratic friends have devoted most of their attentions to the three avowed front-runners -- Clinton, Obama, and John Edwards. Yet during the last six months or so, whenever I've asked them whom they would choose if they were choosing between four candidates -- Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Al Gore -- probably 90 percent have told me, in a heartbeat, that they'd go for Gore.
So I've been thinking a bit about why that might be the case.
Gore v. Obama
When Democrats compare Al Gore to Barack Obama, they see someone with the same compelling charisma (at least now, if not in 2000), the same grass roots attraction, the same heart-over-head allure. Yet, it is beyond obvious to point out that Gore has almost infinitely superior experience in the national and international arenas. Obama, despite his manifest intelligence and palpable political gifts, still today has served less than two and a half years in the U.S. Senate, with stints as a state senator and a law professor before that. Al Gore -- who is only 13 years older than Obama -- has under his belt eight years in the House, eight years in the Senate, and eight years as vice president. Not to mention six and a half years since then as an amazingly effective environmental activist, worldwide, during which time "the Goracle" has become a cultural icon larger than mere politics.
Plus, you want to know the first thought that will spring into the minds of 90 percent of Obama supporters, the instant that Gore announces?
"Gore/Obama 2008."
Gore v. Edwards
When Democrats compare Al Gore to John Edwards, they see two political leaders who insist on talking about Big Ideas. Edwards, displaying what all progressives should applaud as a profile in political courage, has centered his second presidential campaign on the injustice of intractable inequality -- not only around the block but also around the world. (In a little-noticed remark during the South Carolina debate in April, he called for "making primary school education available to 100 million children worldwide.") And he has crafted arguably the most important single campaign sentence at this critical juncture in our history, when he calls upon Americans "to be patriotic about something other than war."
Gore, of course, has one or two Big Ideas of his own up his sleeve. He has spent the last quarter-century sounding the alarm on global climate change and environmental sustainability -- and has almost single-handedly willed it into mainstream public consciousness. And now, with his new book, The Assault on Reason, already number one on the New York Times best-seller list, he takes on the sustainability of our American democracy itself.
Yet when it comes to political and policy experience, the single term in the U.S. Senate served by Edwards, with no other prior or subsequent political offices held, provides a national and international affairs resume arguably as thin as Obama's.
Only a few still dispute that climate change and other environmental challenges pose the single greatest long-term threat to the viability of the human community. (I like to accompany that by saying that nuclear terror poses the single greatest immediate such threat.) In April 1993, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," from more than 1670 scientists including 104 Nobel laureates. "No more than one or a few decades remain," said the scientists, "before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished."
Now, 14 years later, almost as if on cue, leading atmospheric scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, tells us that we probably have only two remaining election cycles to elect a president to undertake the kind of comprehensive programs that seriously addressing the climate crisis will demand. After that, it will probably be too late.
Gore v. Clinton
When Democrats compare Al Gore to Hillary Clinton, they see two political titans -- similar experience, similar gravitas, similar authority both to manage the labyrinthine federal government and to credibly represent the United States in the global arena.
But Hillary Clinton has always engendered bitter antipathies, like perhaps no other figure in American political life today. These come not only from the millions of Republicans who say they would "never" vote for her, but from much of the core left Democratic base as well. I've never quite figured out why so many on the right so loathe the Clintons. But many progressives read the June 4, 2007 cover story of The Nation magazine by Ari Berman, entitled "Hillary, Inc.," which detailed the intricate web of the senator's corporate connections. Much of the core left sees her as a centrist, an incrementalist, a triangulator, a hawk who would do little to challenge the unaccountable leviathan that Eisenhower's military/industrial complex has become, a DLC Democrat who favors caution over conviction, calculation over commitment.
And with both the intensity of feelings about the Bush legacy and the rise even just since the last presidential election of the "net roots," that core left today is quite substantial.
In addition, with Senator Clinton, the old chestnut about her ultimate "electability" seems destined to become her decisive variable. In a June 12 Los Angeles Times survey, Senator Clinton comes out 11 points ahead of any competitor to win the Democratic nomination. When matched up against Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani, however, Obama defeats Giuliani 46-41 percent, and Edwards defeats Giuliani 46- 43 percent. But Giuliani defeats Clinton by a whopping 49- 39 percent margin!
Several polls have consistently validated this result. Although a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll two weeks ago had Clinton over Giuliani 48-43 percent, three others by Gallup have had Giuliani over Clinton by an average of 5 points. This, despite some surveys reporting that voters favor a generic Democrat over a generic Republican by more than 20 points.
There is no way this does not become the defining issue for Democratic primary voters in the first three months of 2008.
Senator Clinton's healthy and enduring advantage in the polls clearly indicates that many Democrats do like her. But in their moment of truth in the privacy of the voting booth, primary voters who think highly of her may in the end not pull the lever for her. Why not? Think the opposite of what happened to John Kerry.
Remember how, in the first three months of 2004, millions of voters who did not adore Kerry voted for him anyway, because they said they saw him as the most "electable" Democratic candidate? (Some wags observed that Democratic voters were so intent on ejecting George Bush from the White House that they voted not for the candidate they liked, but for a candidate they believed others would like in November.) Four years later, we may see almost exactly the reverse phenomenon. Millions of voters who like Hillary Clinton may vote for someone else anyway, because they will conclude, regrettably, that she "cannot win" in November.
And there really is only one possible "someone else."
Gore v. the Rest
The other five declared Democratic candidates -- Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson -- offer a wealth of political experience and wisdom. All have advanced imaginative policy proposals that Americans would do well to study -- and the media would do well to illuminate.
Many friends on the hard left retain a deep affection for Kucinich, and his uncompromising, inspiring, and comprehensive vision of progressive peace patriotism. (Not to mention his vision of getting insurance companies and employers out of the health care business altogether, and replacing them with non-profit single-payer national health insurance -- "Medicare for All" -- the only plausible long-term solution to the health obstacle course that confronts not just 50 million uninsured, but virtually all Americans.)
A few of my colleagues in the anti-nuclear arena have even cheered a bit for Gravel, who tried desperately to inform viewers during the April South Carolina debate that all three of the Democratic front-runners, incredibly, have refused to take "off the table" a pre-emptive American first strike, with nuclear weapons, against the nation of Iran.
But it doesn't seem terribly likely that in the end any of these five will stand between the Hillary Clinton juggernaut and the "inevitability" of her nomination.
Gore and the War
Al Gore also distinguishes dramatically from several Democratic candidates on the issue that voters rate as the single most important -- in some polls by 20 percentage points.
Iraq.
In September 2002, the former vice president spoke before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, excoriating the very idea that our country might be about to launch a pre-emptive, illegal, unilateral, unwarranted, and unwise march of folly in Mesopotamia. "The president is proclaiming a new uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat," said the veteran of Viet Nam about the veteran of the Texas Air National Guard in September of 2002. "The administration has not said much of anything to clarify its idea of what would follow regime change, or the degree of engagement that it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place. ... If what America represents to the world is leadership in a commonwealth of equals, then our friends are legion. If what we represent to the world is an empire, then it is our enemies who will be legion."
Those words were spoken a month before Senator Clinton, in voting on the defining war and peace resolution of our time, spoke the word "aye."
Gore, the Critic of Contemporary American Democracy
I saw Al Gore speak on May 22nd, at the Wilshire Theatre in Beverly Hills, in the inaugural event of his tour for The Assault on Reason. In a live on-stage conversation with Harry Shearer, the contrast between Gore's sheer intellectual firepower and that of the man who (didn't) beat him in 2000, the man who I recently heard on the radio, with my own ears, say, "the literacy level of our high school students are appalling," was, well, appalling. Gore traced the path from the Middle Ages to our own constitution. He discussed the relevance of Marshall McLuhan to our present predicaments, and the overwhelming dominance today of images over ideas. He lamented that the "well-informed citizenry" envisioned by our framers has degenerated into a "well-amused audience." He issued a plea for all Americans to work to restore to our public square a rational policy debate within a democratic marketplace of ideas.
On a more prosaic and immediate level, he delivered a blistering critique of the Bush Administration's Iraq debacle, its inaction on climate change, its obeisance to the rich and the powerful and the corporate elite, and its casting aside the long-standing American ethos against torture -- first insisted upon, he reminded us, by George Washington. And he made my own anti-nuclear heart beat more quickly when he delivered a one-word verdict on Bush's plans to build a new generation of nuclear weapons while hectoring countries like Iran and North Korea (and likely soon others) to forego nuclear weapons.
"Insane."
Gore 2000 and Gore 2008
Oh, there is one more asset that Al Gore brings to the table. Something unique only to him. In 2000 -- even with Ralph Nader siphoning 2.8 million votes from just over 100 million ballots cast -- the sitting vice president still beat the sitting governor of Texas nationwide by more than half a million votes. In addition, a great deal of evidence indicates that more Floridians tried to vote for Al Gore than for George Bush -- which means, of course, that Gore actually won in the Electoral College as well.
But, at least according to five Supreme Court justices, George Bush won and Al Gore lost.
That means that millions of Americans, even many who might not necessarily adore the former vice president, hold a rough recollection that in 2000, Al Gore had something taken away from him that he rightfully earned. And deserved. And won.
And that is why the "RAG" bumper sticker, in itself, will be worth ten million votes next time around, for this candidate and this candidate alone. First in the primaries, then again in the general election.
What is the "RAG" bumper sticker?
"RE-ELECT AL GORE."
Gore and the Human Future
Three years ago, in an excruciating effort to wrest the presidency back, Democrats nominated a candidate who focused virtually all his attentions on a hypothetical few million undecided "swing voters," rather than on the seventy million eligible Americans who -- waiting in vain to hear some kind of big, inspiring, courageous vision -- did not even bother on Election Day to show up.
Surely, we're not going to let ourselves make the same mistake again.
On the night before he was elected president in 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy, speaking on the floor of the Boston Garden, said "I do not run for the office of the Presidency after fourteen years in the Congress with any expectation that it is an empty or easy job. I run for the Presidency of the United States because it is the center of action. ... The kind of society we build, the kind of power we generate, the kind of enthusiasm that we incite, all this will tell whether, in the long run, darkness or light overtakes the world."
Is there any political figure in America today who can better restore our faith in the light than Al Gore? Is there anyone who would better pursue not just American national interests but also common human interests, who would call upon not just our national patriotism but also our planetary patriotism, who might deliver a speech from the floor of the Congress not on the "State of the Union" but on the "State of the Earth?" Is there any better way the forces of peace and justice and hope can evoke the better angels of our nature than to mobilize, now, together, to demand an Al Gore candidacy?
Newshounds may remember Trent Lott's catastrophic faux pas in 2002, when he opined at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party that if America had elected the former segregationist as president in 1948, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years." My prescient colleague Gregory Wright, of the venerable Southern California Americans for Democratic Action (socalada.org), tells me he fears that at Al Gore's 100th birthday party, coincidentally in 2048, in a Tennessee by then considerably closer to the shoreline of both the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, someone -- perhaps someone not yet today even born -- will remark that if America had elected this man as president in 2000, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."
Of course, no one will need to say that in 2048, if we elect Al Gore president in 2008.
Tad Daley is a veteran political advisor and nuclear policy analyst. He has served as a policy aide to the late U.S. Senator Alan Cranston, as National Issues Director for the 2004 presidential campaign of Congressman Dennis Kucinich, as a co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America (pdamerica.org) and as a member of the international policy department at the RAND Corporation think tank before all that. He writes frequently for commondreams.org, truthdig.com, huffingtonpost.com, and alternet.org. He lives in Los Angeles.
73 Comments so far
Show AllThe political naivete' of the American political consumer is admirable but it's a little late in the game for such folly. Gore has never been anything but a slightly right-center corporatist. His record is long and consistent. Not that the term "progressive" actually holds any meaning but whatever one may think it to be Gore is definitely not that:
NAFTA cleared the Senate by one vote. Al Gore was called in to perform his constitutional role as Senate President to cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the treaty. Clinton and Gore, through Gore's tie-breaking vote, delivered what Bush I could only dream of. Thus began the precipitous hollowing-out of American manufacturing. The Clinton-Gore passion for "free" trade agreements such as NAFTA, the WTO, and GATT greatly accelerated the pace of exporting the American manufacturing base in ways that backers of their Republican predecessors could only dream of.
And this:
Al Gore: "Biotechnology - the development of new crops and new ways to grow
existing crops - holds tremendous promise for producers at home and
consumers here and abroad. Biotech products can improve yields, help avoid
some diseases and reduce the need for pesticides, fertilizer and other
inputs. Al Gore believes that reducing world hunger and ensuring America's
and the world's future food security depends on its development.
Biotechnology also promises new, higher-value crops for specific food and
non-food uses. That will lead to better farm income and to jobs and economic
growth in rural America. As President, Al Gore will continue to fight for
agriculture research funding, and will battle against foreign trade barriers
based on fear and protectionism."
From: www.algore2000.com/agriculture/agr_agenda2.html
That's just for starters. It gets much worse.
Kali, perhaps you could elaborate on your comments, I missed something. I thought the Spreme Court did in fact, deem that GWB was the winner in Florida, which put GWB in the White House. The congress had no say in the matter. If it had been up to congress, why in hell did it go to the supreme court? I believe you are incorrect, but I'm not a genius.
kali: Why don't you try to become President when the Supreme Court rules that you don't have the votes? There is no avenue to pursue. In this country, a President is elected by the electoral college, not by a majority of votes. I can't believe this tired criticism is still being used.
Evelyn: there's nothing in the US Constitution that provides for a Supreme Court rule on elections. If there's a dispute, it goes to the Congress. The founding fathers had a good reason for this. GW's father George Herbet Walker Bush, appointed a couple of Supreme Court Justices that ruled in GW's favor. That is to say, the US Supreme Court colluded with Bush to steal the election. None of the judges that GW's father appointed, recused themselves. To your point about Gore having no other viable option than to walk: is that what I can expect from him again if he were to decide to get in the '08 race? You are asking me to take that chance? Hell no!
If you look at the market odds at Intrade.com, Gore has the best chance of winning if he getting the nomination. The chance that Gore will get the nomination is only 8.8%-but his chance of becoming president is 6.8%. Since he'll only become president if he gets the nomination, that means his chance of getting the presidency if he gets the nomination
is 77.2%. These odds are based on a betting market. If you think you can beat the market here-you can lay down your money-and make money. I think the odds are realistic-and I'm not betting.
CandidateNomination Odds
Presidency Odds
Chance of getting the presidency if nominated
CLINTON44.6% 27.6%61.9%
OBAMA34.3%19.1%55.7%
GORE8.8%6.8%77.2%
EDWARDS5.3%2.7%50.9%
Gore is also the only Democratic candidate that has an immigration record that reflects anything close to what the American people have said in poll after poll they want(which is less overall immigration-and some kind of fair treatment for recent illegal immigrants that have made significant investment investment in the US). The only Republican with a similar record is Ron Paul-who is doing much better in terms of fund raising and getting people to his rallies than was expected. If immigration becomes more a leading issue in the campaign, Gore can use this to his advantage-whichever way the wind blows.
I like others here have affection for Dennis Kucinich. I plan to work for him during the campaign--and do so despite my differences with him on immigration policy.
However, when it comes to choosing a candidate among Gore, Clinton, Obama and Edwards, I agree Gore is the best available choice.
Why do the progressives insist on Al Gore? Isn't he the same fool who won the 2000 election and yet abdicated the Presidency to a pretender like Bush. To me, Gore is just as every bit as responsible for the mayhem in the last six to seven years that went on in this country. I have no respect for Gore. The presidency was his and he walked away from it like a coward. And you people still want Gore. Please!
mfskinner: Careful__ they may shear you after you've been led. Or even worse, skin your hide and make seat covers. Ruff ruff.
Baa Baa lead me please
Leave it to all the green progressives to be the most bitter haters out there. Enough spite, enough self-righteousness. Please, continue on with the Kucinich-Nader tirades. I plan to vote Kucinich in the primaries, but I don't expect to see him on the ticket come November. Hell, give them both Cabinet positions. Imagine what they could accomplish, an all-star Cabinet under a Gore administration.
For being a culture of such open-mindedness, what a load of spite I'm reading. It's making me nauseous in fact, after a very inspiring and quite logical article. Gore has my vote, whether just in my heart, or literally as well. Is it too much to think the man has genuinely changed? Or is just one of those Bush "born-again" ploys?
Practice the tolerance you preach. Give Gore a chance.
Tshann: An excellent disertation, I agree.
Ryobi7: Gore run as an independant? I believe he would ganer a lot of votes, but a good share of Democrats would still vote for the Democrat and the resulting split vote would insure a Republican would win. Gore likely has considered that option, he should run as a Democrat. I believe he would win. May come down to a Supreme Court decision though.___Nahh, how could that be possible in the United states. In any case I hope Ralph Nader stays out of it, even though I admire the good he has done over the years. Some bad too. ___ Kem Patrick
It is ashamed that there is so much bitter criticism of Gore. Let's not let anger and bitterness over past disappointments completely cloud our reason. This may not be about who is best or who will do what. Our country, and the world is in a crisis. We have to pick the best possible candidates that we can. Gore is not perfect, he may revert back to the negative traits people suggest - or he may not.
But if the choice comes down to Hillary or a Republican, I know I would EASILY prefer Gore - IF he were in the race. On the other hand, if he doesn't enter the race, I'll have no choice. If it does come down to Hillary or a Republican, I WILL vote for a green or independent. Only because I really don't see much real difference between Hillary and a Republican anyway.
Come on people, Gore is not perfect, but neither are any of the other people who would actually have a REAL chance at becoming president (unless a miracle happens and Kucinich gets in). All I know is, if he ran, I'd vote for him. He could win, and he is at least giving lip service to many critical issues.
If Gore won and turned out to be a shit, so be it. But with him there would at least be a CHANCE of him having some integrity. I can't say the same for Clinton.
If I had my druthers, it'd be Kucinich. or I'd love to see Moyers enter. And if Kucinich wins the primary, you can bet I'll vote for him. But if Kucinich doesn't make it and Gore enters, I'll DEFINITELY prefer him over Clinton or a Repub. We're in serious trouble, we have to hedge our bets here - being perfectionists in this simply will not work.
Do you think we have inexhaustible time available to us? to wait for our perfect messiah? It ain't going to happen. The US is so far down the shit hole that if we don't get someone in there with a modicum of integrity and smarts, we're toast. We can't sustain this destructiveness to ourselves and the world much longer. We need to use our brains and heart to look out on the field and pick the best POSSIBILITY. Gore would be the best - if he came forth.
Peace
Gore/Kucinich 2008
The only ticket that can run a legitimate campaign on the issues that we all care about. I really hope he runs or Kucinich miraculously gets the nomination. Perhaps an independant ticket for Gore/Kucinich?
I believe that originally Mr. Gore had a sort of cognitive dissonance. In an extremely short period of time the terms of social debate in this nation changed dramatically. The political environment in which he grew up vanished. Yet, he kept trying to do things the old fashioned way. I think that in the last eight years he has learned quite a lot about how to communicate effectively in the contemporary political climate.
That said, Gore in 2008! The man is genuinely concerned for the well being of our nation. Because he "lost" the election in 2000, he has had the time to take a look at the state of our nation from a distance--a perspective no other democratic candidate has to offer. He realizes the importance of issues that are rarely addressed, yet can effect our entire way of life. Like the squashing of our civil liberties. Like media consolidation. Like the environment. He is also something we haven't seen in quite a long tim--a statesman. When you watch him interact with others he commands respect, yet is diplomatic when dealing with everyone. When he speaks he knows what he is talking about. He knows where he stands on issues because he understands the underlying situations, implications and alternative opinions.
We don't just need a good politician in 2008. We need someone who is genuinely concerned about the right things, and most importantly, incredibly intelligent.
clyde paige,
Another of these DLC morons. What has Nader ever done?????
Nader is only responsible for every piece of legislation that is in anyway good for the environment, safety of autos, safe drug legislation, pesticides, etc. etc. the list is a mile long. For you to even make a statement like "What has Nader ever done?" just amplify's your ignorance. You better get reading too. And not those comic books you have obviously spent your every waking hour reading either. I mean like some real reading.
As for Nader costing Gore the election, well everyone is always saying this is a democracy. But I guess that only applies to the demopulicans and the republicrats. Nader can't run because he doesn't like the dems? Go f**k yourself you moron. If you knew anything you would know that Bush stole the election with the help of the supreme court and rove. In the investigation that took place 9 months after the election it was proven that al gore had more votes than Bush. New york times and washington post both printed the story. But you're too stupid to know this
because it wasn't printed in your comic books. Jeez, what a maroon!!!!!
jjjohnjj,
What is this revisionist history? What a crock of shit you're trying to push off on everyone. You must be related to bush/cheney. It was slick willy clinton and lee iacocco who came up with NAFTA!!!!! Bush sr. never even heard of NAFTA as it was passed.
God what peo[ple with the DLC will do to try and make people forget how terrible Gore really is.
Joe (the nazi) leiberman as his running mate should be enough for anyone to know where al gore stands.
Stop lying or get reading and catch up on your history, cause right now you've got it all wrong.
Al Gore should announce he will run an ad-free campaign; he's the one guy who can pull it off and it would entirely consistent with his new book's argument.
For more, see my article, "The Answer to Bloomberg? Ad-Free Gore!" posted at: http://hankedson.squarespace.com/ad-free-gore/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
See the above link for a transcript of a speech by AL Gore in which he vehemently warns of the dangers of attacking Iraq, and advises against it. He hints at the lack of vision of George Bush and his dangerous willingness to act alone in an endeavor which is sure to have tremendous consequences. This speech was in September of 2002 before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
There is no reason to think Al Gore would have gone to war with Iraq. The war with Iraq was unprovoked and completely random. Who knows what mistakes other people would have made had they been elected instead of George, but no one else would have made this one.
jjohnjj: thank you for speaking up for AL Gore.I can't imagine after this disaster we've had for six years that people can't see what a different world we would live in today if the rightwing Supreme Court hadn't illegally put Moron in the White House.AL Gore would be a great president and he along can get our friend's around the world back very quickly.Gore has the experience the knowledge and the intelligence to run this country the way it should be run.Ralph Nader is a jerk who cost Gore the election by running. Some post say Gore did nothing-what the hell has Nader ever done?
For progressive's, Gore's the One??????
Yea, and Ralph Nader stole the election for Bush too.
I am so sick of this drivel from all these DLC hacks it makes me SICKO, SICKO, SICKO!!!!!! Gore would turn into the same, sorry not turn into, REVERT back to the real Al Gore, which is what the DLC wants him to be. If he was there( as a candidate for the demopublicans) in the first place, it would be because his handler's, (DLC, DLC,DLC, get it yet?) let him get there. If anyone is the candidate for the demopubs, they can't do it without the DLC'S blessing.
We need a second party desperately, but as much as I would love it, and as much as I hate to admit this fact, it's probably not going to happen in my lifetime without a REAL REVOLUTION!!!! Lawyers, Guns & Money, and lots of the latter. The chances of that are about one in 900 billion, trillion, gabazillion etc. to one. The powers that be are so much in control, from the top down, of everything, media, one party system, courts, (thanks to the spineless demopubs again, who will unboubtedly use the courts to say, see, Nader caused this to happen, the courts going far right. It had nothing to do with all the gutless dems just basically saying, what can we do without looking partisan?? My answer to them, "Ask them a couple of questions and DEMAND ANSWERS or don't approve the nomination"!!! How much more straight forward could it be? But, the demopublicans have always been the best at making excuses, because they spend all their time making them instead of taking a stand on ANYTHING!!!) THAT there's nothing to do but try and build a second party and stick to your guns even if only two or three people vote for the candidate. This is the way these things start. If we keep up the "I'd vote for him, but he can't win" insanity, it will keep being a self fulfilling prophesy.
Uh, are you talking about the same Al Gore who mocked Black representatives in Congress fighting the disenfrashisement of voters in their districts in HIS OWN election defeat? Take your meds and get some sleep.
Dkm___ That ticket sounds good to me. I'd go with Gore__ Robin Williams or Kuichine and Gore.
Can't spell for poo.
eshu writes here, as he has written elsewhere, that "The future is with a mass, democratic upsurgence based upon the needs of the working class majority and its allies, or there is no future." I have no crystal ball, so I do not know what the country would look like if Al Gore were president from Jan. 2009 through (at least) Jan. 2013. But one does not need a crystal ball -- one only needs to know the history of mass upsurges "based upon the needs of the working class majority and its allies" -- to know that it is profoundly unlikely that the hope for a decent future lies in any such "upsurge". The allies of history's mass working class upsurges — Robespierre and the reign of terror, Cromwell, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, Mao — these are models for our future hopes? If examples from other countries don't give you pause, what "mass, democratic upsurgence based upon the needs of the working class majority and its allies" does one look to in this country's history as a model for future hope? The burners of the Salem "witches"? The lynch mobs? The followers of Rush Limbaugh? I don't think that the history of any country or people supports the messianic notion that a particular class — working or any other — possesses unique virtue, self-restraint, wisdom or commitment to action that in fact (as opposed to in Orwellian rhetoric) moves forward the common good. There are no saviours — not in a class, not in a race, not in a party. There are good men and women — the vast majority of the people I've known in 65 years of life — who want what is decent. And they are trying desperately to get done all that must be done in order to keep their lives going, so they have very little time to devote to the long, difficult, profoundly un-heady, un-apocalyptic, un-messianic work of bringing good policies into place in towns, states, and the country. It is from those decent people — found in all races, classes, beliefs, peoples — that whatever good future there may be will come forth.
This article says just about everything I've been thinking. I would be ecstatic with either Gore/Obama or Gore/Edwards. I can't think of any other combination that would get me excited enough to haul out my checkbook.
It's ridiculous to think that Gore was against the conquest of Iraq. He was one of the few strong proponent of the first Iraq conquest during Bush I's rule.
The only thing he is against the invasion of Iraq is that we did not bring the UN along. If he was the prez, he would have either prodded NATO go do the invasion after escalating the confrontation by creating another situation that lead to Operation Desert Fox.
Al Gore for President
Yep, I'm in love with Kathyodat and several others.
CoMarc: If you're a man...will you marry me?! Or even if you're a woman?! I think I'm in love!
Funny how politics can draw us all together.....
The perfect progressive is a fantasy. And if there were one, s/he couldn't win the election in the U.S. Trying for perfection, you lose. Try instead for making better. Gore would make better. So would several others.
There is reason now to think Clinton could not win the election. I think there will be reason later to think that Obama would struggle to win. Now why would that be? Edwards, on the other hand, could bring it home.
So, as between likely winners (Gore and Edwards), whom to choose? On balance, I go for Gore and against Edwards on the grounds that Edwards not only voted for the original war resolution, but was a co-sponsor of it. That displayed exceptionally bad judgment. To his credit, I think he would agree.
We'd better start dealing with what's in front of us instead of driving by looking through the rear view mirror.
Folks, umpty-umpt years of Republocrat rule and where the hell are we? They're both corporate lackeys and if you like fascism, keep it up!
It's time (for God's sake) to hike up our boots and screw our courage to the sticking place because unless WE do something other than follow the same broken track, we're dead meat. Don't believe me? Keep it up!
Thank you, Ted Daley for this excellent article on Al Gore. I am surprised that all of the articles on this website are pro Al Gore, but so many of the posts are negative.
Excellent posts by Maska and jjohnjj.
Clinton's Monica incident certainly didn't make it an easy campaign for Al Gore. It is noteworthy that Lieberman spoke out vehemently against Clinton for his philandering while in office. Although I didn't like Gore's unfortunate choice of running mate, I can see why some political strategist/ campaign advisor would suggest Lieberman to balance the taint of Clinton's affair. And what power does a Vice-President really have anyway?
I held my nose for Gore once and I might do it again if he decided to run. He doesn't stink as much as he used to, though that could just be that green bottle of cologne he's been wearing. He's certainly better than Hillary, though he's not really any better than most of the other candidates and probably not as good as a couple of them. (Kucinich springs readily to mind.) Valid points have been made here vis a vis Gore's role (or lack thereof) in the Clinton administration, record in the Senate, unwillingness to truly contest the (s)election of Dubya, etc. However, he truly does seem to be a changed man in many respects and that ought to count for something. His new book is pretty good and if the guy in that movie had run in 2000, the last six years probably would have been very different.
I don't think he's planning to run, though. Once bitten, twice shy and all that. Part of the change in him seems to be a lessening of his ambition for power, perhaps quite liberating for him.
In the end, I guess I'm with Douglas Adams. Anyone who wants to be President doesn't really deserve the job.
Normally, I'm a lurker on this discussion group. But reading the multitude of negative comments about Al Gore as candidate in '08 prompts me to publicly register my view that this article is terrific, and this man offers a vastly superior alternative to all the other presidential hopefuls currently running. The prospect of a Gore candidacy fills me with a joy and hopefulness that I've missed since the Clean for Gene McCarthy days (no, you youngin's wouldn't remember that candidate....) I hope by my commenting and weighing in on the merits of this article by Tad Daley, and supporting what he writes, that I give voice to many other Common Dreams readers who do not share the views of the naysayers. Many who have written here are faithful discussants, but surely there are other voices. If you are like me, many of you were saddened to read the negative comments on this list--comments that reflect a political elitism that will not shape the selection of our next President, and in the end, will be extremely costly to those who are the least among us. I encourage those who appreciated this article to weigh in here and let the naysayers hear the reasoned opinion that exists in support of Mr. Gore. In the overall scheme of things, we could do no better than Al Gore. Our job will be to convince him to run. Where do we get those "Re-Elect Al Gore" bumper stickers???
In a country of 300 million, isn't is possible there's a man or woman out there ready, willing and able to hold the job of President who hasn't been there before? Another Clinton? Gore again? That's all we got?
Gore gave up the fight the first time he won, and no one likes a quitter. If he wants to help us, he should keep doing what he's doing. Meanwhile, it's time for the best and brightest among us to step up and get into the fight.
Since when is being a democratic party member stand for being a progressive?
Is it because the democrats have a radio show called Progressive Radio that gave them this mantle.
It seems to me that radio stations shows said vote Democratic party and things will change so many did and so many are still waiting for change.
That anyone in this country can think a whimp like Gore will change a thing is unbeleivable.
Then again the Democratic party loves being the victim; they play it to the hilt and keep all the whiners paying dues and voting for them.
When Gore was VP his duty was taking care of military needs, his office in fact was strengthend in so many ways that today we have a VP who is actually Present.
I am tired of those who live off of accumulated wealth from familys and that wealth buying their decendents and friends entrance into well paying jobs in the politcal circles that now run this country.
Gore is just as bad a Charlatan as is Pelosi, Hillary, Obamma, Edwards and every Senior el3cted Rep in both houses.
If you want welfare gants for r mainly fedeal employed or high wage earners then vote for either of the two main partys but if you want progress in civil liberties stay away from both of them.
Demo or repub both are repulsive in that they both want you to depend upon them in order to live your lives while they get rich off of your dependency.
It is too bad that the only progressive people today are those
The system is broke and to think Gore who is a product of that system and helped break it and is about as mentally unbalanced as Bush, gore will clean his hands and the button before he pushes it and then afterwards he will again wash his hands.
He is pro war and pro opportunity, hell americans had to pay his livelihood in college speaking fees ever since he was voted out as a failure.
He lived off of clintons without saying a word in disagreement and that alone shws where he lost and left his cajones.
I'd vote for Gore. And be relieved to have the choice.
Al Gore: The once and future president.
Let's face it; Al Gore wrote more books than George W. Bush has read, I can think of two that he has read: "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" and "My Pet Goat".
Is this guy a nutter? Al Gore has never been a progressive, and has never represented progressive values. He's never been anywhere close to a progressive. For anyone who does believe in progressive values, or anything to the left of a center-right, pro-military, pro-corporate, DLC founder Al Gore, a vote for Al Gore is a wasted vote.
The thing that amazes me about this latest, yet-another reincarnation, reframing of Al Gore is that he acts like he's always been some powerless outsider that is suggesting from the sidelines how things can be better. But to believe any of it, you have to forget that Al Gore was one of the most powerful leaders in the country for nearly 15 or so years.
And like with all Democrats, you are far better off judging Al Gore by his track record of what he really does instead of whatever BS he's spouting at any given time.
Al Gore has a record of what he's actually done when he's been first an influential Senator with enough power to be a serious Presidential candidate in 1988, then as Vice President from 1992 to 2000. And Al Gore's track record just screams that he is not and has never been a 'progressive'.
Al Gore was a pro-military Senator who's big issues were support for Reagan's MX 'Peacemaker' nuclear missile, and a campaign to censor art in this country as he and his wife Tipper railed against music lyrics. The Al Gore 1988 campaign had exactly the same place in the Democratic Party spectrum as the Lieberman campaign did in 2004.
And the record of the Clinton\Gore years is also Al Gore's. That's a record of illegal wars and attacks on other countries, support for right-wing terrorist groups, trade agreements that corporations loved but which send hundreds of thousands of good American jobs overseas, anti-terror legislation after a plane exploded from bad wiring in a gas tank, expansion of the death penalty at the federal level, logging riders that gave corporations the ability to destroy what's left of our old growth forests, the first 'jobless recovery'.
Ie, Clinton\Gore did two things. They pretty much protected and kept in place what Reagan\Bush did before them. Not too much done in rolling any of that back. And then they set the stage for the second Bush presidency. Often, the Bush White House cites precedent from the Clinton\Gore years for many of their obnoxious policies.
Al Gore was a FOUNDER of the DLC. Repeat that ... a FOUNDER. In 1988, Al Gore was the first DLC presidential candidate. He's been buddies with Lieberman going way back, and between them they helped start the DLC. It was not mistake or accident that he chose Lieberman as his running mate. Instead, that was the culmination of 20 years of working together.
After his failed Presidential run in 1988, he wrote a book on the environment. After his failed Presidential run in 2000, he made a movie on the environment. But for those who think the movie means anything, they should be very aware of how little he did for the environment after 1992. I fully expect him to again forget the environment should we ever be stupid enough to return him to office.
Al Gore, the progressive's best bet? Christ, if things are that bad we are all just totally screwed.
There's a comment above that I'll paraphrase. If Al Gore gets elected president, forget single-payer health care (which he's never supported), he may get out of Iraq just because only a moron (Dubya) would stay, but you can also bet that an Al Gore presidency will be a big boon to corporate power and dominance. That's where Al Gore has always been politically.
Christ, the BS I see about Al Gore is just amazing.
Gore is a member of the Imperialist Party and helped create the Iraqi Holocaust. Folks touting him remember nothing about history, which is one of the reasons why we're in our current mess--IGNORANCE.
I'm with Vern on this one, possibly it be can be argued that Gore is SOMEWHAT different than the Rethugs and thus a lesser evil, OTH Hilary is not and I will never vote for Hilary. The Dems need to know loud and clear that many of us who are activists will not vote for Hilary but will possible vote for Gore, Obama, or Edwars while obviously preferring Kucinich or Gravel. The Dems will lose if they go with Hilary, she would be heckled by BOTH Limbaugh and Code Pink, think about it Dems and then think again and nominate anyone but Hilary.
If Clinton gets elected there will be no single-payer health care, no end to the war in Iraq, and an increase in corporate power. Foolish Democrats--don't say you weren't warned.
Right on Bildad!
"The fact that you can support the corporate-imperialist duopoly and still call yourselves "progressives" is hypocritical beyond belief"
What bollocks! Al Gore has a track record of decent, honest service to America as a moderate. He's no progressive, and if you doubt it, go look at how Senator Al Gore voted. Look at his tenure as vice president. Besides, any politician who lets an election get stolen from him shouldn't be in charge of anything more serious than high school student government.
He picked Lieberman
He lost debates to a moron like Bush
he didnt protest the 2000 vote
He wont run anyway I bet.
he would rather be known as the guy who would have been president rather than the guy who ran again and lost.
and if its Clinton vs Thompson
the latter just needs to fake his way and he will win.
I dont think people want to go
Bush-Clinton
Bush-Clinton
And all they need is a small terrorist act and most americans will run for the man over a woman as leader.
I'm not going to read these articles or comments anymore unless he announces that he is actually running.
"Gore had his time and did everything wrong..."
You need to read this article again. Al Gore had sixteen successful years in the Congress. Few remember that he ran for the President in 1988. His only mistake was to settle for "president in waiting" rather than running again in 1992.
Try to remember, NAFTA was negotiated and signed by President Bush the First, Clinton worked to supplement it with two labor and environmental treaties - but he couldn't rewrite it... and international diplomacy was never his strong hand.
As Clinton's VP, Gore was a loyal team player. He supported NAFTA and criticized it's defects in public, but he was nearly powerless to stop Bill and Hillary's political bungling - which resulted in the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.
In 2000 he had to run against George Bush AND Bill Clinton's impeachment scandal. Joe Lieberman was a mainstream Democrat before 9/11. He was chosen to geographically balance the ticket. Once the Supreme Court set a deadline for counting the votes in Florida, a statewide recount was out of the question.
I think of Al Gore as "seasoned" by success and failure. Out from under Clinton, he's shown his true colors.
He spoke out against U.S. aggression BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, He's untainted by the 2002 War Authorization Vote, and he endorsed Howard Dean in 2004.
When I look at a candidate, I ask myself two questions, "Does he agree with my views?", and, "Can he persuade others to agree with my views?"
I'm not talking about "electability", I'm talking about leadership. Al Gore has that quality of leadership. He's a big idea thinker AND he can move others to action.
I'd vote for him.
Kucinich and Ron Paul would be my dream team for 2008 and 2012.. I wouldn't even care which one got top billing. The rest of the Dems are shills. Not interested at all in anything they have to say.
RE: HARD TO IMAGINE GORE TURNING CONTRARIAN AND BUCKING THE DLC-DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM...
...but, if he were to, I think the only basis on which he could credibly enter the race - the only plausible justification he could offer in response to the 'what made you do it' questions - would be a) that he stood to the left of the current frontrunner, AND that b) he alone combined this with the experience to be an electable candidate.
And then he'd have to stake out such positions. Essentially, he'd have to carry out the marginally progressive function that he is called upon here to carry out.
Gore's current 'views' aren't the thing, the thing is who he is - it's one thing to weigh in as an outside-practical-politics critic on one issue; it's another to mount an 'upset' campaign that goes against the grain of your centrist go-along background. Gore isn't that person.
Any person who would choose Joe Lieberman (Mr. AIPAC) to be next in charge can't be trusted. I don't care how many documentaries he made and books he wrote.
Kucinich is another Israel apologist. Probably every single person who is or might be running is as well, except perhaps Rep. Ron Paul.
For me, if I decide voting will have ANY meaning at all, the election in 2008 will be a matter of "Who do you TRUST?" As of this moment, the only person I trust is Ron Paul, and that would only be because he wants to abolish The Federal Reserve, create our own currency backed by gold and silver, get out of Iraq, Korea etc. and stop the imperialistic war machine criminality that is currently gripping our country and our lives.
Sure, Ron Paul may think abortion is wrong and should be left up to the states, but he would also respect the states' rights to legalize marijuana for medical use and not fight them. He is solidly for individual freedom which is a top priority to me. He is against "preemptive war" and lots more. It does bother me that Ron Paul does not support single payer national health care, but I'd rather lobby him hard on that matter after we've gotten the Constitution saved from Bush/Cheney! and the other rotten politicians (Republicans AND Democrats!!) currently in power. Remember what Bush said about OUR CONSTITUTION he swore on a Bible to "protect and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic, so help me God."??? "It's just a goddamned piece of paper."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
well said Maska.
Not asking for a recount of the State of Florida is hindsight and although I agree that it would have been a wiser decision the recount of the whole State might not have given Gore the Presidency as there were orwellian forces, including the Supreme Court, out to make sure Bush was placed in the White House. I was disappointed in Gore's lack of ability to move the executive branch toward more effective environmental legislation but unlike Bush Clinton was a micromanager. I would be interested in what Gore has to say about NAFTA but unless he runs it's a moot point.
nwfisher, the reason that Gore lost his home state in 2000 is because Charlton Heston & other NRA bigwigs got everyone stirred up, scaring people into voting Repug.
GORE/KUCINICH 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!
The people touting Al Gore as a progressive alternative have completely forgotten his history in politics. He is a neo-liberal, not a progressive by any stretch of the imagination. His transformation into an environmentalist is his only progressive virtue. Al Gore has never met a corporation or NAFTA-style trade deal he didn't like, and his positions on most other issues are the same as any other DLC clone.
By the way Ted, this article is pure Hillary-style triangulation. We all know that the PDA has one purpose: to keep up the pretense that progressives have a place--aside from under the doormat--within the Democratic Party. This is completely disingenuous. Like Dennis Kucinich, who plays Pied Piper to progressives during the primary season, only to roll over and urge his supporters to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee--who will of course be his political polar opposite, EVEN IF IT IS AL GORE--in the general election, the PDA will choose party over principle every time. You are loyal Democrats first and always. The fact that you can support the corporate-imperialist duopoly and still call yourselves "progressives" is hypocritical beyond belief. And if some of you are still, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, under the delusion that you can change the donkey party from within, you might just as well join "Klansmen Against Racial Bigotry," which is equally ludicrous and has exactly the same chance of success: Zilch!
This is a Red Herring, folks. Don't fall for it.
Gore has proved himself to be the most genuine and free from the lousy powers that be (oil, pharma, war industries). He is not perfect but if we nominate clinton, I think I will leave this country
Concentratin on Gore's assets I think he would bring to the White House what has been needed for a long time, integrity. And, Tipper would surely bring a lot more spunk that the present first lady. Gore would give us a choice so that we don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is what I have been doing these last few years. (I didn't vote for Bush)
Once again: Mr. Gore won the election in 2000, and had neither the courage to defend the rights of the Black voters of Florida who were disenfranchised by the thousands to give Mr. Bush the presidency, or even the basic temerity to defend his victory for its own sake, fearing a "constitutional crisis". Given the reality of the last six years, a constitutional crisis would have been a godsend comparatively speaking, because it would have raised questions of basic democratic procedure.
Second, the party Mr. Gore belongs to has neither the courage or fortitude to build on their victory of last fall, and,rather than rallying their electoral base and encouraging a mass resistance to the war, they've pulled their heads into their shells and whined about how they "don't have the votes" to end the war. Oh,yes they do, it's just that they respect the neo-fascist creeps who dominate u.s. politics more than they do the possibilities of an energized democratic base. They are not our friends.
And all of the above is what precludes any Kucinich candidacy being worth a damn, as Mr. Kucinich has done nothing to rally a democratic base himself. Nor will he.
The future is with a mass, democratic upsurgence based upon the needs of the working class majority and its allies, or there is no future.
Maska: Interesting thoughts.
When opposing Clinton, we often are confronted with the purist argument, suggesting that any D is better than a R. But I don't know, how much better is it for us when the D more closely reflects R policy on the most pressing issues of the day and we can witness these issues not getting a hearing from even the recognized progressive journalists (See John Nichols cheering on Hillary AGAIN in the Nation today). I draw the line with Clinton--vehemently because I can see that that she has that corporate wind in her sails and that she is being set up for us. But Gore represents the possibility of hope and that is light years ahead of the promise of none.
This article is outrageous. Give it rest with this BS about Al Gore being the "one for progressives." He's the one for those who will own him lock, stock, and barrel-- the rich and super rich, and almost surely he's their back up plan to consolidate their control of the US political system by just making it look nicer, but it will be the damn same. This is Mr DLC, ya'll! He's gonna do what his owners want. Gore attacked the Democrats back in 1988 for being too far left for the NRA, KKK, and others of their slime. Once he and his boss, Bill Klanton had the chance they moved the Democrats over to the far right, and he would keep them if he gets to the White House. "Don't get fooled again" by this DLC dawg. Keep him in Tennessee. We don't damn need him. We need a nobody but Kucinich (NBK) movement to force the Democratic big wigs to see they have to have a progressive at the helm of the Democratic national ticket in 2008 to win. It would be a landslide with a decent black progressive running mate.
What wonderful proppaganda corporate money can buy! This blizzard of excrement will continue unabated till either Al Gore and his fixers buy the Dem nomination or someone else (anybody else puhleeze!)wins the nomination in which case (unless it's Kucinich) progressives should vote Green!
Regarding Meg's comment:
------------------------
I do not see how Vice President Al Gore is either progressive or charismatic. He is neither. He spent 8 years in the White House and did NOTHING.
---------------------
I may be opening myself up to a trip out to the woodshed with this one, but exactly what has any other vice president in recent history accomplished ? - Aside from Cheney - who has arguably accomplished more (albeit all bad) then any other VP in history.
I wasn't aware that Americans required so much from their VPs .......
the world, yes the world, needs Gore to run.
The fanatical NAFTA supporter...the man who gave the speech that killed Kyoto...is the hope of liberals ?
Because he made a movie ? Did he even mention in his movie the environmental disaster that his NAFTA is ?
You can lesser-evilism yourself into fascism if you want, forever moving to the right. It won't stop with lesser-evilism. The Democrats will never pay due respect to liberals until we prove to them that we are not in their pocket...as the Christian Nazis are in the pocket of the Republicans.
Where is Gore's public apology for 8 years of Republican politics ? For betraying the core Democratic Party principles and values ? Where's Gore's apology for his part in turning the Democratic Party into the other corporate party, and abandoning the people ?
Nader 2008
I miss the big lug.
I would much rather if Gore took the nomination from Hillary. But ultimately, I think there is about a forty percent chance that the election won't be canceled or fraudulently stolen by the right again. It is quite a risk to run opposing the current administration.
A couple of random thoughts about Mr. Gore and progressives:
First, it seems to me that we sometimes forget that when Al Gore was VP, the occupant of the White House was bright (which is not to say correct in his policies), tough, and above all, in charge--very much unlike the current situation. Cheney may be calling the shots now, but Gore clearly was not.
One can take Gore to task for not resigning on principle, I suppose, if he disagreed with Clinton on policy, but until all records from the period become public or until Gore writes a "tell all" book, we'll probably never know to what extent they were in agreement.
Second, it strikes me that we on the left demand a pretty high level of purity in our candidates. There aren't many virgins in politics--even left of center politics.
Strangely enough for people who value open mindedness and flexibility in people, we progressives are quick to discount the possibility that people may grow and change in their views and approach to life. How many of us hold exactly the same views or behave in exactly the same way we did in the year 1992 or even 2000?
As a conservationist of forty years' standing who believes that global warming is the defining issue of our time, I hope Gore throws his hat into the ring and brings our critical situation to the forefront of the primary debate. Even if he doesn't win, he will have performed a priceless service to the planet and its inhabitants--human and non-human.
Maybe this time he can carry his home state (if he had Florida wouldn't have mattered).
Al Gore eats the other candidates up for breakfast....Make no mistake about it...
Al Gore/Kucinich 2008
Gore/Nader 2008
Al Gore for Fearless Leader...
I do not see how Vice President Al Gore is either progressive or charismatic. He is neither. He spent 8 years in the White House and did NOTHING.
Many also see him as being robbed of his rightful place--or have come to regret the Bush years.
In my observation he has the broadest most unifying appeal. I can support Gore. I can not support Clinton. Even Nader stated that Gore is now being a "good citizen".
Mr. Daly,
So, are you suggesting that Gore underwent some kind of miraculous conversion to the cause since 2000? Because, in 2000, he exhibited no qualities that would make me vote for him.
I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb in predicting that we will see a return to the good old milquetoastery-in-service-of-corporate power if Gore becomes a candidate.
The support of Gore from rich Israel-loving people from Hollywood does nor impress me either.
An interesting read, but I have to say if Gore enters the race, I'd be very suspect of anything he has to say. How hard does one have to say they will not run for president before the media leaves them alone?
In 2000, I voted for Nader. If I wasn't in a safe state (for Republicans), perhaps I'd have chosen differently. But Gore was not that impressive as an environmentalist in 8 years as vice-president (and the article here touts his experience over Obama, so it is a relevant point). He fought a terrible battle against Bush to win the election (why the hell wouldn't you go for a state wide recount from the beginning?). If he contradicts himself completely and runs now, I'd guess I'd think about it if it means preventing Clinton from winning the nomination, but it sure doesn't excite me. I like Kucinich best. I was very disappointed Warner and Feingold didn't run.
Dara Parsavand
If you care about humans and other endangered species - It has to be Gore.
America and the World need Al Gore.
Kali: I have read similar comments like yours, that Gore walked away from the presidency like a coward.
I'm confused, it had gone to our Supreme Court and Bush was declared the winner in Florida; therefore, he was the winner of the presidential election. My question to eleviate my confusion is this. What higher court was available for Gore to appeal to, was it us, God, what or who? Could he wait for a recount? Any attempt for a recount would have been nullified by brother Bush and the State Attorney General.
Gore walked because there was no other viable option for him, or for the Democratic party, or for the people who had elected him to the presidency. And that is how it was___ and is.
I think that Gore has had time to learn in the last 6 years. The horrors of the present global situation have begun to fit together now in a way that wasn't yet so clear in the 90s. Once Gore was out of official politics he has had time to focus in on what was behind the accelerated pace of global warming.
He clearly saw its relation to oil based capitalist expansion. From there he would have connected the dots to the Iraq invasion and "enduring" occupation, and subsequent imperial policy. He would also be familiar with the immenance of peak oil and the unsustainability of that imperial policy and the increasingly disasterous consequences of trying to maintain it.
Like so many of us, Gore would have gone through a learning process. The more the general pattern becomes clear the more all the disparate political and economic developments are seen to fit together as interrelated expressions of that pattern. He would see that it is the whole pattern based in the US led drive for global hegemony that is charging the world to disaster. As with any rational person as president he would put all his efforts into changing that pattern, including throwing off his previous neoliberalism.
We can't live without any hope. Gore offers that hope and stands a very good chance of getting the chance as president.