Illuminati...

Come on, get real will ya?

annemarie j:
Thank you for your vote however I would try to refocus the discussion back to the basic premis of our democracy which is that we are a representative government. We, the people, are the government. Presidents and other elected officials are the people's instuments. We, the people, rule, not the elected ones. It is for us to reclaim that point of view and disregard the propaganda that proclaims that our representatives hold power. Which candidate represents you best? Give that one your vote, but also your voice and your questions and your criticism and your complaints. Our representatives are not knights we send to joust as we sit in the stands and cheer. They are part of our group, chosen by us to say our words. Politicians are Us! At least, as the founders of our democracy imagined it. It is not so important to hear what the candidates say as it is for them to hear what we say. If we cannot get that right, then we are giving away our power and with it, our democracy.

bush is illuminati...gore is illuminati.. and the rest of us are CHATTELS...

This country of millions and millions has two viable political parties; republicans and democrats. We don't have a political arena, we have been conditioned to reducing life to win and lose, "yea team" win one for the Gipper.
People spend millions to get a job that pays thousands. We watch steriod eating, overpaid jocks play games, and attribute life and death importance to the outcome of these games.
George Orwell was prescience.
If Gore runs, he will lose any respect I have for him now.

If anyone can use my website or items in any capacity, to build hype of even fundraising, please check them out and contact me. I know the Superman metaphor rings true to so many people, so I ran with it. Shameless plug warning:

http://www.supergore.com

Regardless, congratulations to Al Gore, and hopefully this is the last domino to fall in anticipation of his candidacy.

And who still beleives this global warming scare mongering, whats so different with saying to me be scared of those crazy muslims or be scared of those scary rising seas, politicians hide problems they do not try to solve them, and they especially dont tell the public, here is my theory, copyrighted-the earth is sick and is healing herself, she is not dying, what happens when humans get sick, oh yeah we get a fever, do we overheat and die, no,

Love the Stalinist art portrait maybe it could be the cover art for his official autobiography (working title: My Fight)

(Fred Thompson could get a similar portrait and call his official autobiography working title: Law and Order.)

People,
Lyndon Johnson once said of J. Edgar Hoover, "I´d rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in." Gore is far more effective from the outside but remember this, the above poster who referenced the CounterPunch articles is absolutely right. Gore as a politician would become yet again, another hypocritical politician. Even staying away you can count on him endorsing the Dem candidate "wholeheartedly" which probably means Her Royal Clinton.

The point here is that, as I have written a number of times before, "You can´t get the system you want by voting for people who don´t want that system."

We need to jettison the Electoral College, implement some form of Proportional Representation in order to get a true multiparty system and elect as often as possible non Dems or Reps in Congress so they can begin caucusing to the Left of the Dems so called "Progressive caucus". Kucinich will fold like sheet of tracing paper and endorse (like he did last time) the Dem candidate.

The only progressive party with any structure and statewide organizational ability and chance is the Greens and on this issue of Gore and the environment (plus the war and the other electoral issues I mentioned above) they have always been right. Get behind them and vote. Then hit the streets and as often as possible protest the insanity of continuous war and political disenfranchisement. A President Obama, Edwards or Clinton (or even a President Gore) will neither stop the American imperial project nor fully democratize our system so that 49% of our electorate is always disenfranchised. (Under a "two-party" system) Get your act together. We need change.

Gore got the Prize.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7041082.stm

Run, Al, Run!!!

Clinton/Gore '08

I don't think its a matter of "half a loaf is better than none". When you read the science you realize that global warming is the major problem from which all others stem. It is directly related to overpopulation, resource depletion, money-power concentration, lack of healthcare and education, environmental pollution, crime, war, plagues, immigration, political corruption and just about everything else that's wrong with our world.

As Gore taught in "An Inconvenient Truth", to address global warming means that we have to address all of the above. That is why his candidacy is vehemently opposed by the polluters and beserkers that are causing global warming. That he happens to be the foremost exponent of this problem alone makes him the most suitable candidate.

We would be naive to think that Republican shills and even conservative Democrats opposed to Gore would never post divisive comments on this forum. I apologize to progressives with sincere objections to Gore. But I hope you will consider that he would be our strongest candidate by far, and the best for these times.

Who's delusional enough to positively compare the Bush/Cheney administration against Clinton-Gore's? During Clinton we had seven consecutive years of growth, low unemployment and inflation, NO WARS (yes, we bombed the Serbs because they were massacreing their neighbors like the Waffen SS!), and a budget surplus of $200 billion that Bush went through like shit through a goose! Al Gore was for NAFTA which turned out to be a mistake but I was for it, too, at the time. The 1996 Telecommunications Act (coupled with the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1988) has lead to so many Rushbo clones and Faux News, another mistake. But the only positive thing I can think that Bush has done is extend daylight savings! At every turn there is tight secrecy in the White House; corporate favoritism on tax cuts; no-bid contracts to cronies; union-busting; no federal support of stem-cell research; institutionalized bigotry; relentless smears of dissenters; arrests of peaceful protestors; high fuel and gas prices; more illegal immigration than ever, financial ruination of families from skyrocketing health costs; stricter bankruptcy law; suspended habeas corpus; uncontrolled wiretapping; runaway pollution; lower drinking water standards; ignored New Orleans; censorship of scientists...and I haven't even mentioned that festering, stinking occupation in Iraq that's bleeding us dry.

Call Al Gore "Establishment" or call him "Loser." But the guy has reinvented himself as the world's foremost advocate for preserving our world. So he lives in a big house, who really cares? He is the only prominent American with a real chance to win next year with a grass roots support as never seen before. With Gore it's not just a matter of shifting parties; it will be a whole paradigm shift that could regain our respect as leaders of the free world.

annemarie: I respectfully decline your nomination, but I'll gladly be part of facilitating throwing all of them out. :D

bigchange: actually, what i said is this:

::I hate saying this…but here goes:

People in the US have been programmed to think that being "presidential" means having at least a bit of the hardass about you. Kucinich is anything but that - which is one of the things I personally like about him; but even when he tries to act assertive, he comes off like a leftie version of Ned Flanders. I see him trying though, and (here comes I hate saying this part) that's probably good, 'cause until he can stand up to that degree of assertiveness without compromising his principles, he's gonna get sidelined. Perhaps he should take some coaching from Al Sharpton… ;-D::

I didn't say he's not assertive, I said people are programmed to not recognize him as such. Personally, I think the whole "looking presidential" thing is disgusting - it's rooted in rugged individualism, imperialism, and so on - but I think people are told that's what being a president means so much that they start to believe it. If you've got any suggestions as to how to undo that thinking between now and the primaries, by all means, speak up. At present, I'm aiming more for the point when the hypnotic allure of Clinton-Obama-Edwards...Clinton-Obama-Edwards...Clinton-Obama-Edwards...say it with me, you are getting very sleepy, and your 401k is sliding back into your pocket...wears off, and folks realize they're being had.

"Let him remain an activist, and let's keep this all in balance. Gore's NOT a silver bullet."

Agreed, Stilba.

Election fraud gave the presidency to the fascist party candidate in 2000 and 2004; but you people don't think that will happen again? Or you don't think that the Supreme Court, now even more far-right than in 2000, won't deny Gore the position a second time if they get the chance. We don't need a new president; we need a new government and a new constitution, one that guarantees an equal distribution of wealth, one that guarantees nonprofit healthcare, free college education, guaranteed housing, biodiversity, sustainable, green, non-nuclear energy, equal rights for all minorities including LGBT people, fair elections...

Ok. That's it. I've decided. I'm voting for Restive.... Or maybe Arya...Can I vote for both of them? Please? Both of their posts are brilliant. Thank you mucho :)

restive October 11th, 2007 2:16 pm

As it is every time, this whole thing is a farce. "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal." I'm not saying this from despair, though - just a clear assessment of the system. Everything under capitalism, from voting to paying taxes to you name it - is there for one reason: to keep us part of this latter day slaveship called the "free market". Where are the candidates who talk about that? Where are the ones who criticize the presidency as a means of holding plutocratic and oligarcical power? Who is speaking truth to power at a deep enough level to make the walls shake? That's what I'm talking about.

What I don't hear from most of you is a desire to vote strategically, in a way that represents the values that are by definition not a part of either party. What I do hear is a truckload of "My pre-determined, pre-packaged democratic party multi-million dollar coffers candidate is the answer, because republicans are scary monsters", which is exactly *not* the way to utilize voting as a tool. Show me someone who actually wants to change the system, not just make it more fair (which in my view, isn't possible), then we'll talk. Examples, for reference: Gore Vidal, Arundhati Roy, Flavio Sosa.

--------
#
Arya October 11th, 2007 5:31 pm

To Jeffrey Courion:
You stated this:
"I simply feel we need to empower ourselves — connect and encourage ourselves in greater ways — and what will emerge will somehow take hold as it has in the past."
I am reminded of Dr. Seuss' story of Yertle the Turtle and how Mack, the turtle at the bottom of the stack, decided to shift his position. Yertle fell. It was a lesson "Seuss" learned from the fall of Hitler. And is one that all people who find themselves "supporting" oppressors can take a lesson from; that until we shift our positions, our consent is the foundation upon which oppressors build empires. I think that it is also about connecting with others that strengthens this shift. Roberta Flack sang a song, called Go Up Moses, in which one of the lines was, "Just wake up one morning and say, 'Bye Pharaoh, honey." When individuals can each begin to shift out from under the hierarchical stack and then join with others who are also saying goodbye to their pharaohs, perhaps they will destabilize the tower. What will "take hold" after this shift and ensuing connection may be something new, perhaps an awareness that all humanity has a common threat, like rapid climate change. Perhaps we will be able to survive it if we re-learn to cooperate, rather than to compete; to heal, rather than to hord. In the film, The Power of One, there is this line: "Inclusion, rather than exclusion, is the key to surival." I think that it is inclusive thinking that will weaken the current power structure, it will be systems that over come machines.I think that the people, the Macks, hold the power to change our culture. We are the change we seek.

--------------------

I have nothing to add, you two have said it all, for me. :)

Let's try again:

--Since a Gore candidacy is Republican's worst nightmare, I can't help but think that many here have exposed themselves as Republican shills, looking to sow discord among progressives who support Gore in a large majority.--

Given the current workings of the Democratic Party controlling Congress, which rubber stamps Bush's power grabs and war mongering almost as reliably as the former Republican controlled Congress did, I can't help but think that those who long for more Democratic control instead of true representation of the wishes of most U.S. citizens have become shills for the fascist agenda long promoted by the neocons who have been guiding domestic and international policy for the past several years. That many of these people can still believe themselves to be "progressives" while clinging to a party that furthers the Republican's core agenda is both ironic and disheartening.

Does Gore of any of the leading Democratic presidential contenders support:

- An end to funding the illegal occupation of Iraq? Nope.

- A firm refusal to allow the invasion of Iran now being hyped by the White House? No, of course not.

- The halting of all presidential appointments until habeas corpus, Constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure, and other fundamental rights are restored? Uh uh, they won't even whisper such thoughts.

- Pursuing impeachment of Bush and Cheney for the multiple high crimes, thus finally putting an end to their plans to dig us into a deeper and deeper hole? No, not that either!

I mean, really, this is the supposedly left leaning party that couldn't even find the backbone not to jump in with the Republicans who were condemning MoveOn in both the House and Senate for having run an ad that raised honest concerns about the spin that a general with presidential aspirations of his own was putting on an illegal invasion to dress it up as some sort of war that not only could be won but is being "won," when anyone aware of the basic facts (like, um, it is an occupation and, as such, can and should not have a "winner") should no better.

And where was The Great Gore on that matter of peace and leadership? Ducking the issue as usual while championing a safe cause like global warming, which only the most rabid, anti-reality zealots on the right actually oppose doing something about. Gosh, how could we possibly do better than to vote for four more years of that sort of "leadership"? Oh, yeah, that approach will surely turn things around!

SHEESH!

Don't you just love irony?
Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize. How about this one. Henry Kissinger for it? Oh, they gave it to him already?

Al Gore: oversaw the genocidal sanctions of Iraq during the Clinton years.
oversaw the mass murders in Kosovo by NATO forces.
oversaw the regime change law for Iraq, giving Bush the go ahead for the invasion.

How about this: Al Gore for war crimes' trial at the Hague.

--Since a Gore candidacy is Republican's worst nightmare, I can't help but think that many here have exposed themselves as Republican shills, looking to sow discord among progressives who support Gore in a large majority.--

Given the current workings of the Democratic Party controlling Congress, which rubber stamps Bush's power grabs and war mongering almost as reliably as the former Republican controlled Congress did, I can't help but think that those who long for more Democratic control instead of true representation of the wishes of most U.S. citizens have become shills for the fascist agenda long promoted by the neocons who have been guiding domestic and international policy for the past several years. That many of these people can still believe themselves to be "progressives" while clinging to a party that furthers the Republican's core agenda is both ironic and disheartening.

Does Gore of any of the leading Democratic presidential contenders support:

- An end to funding the illegal occupation of Iraq? Nope.

- A firm refusal to allow the invasion of Iran now being hyped by the White House? No, of course not.

- The halting of all presidential appointments until habeas corpus, Constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure, and other fundamental rights are restored? Uh uh, they won't even whisper such thoughts.

- Pursuing impeachment of Bush and Cheney for the multiple high crimes, thus finally putting an end to their plans to dig us into a deeper and deeper hole? No, not that either!

I mean, really, this is the supposedly left leaning party that couldn't even find the backbone not to jump in with the Republicans who were condemning MoveOn in both the House and Senate for having run an ad that raised honest concerns about the spin that a general with presidential aspirations of his own was putting on an illegal invasion to dress it up as some sort of war that not only could be won but is being "won," when anyone aware of the basic facts (like, um, it is an occupation and, as such, can and should not have a "winner") should no better.

And where was The Great Gore on that matter of peace and leadership? Ducking the issue as usual while championing a safe cause like global warming, which only the most rabid, anti-reality zealots on the right actually oppose doing something about. Gosh, how could we possibly do better than to vote for four more years of that sort of "leadership"? Oh, yeah, that approach will surely turn things around!

SHEESH!

::hope you will consider that he would be our strongest candidate by far, and the best for these times.::

Well, this poster has already said their mind - but in sum, the kind of candidate that I personally would support would be one that is about transforming the system and being part of creating a more just world. Please understand though that it's my view that the system itself is designed to prevent anybody who would dare to implement lasting, positive change from ever holding power. Does this mean that I have no hope for change at all? Far from it - I think we're the change we're looking for. The challenge is to make others aware of that fact - and from that place, start to act constructively.

restive,

You think Kucinich is "anything but" assertive?! Compared to what? Check out his performance at the AFL-CIO debate. Or a speech from a Green Festival. Or the recent interview on the Ed Schultz show. Or the Judy Woodruff interview on Jim Leher. www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1AhaH1ozbg
I call that assertive.

and nickhart,

I know you fault Kucinich for being in the Dem party, fair enough. But you've got to be a little cynical to think his position on abortion has changed for political reasons. I find that hard to believe because none of his other positions have been based on what's popular at that moment, as far as I can tell. Taking the principled, despite being unpopular, position is something he's done often. Saying he will cancel the Federal death penalty is just one example. He is firmly pro-choice, and a huge advocate for equal rights in general (see supporting marriage equality for gays and lesbians).

Don't get too cynical. The bad guys are counting on cynicism breeding apathy.

There are a few leaders out there who are genuine and un-bought, and Kucinich is one of the best of them.

::Since a Gore candidacy is Republican's worst nightmare, I can't help but think that many here have exposed themselves as Republican shills, looking to sow discord among progressives who support Gore in a large majority.::

The reason that some of us *on the left* don't have faith in the system is that it doesn't work. I don't know if the "Republican shills" that you're talking about include yours truly, but if so...you can forget about it, I'm as left as they come. All I said was if people who were cheering Al Gore had as much faith in themselves as they did in him, we'd be getting somewhere - as in, a movement.

Also, what makes you think that all progressives think that a Gore candidacy is a good idea? While he's clearly better than the front-runners imo, there are legitimate criticisms to be offered up, and as a presidential candidate he should be - and I think he is able to (I hope) stand up to those criticisms.

It sounds like what you want is people on the bandwagon - and if not, you plan to effectively snitch-jacket them. Please don't resort to such tactics - all it does is give the powers-that-be more power.

Since a Gore candidacy is Republican's worst nightmare, I can't help but think that many here have exposed themselves as Republican shills, looking to sow discord among progressives who support Gore in a large majority.

I keep meaning to send Al a reminder - Dude, we elected you once already - oh yes we did!! YOU OWE US A PRESIDENCY! Now, have a nice Nobel Prize Winner party and then get on the ball.
That you have fallen out of love with politics has only made me fall in love with you more!! Damn it, Al!

PJD,

I urge you to be firm on your issues. Only a repug posts a "For Sale" sign on their vote.

Wheeling and dealing with other peoples' rights to get a little satisfaction in some kind of stupid popularity contest is a deplorable excuse for any human being.

Kucinich is the only choice right now. Gore may get into it. It's better to have two possible choices than one. Remember that the next time you start advocating limiting choices just to get your boy in.

Arya!

Beautiful! Tremendous mountains do shift because of the acts of a few rocks residing far from the top. We must never forget this -- no matter how hopeless we feel. Never, ever underestimate the power and influnece that each of us possesses -- as this is what the powerful and self-appointed rulers and the religions they have imposed yearn to hide from us!

Look, in 2000, President Gore did what he thought was right...To put an end to a leadership crisis, he put the country's stability over his own desire to be President. He is not psychic, and didn't know that 9/11 would come, or that Bush would turn out to be such a horrible misleader. I was moved to tears by his speech following the Supreme Court's insane ruling. He is not a saint and doesn't walk on water. To my knowledge, he's never claimed to be anything more than a public servant. He is the potential leader with the most heart, knowledge, and integrity. He will always be my President, whether he runs or not. But I wish he would give it one more try. I'd be honored to vote for him again, win or lose.

"With Gore it's not just a matter of shifting parties; it will be a whole paradigm shift that could regain our respect as leaders of the free world."

Clinging to the notion that the presidency of the USA comes with a thrown from which the "free" world is led is not only a self contradictory concept, it is the very heart of the growing resentment and disrespect for the U.S. throughout the world, free or not. You won't find Gore making that point, however. His is a vision of a less menacing empire, but a menacing, overbearing empire nonetheless. That is not a vision on which to build a peaceful and prosperous future, especially when so many of the weapons of the empire have been squandered and so many allies have been alienated.

To Jeffrey Courion:
You stated this:
"I simply feel we need to empower ourselves — connect and encourage ourselves in greater ways — and what will emerge will somehow take hold as it has in the past."
I am reminded of Dr. Seuss' story of Yertle the Turtle and how Mack, the turtle at the bottom of the stack, decided to shift his position. Yertle fell. It was a lesson "Seuss" learned from the fall of Hitler. And is one that all people who find themselves "supporting" oppressors can take a lesson from; that until we shift our positions, our consent is the foundation upon which oppressors build empires. I think that it is also about connecting with others that strengthens this shift. Roberta Flack sang a song, called Go Up Moses, in which one of the lines was, "Just wake up one morning and say, 'Bye Pharaoh, honey." When individuals can each begin to shift out from under the hierarchical stack and then join with others who are also saying goodbye to their pharaohs, perhaps they will destabilize the tower. What will "take hold" after this shift and ensuing connection may be something new, perhaps an awareness that all humanity has a common threat, like rapid climate change. Perhaps we will be able to survive it if we re-learn to cooperate, rather than to compete; to heal, rather than to hord. In the film, The Power of One, there is this line: "Inclusion, rather than exclusion, is the key to surival." I think that it is inclusive thinking that will weaken the current power structure, it will be systems that over come machines.I think that the people, the Macks, hold the power to change our culture. We are the change we seek.

What is the point of arguing about this again? We don't live in a democracy anyway, so what does it matter who or what we vote for?

Yes, that poster really does have an "old-school" Soviet flavor. It probably plays well in Central America... but wouldn't do too well in Middle America.

I'd vote for Gore. Sure, he's the offspring of The Establishment - but so was Franklin Roosevelt. Yeah, he ran with Lieberman in 2000 - but that was for "geographic" balance. Like Carter-Mondale and Reagan-Bush.

He came out early against the invasion in 2002, and early for Dean in 2004, and he's untainted by the October 2002 War Powers Vote.

However, at this point, He can't run unless Mrs. Clinton falls victim to a Dean-style flameout... I don't see how he could avoid looking like a spoiler otherwise.

Being untainted makes him a very good candidate for Secretary of State.

Better than Bush and his creep crew? Probably. But remember, this is the guy that threathened south africa with economic sanctions after it started using generic drugs to treat aids patients, in a country where aids is at an epidemic state... Were the Clinton Years really much better than the Bush years? Yugoslavia, attacks on sudan, afghanistan... A bit better, ill agree, but only superficially, besides, say, a couple of things like women's right issues.

To me the big difference was in posturing, Clinton the soft spoken, after the school shootings in Columbine, says "We must teach our children to solve conflicts with words, not weapons" then he turns around and bombs the shit out of Serbia.

With the Bushites its more of an Ash-like mentality (from evil dead) where he asks countries "Who wants some? you? YOU?"

Kuchinich would make a nice president of the US, but hey, the moon would look fine in my backyard, too.

What's with that poster of Gore by the Draft Gore people? Looks like they are trying to turn him into a revolutionary, a camo-shirt and 30lbs lighter. I don't think so.

::Homage to Catalonia::

A great place to start, indeed. Thanks.

In support of restive's warning about what can happen when we "support opportunists", as happened in the Spanish Civil War, the best place to start is with Orwell's "Homage To Catalonia".
The left's infighting and betrayal was capitalized on by the fascist's, who eventually won. A cautionary tale.

As I am somewhat in a mix -- I am torn by what I see and experience. Vern -- you are on the mark, we can never sever ourselves from politics -- nor should we. To do so is to abandon ourselves and the life meaning that is derived by being in service to what is greater than ourselves. Yet, the current game is so detatched -- appears so irrelvant to our lives and addressing worldly needs that sustain life -- let alone dignity.

The "system" seems to be going through an implosion -- a myopic, if not blinded vacuum that sucks into itself -- and so seeks to self its own survival -- at the expense of the greater whole. Leaving life and our world to the powers and decisions of the Bushes and Clintons (and others) is not an option -- if we choose life -- let alone dignity.

I simply feel we need to empower ourselves -- connect and encourage ourselves in greater ways -- and what will emerge will somehow take hold as it has in the past -- sort of like a snake shedding its old skin of its former life. Clintons and Bushes, etc. -- all cling to that skin.

My point is the skin is dead -- the real politics of a future acknowledges that skin but also lets it shed -- and at the same time works to feed and inspire the thriving and living cells that empower a workable and livable future life. We need to now empower visionary leadership -- work to give it greater voice.

My two cents.

Jeffrey Courion - I enjoyed your writing. However, you say

"Those who have made profound differences in our culture have rarely ever occupied position. They knew that if you have "position" you are enslaved by the trappings. Making a difference is speaking and serving from your heart."

That's true, but I think Al Gore has passed this stage - he has been speaking and serving from the heart, on climate change and other matters for a while now. There's not a great deal more he can do now without political power. He can advise, plan and argue, but that's all - is it enough?

If the issues were not so serious, and could wait, I'd be inclined to agree with you that Gore is best out of politics, but that's not the case. The issues are too serious.

Beautifully written, Jeffrey Courion, but i'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting, like Katha Pollitt at the Nation suggested to Cindy Sheehan, that she was more effective as an activist on the outside? Or, as some suggest, Nader only helps Republicans via third party threats? In essence, what this argument suggests is that we should leave the ultimate levers of power and influence to the Bush-Clintons? Politics is not seperate from our lives--it is all about our lives, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

>Not Clinton's version of what being "hardass" is, thanks.

Well, I didn't say I support her... *winks*

My point is people are acculturated to responding to that - being grating is besides the point as far as that goes. I mean, listen to Guiliani - he's grating as all get out, and he's still popular, god help us all.

None of which is to say that I think voting for HRC is a good call. Anybody who has Madeleine Albright on her campaign staff...I mean, hell.

(...)

Wait a second. This whole thing is absurd, I can't believe that I'm falling for this yet again.

As it is every time, this whole thing is a farce. "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal." I'm not saying this from despair, though - just a clear assessment of the system. Everything under capitalism, from voting to paying taxes to you name it - is there for one reason: to keep us part of this latter day slaveship called the "free market". Where are the candidates who talk about that? Where are the ones who criticize the presidency as a means of holding plutocratic and oligarcical power? Who is speaking truth to power at a deep enough level to make the walls shake? That's what I'm talking about.

What I don't hear from most of you is a desire to vote strategically, in a way that represents the values that are by definition not a part of either party. What I do hear is a truckload of "My pre-determined, pre-packaged democratic party multi-million dollar coffers candidate is the answer, because republicans are scary monsters", which is exactly *not* the way to utilize voting as a tool. Show me someone who actually wants to change the system, not just make it more fair (which in my view, isn't possible), then we'll talk. Examples, for reference: Gore Vidal, Arundhati Roy, Flavio Sosa.

Now, as for Kucinich: well, maybe. I think peeps voting for him need to realize that he is probably not going to win - and further, if getting seats is what you want to be a part of make happen, then keep focusing on local elections, as part of building a movement that is strong enough to elect not only someone like Kucinich, but strong enough to have 10 people waiting in the wings to replace him when their plane mysteriously crashes, if you get my drift. Further, I think the time for a revolt within the Democratic Party has long since passed, at best.

The thing about this though is that a movement that is strong enough to do that wouldn't need a president, which begs the question: who needs a government when the populace is awake enough to empower themselves? And to answer that question, I recommend this book, it's about the revolution in Argentina: http://www.akpress.org/2006/items/horizontalism.

I heard the audio of a Gore speech outlining what has gone wrong with the country and particularly the administration's war against the constitution. He was extremely eloquent, saying what no one else has had the guts to as they pussy-foot around the 800lb gorilla. It was truth and reality, and passion. He was nothing like he was in the 2000 campaign. He has matured and gained a voice that everyone can hear. I have never heard anything so real.

Contrast that to Hillary's harsh, grating voice as she dances around and equivocates over every hard question... the resentment in her voice clearly heard that anyone would dare question her over her positions. Gah! I hear no inspiration there.

Years ago, I thought that to make a difference one should roll up the sleeves and try to work within the system to turn it around and bring it into greater awareness. I used to work for Cong. Allard Lowenstein and was shaped by the generation of Martin, Malcom, Eleanor, Ceasar and Bobby -- all who had dreams and visions and were about civil process for bringing about social change.

Well, here we are. Now living in a radiclly different world where the center stage of civic life has been kidnapped by cold capitalism, overt predatory agendas and "Brave New World" processes that would bring envy to the most controlling and cruel of 18th Century monarchs.

Our system is a whole new game -- whose reality is being radically re-framed not in accordance to the ever-evolving democratic philosophy of our founders -- but in a U-turn formation by the authors of a tightly controlled New World Order in which the human spirit is to submit and align.

Within the system it's an agenda for power. The current candidates are more like wrinked, bent-over and out-of-touch, former high-school yell-kings and prom queens -- doing public relations work for a former high school overgrown with weeds and abandoned, broken buildings.

Outside that dead and dying sphere is the potential for influencing and inspiring real, everyday people who are in touch with life. This is where the current hope and future potential resides. Like blades of grass that grow from the cracks in the huge concrete slabs -- this is where the ground is fertile and the future can be built.

For Al Gore to run and to invest ourselves in such a candidacy -- is further, false investment in cold cement. He has been more effective outside. Sometimes, it's better to stay outdoors and create in the open space and fresh air (as fresh as is currently possible). The halls of palaces are forever smoke-filled, stuffy -- and dimly lit! Those who have made profound differences in our culture have rarely ever occupied position. They knew that if you have "position" you are enslaved by the trappings. Making a difference is speaking and serving from your heart.

Better to be somewhat distant -- yet fully aware of all the current crap and stupid, power players -- and help create a future for those who really want to play and live. Remember, that those enveloped by dispair and hopelessness were the ones who came up with the sayings of things like "Keep your eye on the prize!"

In our current world, we have no choice but to keep our focus just as clear.

Not Clinton's version of what being "hardass" is, thanks. Kucinich can be like a little pit bull when he wants to be--and he is funny too, but he is a bit too new agey to the point that peace almost becomes a gimmick and he shies away from really controvercial topics like Israel for the peacey lightweight airy stuff. I don't know, I guess we are looking for someone on a mission, but not someone like Hillary who thinks it is proving that she can wave a dick. After all, all that macho bluster is what brung us to the edge of the cliff.

::Your dream is Kucinich, perhaps mine is too–in fact I don't find Kucinich assertive enough sometimes.::

I hate saying this...but here goes:

People in the US have been programmed to think that being "presidential" means having at least a bit of the hardass about you. Kucinich is anything but that - which is one of the things I personally like about him; but even when he tries to act assertive, he comes off like a leftie version of Ned Flanders. I see him trying though, and (here comes I hate saying this part) that's probably good, 'cause until he can stand up to that degree of assertiveness without compromising his principles, he's gonna get sidelined. Perhaps he should take some coaching from Al Sharpton... ;-D

Hillary may be polling well because she sounds like she's got her s*** together, as well as being an incumbent co-president. Note that I said she *sounds* that way - to my mind and my values, there's nothing more flaky than wanting to bomb Iran; but if CD posters and such were the ones swaying the election at present, well...Hillary wouldn't be able to get elected to the school board, let alone the presidency.

The point is you can not use Gore's past against him now if you do not attack Kucinich in the same manner for his past positions as well.
It is only fair.

Don't say "my Kerry". I detested him and his soldier boy act. You are making the mistake of drawing conclusions with a nasty little edge.
The point I was making is that if your agenda is to find a flaw, you can find one for anyone. Your dream is Kucinich, perhaps mine is too--in fact I don't find Kucinich assertive enough sometimes. But under the present conditions, it is a prohibitive climate as you, yourself, attest to. In the same manner that Clinton curries favor to win--lining up powerful interests, intent on backing their own puppet,Kucinich's truth to power becomes his own political liability. Clinton is an assured step backwards, Gore, at least, garners international admiration, represents the potential for a step forward. Is it asking to much for a step forward in the real world? In real time? Soon, if not now?

At some point, people in the US need to 'wake up' and shake off the corporate media as a corrupt source of information. We need to understand that we live in country run by corporate elites. Until that day, we will have war and oppression as 'the main course' night and day. Al Gore? Please! As others have noted, he didn't FIGHT the first electoral fraud of 2000. And he was involved in the consolidation of the corporate media with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. And he was involved with the NATO bombing and take-over of Yugoslavia; for those who have forgotten, there were many war crimes committed, such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the intentional killing of civilians (bombing of a TV station, etc.). Al Gore on global warming? Ha. Check out the guy's house. He's the biggest hypocrite in the world.

Find a candidate who isn't a corporate shill and a war criminal -- take up something more productive than cheerleading for fascism.

No apologies. Get off your knees. Stand up.

>You liberals need to get over this obsession with the abortion issue…

You females, you're so emotional...*sighs*

I don't think abortion is an issue that can be swept aside. Women can *never* be equal in a society that doesn't allow them to control their bodies. Period. Any candidate that opposes abortion therefore *supports* women's oppression. Such a person is not a progressive, nor an ally of the left.

That said, I think the abortion issue on this thread is a little misplaced. It is true that Kucinich *used* to be anti-choice. However, since 2004 he has had a change of heart (supposedly) and he now claims to support abortion rights.

Vern,

I'm all for unrestricted access to abortion in the first/early second trimester anyway, but compared to the problems we are facing now, the abortion issue has become a vanishingly small one.

Of course I know Kucinich doesn't have a chance. But I will vote my dreams and hopes - and imagine if we all did that! I have voted or written in McReynolds (Socialist), then Nader over three of the the past four elections, but I dutifully fell in line and voted for your Kerry in the last election. I'm not doing it again. I have never voted for a republican, and a democrat once, so I've already done (50*3)+100/4 = 62.5% of what you sold-out, useless, democrat liberals have tried to order me to do. Isn't that enough???

PJD, you must be male.

Being pro-choice is not an obsession with abortion, its remembering how hard women fought for their rights to be acknowledged by the male dominated political establishment. Saying that being pro-choice is about abortion is like saying Brown vs. Board of Education is about education.

It's true that religious groups have used abortion as a wedge issue, but dropping reproductive rights from the liberal platform in response would be an error. Instead, we need to continue to find common cause against agents of religious intolerance.

Unless you think women's rights aren't important?

"Until he takes responsibility for his past, Al Gore is just another politician creating a new image for himself."

What a joke, Al Gore. Though it would be worth it just to see Hillary's face when he announced it. I'd also love LOVE to see Nader enter the race again and expose Gore for what he is: pro-war, pro-corporation and anti-labor.

I wouldn't vote for a Republican or their Democratic clone even if someone put a gun to my head.

PJD,

"I would vote for a candidate who is anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-death penalty, pro-universal health coverage…and "anti-choice" in a minute. You liberals need to get over this obsession with the abortion issue…"

I'd vote for that candidate, too! Who is it?

To the Gore sceptics in the crowd -

All you have to do is to look at the current field of contenders for President. On the Democratic side, the honest candidates are not well known and are given no chance to win, while the 'front runners' are all opportunists or lightweights without any conviction in what they say. The Republican side is a total horror show of freaks bent on upping the ante on Bush's reign of global terror.

Gore would be way above in all of them in credibility and stature. Even if you don't think he has changed as a public speaker and a politician in the last 8 years (I do), his chances of taking the White House away from the Republicans, and then actually making a difference to world peace and global sustainability, is infinitely better than anyone else running.

I say go Al go.

PJD: You know what, call me what you will, but you are living in a fantasy if you think a nation that was snookered in by Bush is going to rally around the likes of Kucinich when he is mocked and ignored. If he rattled their cages enough he will get the Dean treatment. And you pretty much negated any validity to your points when you dismissed the matter of choice just because you couldn't deal with Kucinich's past record. Same with the liberal crack--another snarky manuever to bypass the issue.

nickart,

the word "socialist" is ok, but do you see my "test" message above? I tested "general $trike" and the message is appearing on my machine with a "your comment is awaiting moderation" message.

If you all want to see one example of the legacy of siding with deal-makers and half-steppers like the democratic front-runners and Gore, look up what happened in Spain from 1936-39. Capitulating to opportunists from "the left" (and the key word there is "opportunists") in the contemporary climate gives a green light to fascists to seize and consolidate power while we vacillate between in-fighting and giving our power away. I want to believe in superheroes with magic powers too - but I tend to prefer using both my head and my heart, not one or the other.

In the end, the Stalin-backed government wiped out the POUM, then they wiped out the Anarchists, then the fascists wiped out whatever was left. Once Franco had successfully centralized power, it took decades - or more specifically, his death - for the tide to turn yet again. Think about it, friends.

nickart,

What "controversial" words or phrases in your post? This forum system came pre-packaged with a whole big list of banned words and phrases, which CD apprently isnt aware of. Some, like "Zionist" are now allowed, but others like "general str1ke" (typo deliberate) are still banned.

clinton vs gore? that's no choice at all. better to not vote at all then vote for a democrat. as long as we provide support for the democrats we will never have an alternative.

bush's approval rating is 30%. congress's is lower. half of the public doesn't even bother to vote. the US government is illegitimate. and yet we on the left keep voting for the other pro-war, pro-corporate party and hope that they will change things. wake up. voting for democrats only lends support to this discredited government that represents no one's interests but the wealthy elite.

vote for a third party or don't vote at all.

Hillary Clinton, should she become president, will be no different re The American Empire than George Wanker Bush, as this post so clearly shows. Perhaps, as in 2004 when the unelectable Howard Dean was leading almost to the end, the Democratic voters will come to their senses and dump Clinton. Gore will be drafted, win the nomination and then go on to defeat whatever knuckle dragging, ass kicking Republican Horst Wessel the far right annoints. WHAT A BEAUTIFUL FANTASY!

I would vote for a candidate who is anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-death penalty, pro-universal health coverage...and "anti-choice" in a minute. You liberals need to get over this obsession with the abortion issue...

Here is your choice:

Clinton or Gore.

Hope it helps to get some perspective.

So what was that about Kucinich's past history of being anti-choice again?

Are all these Gore supporters amneisiac? Don't they remember his last presidential run? Or, do they think he has undergone some kind of miraculous conversion?

And what does recieving the Nobel Peace Prize have to do with running for president? Seems to me it would be a liaility. Last I checked, typical Americans have great disdain for such internationalist stuff - particularly with the word "Peace" in their title. They probably couldn't name a single one of the last ten recipients. One of the recipients Bishop Desmond Tutu was recently banned from speaking at a Minnesota University - it's president apparently having hardly heard of him.

And similarly, in Kentucky, they tore down the UN-placed signs that designated Mammoth Cave a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and insisted on the removal of the UNESCO designation - for fear that is was creeping, socialist, one-world government.

Man, this Al Gore stuff has gone madhouse through the roof. Remember that this is the guy who was VP for eight years and we didn't hear more than a peep about Global Warming from him (not to mention he handed over the reigns to Bush without a fight!) And he had that prominant VP position back in the 90s, when our chances for averting the disaster were a little better. The painting above makes the man look like a prophet. I mean, the awareness he's brought has been great, but I think he's doing better now than he ever would (or could) have done/will do as president. Let him remain an activist, and let's keep this all in balance. Gore's NOT a silver bullet.

What's he waiting for, beatifcation?

Come on Al, bring yer cape and save us all.

The daily cost of running a campaign is so high that all of the front runners who started campaigns early are beholden to the big corporations for funding. Other than organized crime, there are no sources other than corporate that can fund such long campaigns.

The fact that Gore would have a campaign of shorter duration would hopefully reduce his dependence on the corporate money that would handcuff his ability to lead.

gore has found his niche. he had his shot and blew it. he is doing much good where he is.

"here is my theory, copyrighted-the earth is sick and is healing herself, she is not dying, what happens when humans get sick, oh yeah we get a fever, do we overheat and die, no,"

This part of your post I'm willing to agree with. Mother Earth is in orbit around Father Sun, and will be for a long time to come. This is not the concern. What concerns me, and dare I say Al Gore as well, is whether She will continue to be a place fit to sustain life. Raising this as an urgent public issue is not scare mongering. It is an attempt at basic survival. For if She has a fever, it's because our foolish and selfish ways of living upon Her have made us like a virus.