Gore Derangement Syndrome

Al Gore is the best person to become the next American president because once he was a politician, but now he has turned into a statesman. Of all the candidates currently on either party's primary ticket, he eclipses them with the best credentials in world affairs. I don't think he will run.

Next to Gore, Hillary has the best momentum. The Republicans whine that Hillary has never been a governor or a mayor, such a ridiculous criticism, as if those offices are criteria for president. Let's see, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon never held those lower government public offices either. So these Republican cranks are blowing their usual hot camouflage wind.

We wonder what they would use against Al Gore should he reconsider and run for the office he should have had except for the 5 to 4 Republican Rehnquist Supreme Court decision in 2000. We must always remember it was 5 to 4! And how powerful that division is which is one huge thing that needs corrected by the next Democratic president. The Rugged Collectivist may think one can only do only one thing at a time. We have to deal with the present system since that is what we have. We can also and concurrently focus on a mass movement, but it has to be clearly defined for any mass to get moving. It's simple physics. Humans have evolved to elegant multitasking and multithinking.

And by the way, those Gala apples from New Zealand are the best fresh eating apples in the world, I think.

Given that catastrophic climate change is the single most important circumstance on this planet to handle, I find it odd that so many would choose to bitch about Al Gore's past. What he is doing now, is what is important. And what he has done is proven effective. Any self-respecting human being should be getting behind Al Gore and others and pulling together with them to address this situation, not quibbling like some childish brats whose position on climate change is as untenable as the US invasion of Iraq.

When are you Americans going to become a mature nation, and start acting like sophisticated adults instead of like you're playing some game of cowboys and indians in somebody else's sandpit?

"Cap and Trade" is a token economy or in this case a pollution economy. It does not address the problem in a meaningfull way because it fundamentally supports pollution.

Al Gore did a lot of good things, as did Bill Clinton and every American should be gratefull. Not that anyone really takes the time to see some of them. And yes, they are politicans and far too removed from the people they present but that is never going to change until the people demand representation. That means writing, calling, making appointments.

Thanks for the compliment! I heard about the Kansas decision, very very good news. I think it really shows that there is big concern out there and, outside of personal use, there are attempts to curb output. Unfortunately, there needs to be those fundamental changes in every respect and alternative transportation is a HUGE part of that so people get off those roads and stop buying SUVs.

Excellent post above R. C. Of course you are correct that a President whose every policy is corporate friendly readily accomplishes his goals. However, if it is easy to squash a President Al Gore, imagine how easy it is to squash Citizen Al Gore.

Your points about the average citizen's role in the climate crisis are well taken. Certainly, we are handed the most eco-destructive forms of energy, even when cleaner sources are available. Our tax dollars are spent building roads through old growth forests for the logging industry, and utilities are given millions of dollars for alternative energy research if they merely spray coal with pine tar. However, when I see the highways full of RV's, the lakes full of jet skis, and apples from New Zealand at the grocery store, I know the population is still deep in denial.

On a separate note, there was a big victory in Kansas this week when two new proposed coal fired electric plants were denied operating permits.

Jstevens,

"I do not believe the rulers of the economy (in general) have any intention of making changes to impede global warming."

Let me clarify what I meant. There is - because of the nature of corporations - only one motive that drives policy and that, of course, is profit. They make ALL decisions strictly by a cost/benefit analysis and global warming programs/green investment and the PR that comes packaged along them in the media are no different. When it comes to energy corporations you can expect nothing less that pure lip service until aternatives become profitable and/or the oil supply is gone will they make serious attempts at change. Most of them are just waiting on socialized development so they can take the technology we paid for and turn around and charge us for it -- some "free market" we have.

Some of these investments are even forward-thinking, but only in anticipation of future profits. I was really talking about other business elites caling for mandatory caps and cleaner energy development because they aren't as immediately affected by the enery policy as the energy industry, or are negatively impacted by the rising costs of them. It's sorta like GM wanting the health care system reformed because it take the burden off of them, and thus more profit. Are these also business and not responsibility decisions? Absolutely; but I really do believe the potential threat to their power by this sorta catastrophy is a factor. I certainly never meant they we should rely on them to do it alone. I don't even think these companies should exist at all.

"all know that our current way of life is not sustainable, but there is every indication that most people would prefer to maintain their lifestyle at the expense of the planet. If we thought that the Earth would become uninhabitable within 5 years, things might be different."

Two things here: 1) Most polls show a majority want action, but since politicians don't really care what people want, they are generally ignored. 2) Because there are no structural changes and this wasteful lifestyle is legitimized in our culture people just aren't doing it themselves. That's not to say they have no responsibility, but unfortunately the only serious reduction of greenhouse gases can come through the business sector (primarily energy and industry) and capitalism doesn't allow us to control it. So-called market mechanism mean very little against economic oligopolies; especially when everyday life depends on that energy.

"As for Al Gore, it is often said that he changed after 2000, as if he became a noble person at that time. I think Mr. Gore has been steadily concerned about the environment ever since he saw the CO-2 chart decades ago."

I only think he realized he can do more out of political power but in a different position of influence. Neither one of us can know for sure, I suppose.

I also cannot deny that his power would be put to good use regarding the climate, but there would be deep resistance by many actors in the power system. There needs to be a fundamental shift in energy in nearly every conceivable way, from conception of the earth as giving life to our lifestyle choices, and I don't think a corporate-connected politician like Gore - even with is strong commitments - could do it alone. He would have to be one piece of a much larger puzzle. I really do think this is why he won't run because his jadedness, as you put it, has forced the reality of politics on him. I think we actually agree on that, just emphasize different points.

The thing about Bush is that his policies are incredibly destructive, but they don't interfere business priorities. In fact, he's doing what they want. He's not fighting an uphill battle the same as Gore would. In Bush's scenario the only resistance he faces is from people and we all know he doesn't care what working people want. You know, he's a "strong leader"; in the same sort of way Mussolini was a strong leader: he didn't care what people thought.

"Interesting articles you have referenced above. I have struggled with the question of ignorance versus corruption, and decided that the politicians shortcomings are mainly due to corruption."

I think it is, as the article put it, self-deception - which is very common - and ideological fanaticism together. This is a general structure that shifts left to right, but I think you can find every president in modern history has, for the most part, kept to it, doubtless unknowingly. Properly indoctrinated elites share the same interests on many issues with eachother and it has absolutely been institutionalized.

Can't really argue with the Bush description, that's for sure. He's an absolute extremeist in every sense; the culmination of everything that is wrong with the American political system. One major concern is that he's trying to institutionalize expanded presidential power and that could be a disaster for everyone.

Rugged Collectivist: You make some very interesting points. However, I disagree on several points.

I do not believe the rulers of the economy (in general) have any intention of making changes to impede global warming. Consider the Exxon Mobil multi million dollar campaign to discredit the validity of climate change. Look at all of the utilities who are building new coal plants (About 150). The limited gestures we have seen from corporate America such as Walmart, clearly stem mainly from a desire to improve image or in some cases changes are made only to the extent that they will have a positive economic benefit. Again, Walmart, as an example, decided to only stock concentrated laundry detergent. The implications of this decision are huge in terms of energy savings, however, there is not much chance of this negatively impacting Walmart.

We all know that our current way of life is not sustainable, but there is every indication that most people would prefer to maintain their lifestyle at the expense of the planet. If we thought that the Earth would become uninhabitable within 5 years, things might be different.

As for Al Gore, it is often said that he changed after 2000, as if he became a noble person at that time. I think Mr. Gore has been steadily concerned about the environment ever since he saw the CO-2 chart decades ago. He has however gone through various stages of disenchantment with politics, and has become increasingly jaded throughout the years. Perhaps he can't stand the thought of losing again. Perhaps he doesn't want to answer the questions about how much jet fuel he went through trying to save the world (I can imagine the frustration)

I maintain that as President he could do a LOT more for the world than he could as Al Gore the citizen. Look at what George has accomplished in a few years.
We have a global problem and Gore is a global hero.

Interesting articles you have referenced above. I have struggled with the question of ignorance versus corruption, and decided that the politicians shortcomings are mainly due to corruption. Bush and Hitler however are/were both pathologically delusional. Bush, in particular, defies categorization. I don't think we've ever had a president as unintelligent as he, but it is the confluence of ignorance, corruption, and delusion all to an uncommon degree that have brought us to such a deplorable state so rapidly.

The Oval Office provides many opportunities, not the least of which is a platform from which one can educate the public. although it is never utilized. Al Gore would be the exception, however, and with a little education of the public, great changes could occur, even in the face of adversity.

jstevens:

There is some level of corruption that comes along with power (the very reason it should be abolished, but that's another discussion), but that doesn't necessarily mean each particular president's personal beliefs have no influence. It does mean, however, that it must fit into a narrow framework (Bush and Carter being the "extreme" ends of the allowed spectrum). Example: Bush's beliefs are so extreme to the right that even much of the right has turned on him. If you step out of the bounds of the political framework, almost universally, you will be put in place, or in the case of Bush, hang out on the fringe and become politically impotent.

Also, these very same people are often normally very "moral" and kind, among other positive traits. Take Bush for example, by all personal accounts he's a nice guy. He's kind to his friends, his family, etc. Hitler was too and also thought what he was doing was truly the right thing. So what is it that forces people to carry out horrible, destructive policies that they willfully turn a blind eye to? Our existing ideological framework -- by now incredibly powerful and coercive. Do you think that if they had not yet internalized the political values of the ruling class: capitalism, hegemony, ultra nationalism, statism, etc. they would have made it to that position?

Even the rulers of the economy are coming around to fight global warming, because they realize, without a viable planet they can no longer profit. Gore is doing the same but because he cares what happens to our planet and its people (he also may very well share reasons with those in the business class), but that doesn't mean he can just do it because he has the will and passion. And what about economic issues? He may be more interested than Bush in helping working people, but he too can only push so far on the issue. This runs across the board of social/economic policy. It can be done as long as it doesn't interfere with "business as usual".

I stated in an earlier post that I thought Gore wasn't running because he knows the institutional constraints of the presidency won't allow him to do what is necessary.

So, do I think Gore would give up his "life's work" for the presidency? No, I don't think he would run because, since 2000, he has come to realize he can actually do more than when out of power on this issue because there is nothing to stop him. No special interests, donors, and no opposition in congress, etc.. The individual's values are very important while in the top spot of the "free world", but it's not everything. This is a business run society and if big business doesn't want it, it probably won't happen.

Here's an interesting article by Noam Chomsky. It doesn't explain exactly what I'm getting at, but it does illuminate a few of my points much better.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/197311--.htm and
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20060906.htm

Global Warming is the greatest threat to humanity and our planet -- and it's almost too late to do anything about it.
It has a 50 year delay -- that brings us to 1957 -- and there is no way of knowing how GW will compound -- also complicated by overpopulation now to reach 7 BILLION and almost total pollution of our air, water, oceans, soil, rivers.

So -- where is Al Gore or Krugman to suggest that we need to nationalize our natural resources?

Why do a few private families have control over our OIL?

Further -- we know that electric cars work wonderfully --

In California, 4,000 or more were on the roads for more than 5 years beginning in the late 1990's -- GM made then, would only lease them and refused over and again to sell them to the happy CA drivers. Then GM recalled every one of the cars and CRUSHED them.

See: "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

So when anyone alks to you about Global Warming, if they're not mentioning that we need to take back control of our oil resources -- and if they're not mentioning Electric Cars -- they're not telling you the truth!!

The average American doesn't pay much attention to history, science, Iraq, Iran, etc. However, I think we usually end up with two bad choices for President (2000 was an exception) for reasons much deeper thatn scizophrenic or apathetic voters. The two candidates at the top today are the most fascist and the most corporate. The transition from George to either of them will be barely noticeable. This trend is intact even though the President and the war are very unpopular.
The sinister forces have always been there to some extent, but under the reign of George, have increased exponentially.
The current media climate is particularly scary. In the 7 years since George, America is barely recognizable anymore.

FreeQuark,

It's not a schizophrenia, it's a massive onslaught of the MSM. They pick and chose who we're supposed to like, default, shunt or divert to -- as the case may be. If Americans were allowed to vote freely on issues, rather than on money-backed people who try to steer us away from our own interests, we'd see a massive change in our political landscape. I suspect that Ron Paul, Nader and Kucinich would rise to the top on each side in a hurry.

I saw a Ron Paul bumpersticker a couple days ago -- it was on a large pickup truck. There was a "Don't trust the liberal media" sticker also. Ron Paul attracts some right-wing rednecks to be sure and I think capitalism has been shown to be what it truly is: strictly a predatory economy, highly coercive, backed by a socialized law enforcement and court system, predictated on a permanently equity-displaced laboring class, and leaning highly on communist sweatshop labor today.

Ron Paul obviously doesn't see any of this, and neither do his supporters. But I appreciate the populist appeals he's made, even if they are based on misguided economics and an anti-choice platform.

If a former White House statesman deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, in my opinion it should go to Jimmy Carter.

Gore is an amiable showman, but what has he done to justify a peace prize?

Carter is at least speaking truth to power.

jstevens - Can it be true that the front-runners– Guiliani and Clinton are the most popular with American voters? I believe the opposite is true.

Americans are schizophrenic. For example, polling suggests that Americans are quite liberal on most issues, but it's usually conservative candidates like the Clintons that win national elections.

There is a similar disconnect between Al Gore the environmentalist guru and Al Gore the politican, which is probably why they aren't running. Gore is smart enough to know that if he entered race the politician part of his self would re-emerge and suddenly he would no longer be the darling of the left.

It was always a long shot that we would actually have a good President. Can it be true that the front-runners-- Guiliani and Clinton are the most popular with American voters? I believe the opposite is true. About 77% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq, The anti-war, moderate--Chuck Hagel on the Republican side dropped out of the race and is retiring from the Senate. The anti-war Ron Paul has a truly uphill battle. He faces a hostile and biased media that goes to great lengths trying to marginalize him. Very strange that with this VERY unpopular war, the anti-war candidates get nowhere. Sinister forces.

If Gore is truly out of the picture, our next President will very likely be Hillary.
Who is happy?

Do not vote for anyone who doesn't promise to repeal the powers of the unitary executive.

Speculation: Next president will conflate National Security with climate change as a rationale for exercising unitary powers ala GW.

Even a halo wouldn't impress those who don't want to recognize sincere effort by equating it with Kissinger. And that is just sad. But not to worry, BBC reported this morning that Gore reiterated that he would not run, so I guess the coronation of Clinton is a lock. Hope you are all pleased that Gore is safely out of your sights and you can fully embrace your queen. Do you suppose that Kucinich will be one of her royal pages?

I can't put any credence in a prize they gave to Kissinger.

Great post jstevens.

Rugged Collectivist: If the Presidency ruins everyone, then it wouldn't matter who you put in there. I disagree with the concept, however. What President in modern history has not been corrupt? Perhaps Jimmy Carter. But you could argue that they were already corrupt as they stood with their hand on the Bible solemnly swearing.

Al Gore wants (wanted?) to become President so he would have the power to impede global warming. He is not going to throw his life's work away once he takes office. It is very unique and rare for a President to have an intense and altruistic passion. What past President could be described in this fashion? What cause could be as important as the environment is today? We are on the brink of something unprecedented, letting it slip away. Mull over what it means to have a President whose #1 focus is the environment. It is colossal.

Hey, Rugged Collectivist, that's a great name.

And to Paul Bramscher and RC, "Subeconomies" is sort of what I have also been thinking of. We can't wait for government to change before we begin implementing some sort of socialism. I think a socialist movement must have a loose organization of almost communal type living arrangements. (Not mandatory communes, but some structure that puts people in a position to truly practice some form of socialism immediately.) This would greatly reduce the isolation which makes politics hopeless these days. And even if it never resulted in election victories would still be a positive.

Another question for supporters of Gore: given the accurate criticism regarding his past record, what is it about him now that makes you think he will be that much different on anything other than the environment? Also, what do you think happens to a persons ability to defy the poltical/business establishment (assuming he would) once in a powerful institution such as the American presidency? How long do you a) think he would last and b) who in his party would seriously support these types of policies. Also, how do you plan on winning anything without the corporate media on board?

Paul,

I agree, one of the most important tasks we can undertake is to create radically democratic, aternative institutions that people can participate in and see, first hand, that another way is possible. That's one of the most concrete ways to convince people, without coercion, that a directly democratic society is our most important goal. How far could we possibly get without that understanding? A look at struggles through history will show us that.

Our only real hope is that progressives make anti-capitalism and direct democracy the roots of their part of our collective movements (AKA radicalization if you will). Otherwise, we will once again be doomed to reformist failure and constant struggle to maintain any past victories; as the current state of things is teaching us. The only way to make our society democratic is by getting rid of the social and economic institutions that sustain it.

Watching The Left describe Al Gore is like hearing the fable of four blind men describing an elephant... four utterly different interpretations.

We should all take a look a the source of our own "blindness".

The Rugged Collectivist,

Progressives need to organize like the GNU software people have organized. Rather than banging their heads against Micro$oft and hoping for change to come that way, they roll their own software.

I really think we need to focus on creating our own sub-economies, even sub-governments. Lead by example. Become the new "go to" people. In anthropology literature, there is authority, and there is power. Authority is (merely) a titled and formal thing. Power is the ability to get things done, motivate people, inspire and lead them. We should strive to build power. Authority will eventually come later -- or ultimately not be needed at all.

The line is drawn at Hillary.
They represent the entrenchment of the Democrats that results in acceptance of incremental progress while everything has gone to hell in a handbasket. A big leap in progress would be in showing the Clintons and their regressive DLC approach, the door.

Thankyou Hank Fur for reaffirming my belief suspician of ANYONE even remotely involved with our government/corporatocracy should be viewed as suspect. It seems the adage of selecting someone who can, "...do the greatest good for the greatest number" has morphed into choosing a representative who, "...does the least harm to the greatest number".

Gore, while having made mistakes, still rises far above the majority of the current crop of presidential candidates, and of course any comparison between him & our current president is as a bull in a china shop to a ballet dancer. As far as I can determine Gore is willing to look at historical precedent & results of erred policy decisions, and make adjustments based on reason. Strength is not equated with blind resolve or obstinance, and a truly strong person will have the ability to recognize mistakes, then use reason & logic to change course/direction/policy.

To state my point plainly, Gore seems to exhibit strength of character in many directions, and despite a blusterous arrogant facade Bush is easily determined as a weak scared puny little boy. Despite his failings (Gore's)I still believe it is more important for candidates to exhibit the qualities of an adult for president than our 'stay the course' present infantile insecure idiotic ignorant ruler in the White House.

Just as an earlier poster pointed out the inconsistancies with the stated positions of Kucinich, and the actual actions he took in his votes of support for various proposals, so too do I appreciate your historical refresher on Gore's actions that run contrary to the perception of himself that is projected.

I hope you will agree that despite Gore's failings on certain issues he could hardly have done a worse job than the Bush cabal. Also, that the political/social system we now have is not in the least working properly, but that it is so firmly entrenched change, rather than being radical, will only come incrementally. Toward this end the first step is to put someone from the opposition in the Whitehouse...even if it is just Gore's dog that gets sworn in in 2009.

Nobody is perfect, and that's probably why 'nobody' got elected in 2000. At the moment it doesn't look as if election of a third party candidate is a viable possibility in 2008 (perhaps in 2012), but to start the incremental changes necessary for restoring our constitutional democracy it is essential for us to quit back-biting & infighting, then unify behind someone other than a Republican candidate.

I know, I know, I know, there are numerous people now claiming there is no difference between the two major parties. Is this really true? Sure they are both corporate controlled, but just look at the differences...pro-choice/anti-choice, pro-war/peace, military might/diplomatic negotiation, adequate social program funding/military spending, hydrocarbon/renewable, secrecy/transparency, investigation & prosecution/presidential pardons, legislation/presidential signing statements, tax & spend for good causes/borrow & spend for war, cronyism/competence, etc.

A couple of questions for the liberal "change the system from the inside" crowd. These are honest question, and not an attack. Realizing that any power given to the population is suicidal and a loss of their power, do you think they (dems) would be willing, even with intense organizing, to give up any of that power? Do you think that what amounts to a tiny portion of the population (leaving out the radical left in the process, of course) there is a possiblity of any of the playing out? Also keep in mind that progressive organizing has ramped up quite a bit already and has yielded very little results, and that this has been a classic battle going back roughly two centuries between the revolutionary and reformist left and has not fundamentally changed the system. Ie. capitalism - which, incidentally, has degenerated back to the days of nearly-direct control of the political sytem?

Yes but it has only risen to a crescendo since Hillary naively kissed the Palestinian wife. She will never make that mistake again. Power, wealth and control has only consolidated. There is no hope with the Clinton show. Giuliani is sure to make a worse mess of the Republicans though. Don't know which is worse.

Vern,

Iraq had been in the GOP crosshairs since well before King George I. As a former British colony fallen into disrepair, the hawks had clearly never forgotten about it. The coalition of the Israel lobby, MIC, MSM and Big/Foreign Oil -- fronted as right-wing Christians for political cover -- were in place by '00.

I agree with the other part of your analysis, though. Hillary is more credible at uniting Americans into doing what they currently don't want to do: to expand the middle-eastern theater, further erode their civil liberties, etc. So she'll make a better Republican on foreign policy issues than any of the current front-running Republicans. Furthermore, she won't do anything substantial on the domestic front: no IRV/Range Vote, no elimination of Diebold, no shutting down the School of the Americas, no single-payer health care, no nuclear disarmament, no phasing out of nuclear power, no elimination of the Electoral College, probably very little in the way of substantial domestic reforms of any sort. So yes, she'll make a better Republican than any of the current Republicans.

Barn Burner..My sentiments exactly. Thanks for posting your thoughts! If Gore does run it will be interesting as he brings out the best and the worst in people, people are for him 100% or against him 100%. They love him or they hate him. Nobody out there running is pure as the driven show. Hillary has enough baggage to fill a box car. Guiliani enough negatives to make you wonder why he is bothering, etc. etc. etc. and don't forget that hack Edwards $400.00 haircut. We don't have a lot of decent choices except for Kucinich and it is about time to begin the blackballing of Dennis before the GOP has a chance to do it first.

I would be willing to bet that he won't endorse Hillary. Although what diffeerence would it make?

I feel very confident that Gore would have done a better job than Bush. Evidence abounds.
Why did the DNC endorse Gore? In 2000 he appeared moderate. It had been a long time sice Earth in the Balance and Inconvenient Truth was yet to come. I wouldn't give the DNC any points for insight. They weren't thinking about Global Warming.

Although progressives (and neocons) like to criticizze Gore for being moderate, I think it is a necessary part of any strategy. If he became President, he would have initiated real reforms. Gore has a passion which is what sets him apart from most other candidates. It is not reasonable to assurme that it is simple to get elected and initiate environmental reform. It is tricky and complex. You don't get there by appearing radical.

At the very least he isn't fascist like George.

Gore has already stated he will not endorse Clinton.
I have yet to hear anyone defend Kucinich's past positions, so as far as I am concerned, any of your criticisms of Gore lack credibility. No one at the time Lieberman was chosen for the VP slot could've anticipated the ballooning influences of the Israeli lobby, in fact the discussion was more along the lines of celebrating the first Jew in high office and his record was seen as liberal. It is deceptive to now spin it all within the present context of events. Jimmy Carter openly supports, in fact pressures, Gore to make a bid and he has no friends among Zionists.

Clinton represents the status quo and the continuing Rightward drift now, in stark present terms, still banging the drums against Iran. She actually is a more reliable Republican than Giuliani who is burdened with liabilities and is sure to further erode the Right's loss of credibility. The Right would actually benefit from a Clinton candidacy and, while she tries to innoculate herself from their smears and attacks by triangulating Right, they will enjoy their favorite sport of Clinton bashing in the bargain. A win for the Democrats under Clinton is a win for the Right.

jstevens: You think so? If the DLC had the power to select the likes of Liebermann for the ticket, what did it find in Gore himself?

The other point I'd like to underscore here is that if Gore doesn't run in '08 (doesn't appear he will), will he endorse anyone? If so, who? Hillary?

Unfortunately, COMarc is right on the money, in my opinion. This is the Al Gore that along with Clinton, allowed NAFTA to pass without protections for labor and the environment. It is wishful thinking to expect any significant changes with a Democrat as president. The DNC is actively recruiting conservatives to run against "overly liberal" democratic candidates in congressional elections. The DNC is another wing of the one political party we have in this country - the money or corporate party. Everything else is secondary to the almighty dollar. Everything - human life, the continued existance of the human race, the planet, everything.

PAUL MAGILL SMITH: Being an authoritarian means never having to say you're sorry. (a tragic LOL.)

To all those worried about CO2 emissions, I have the solution. Stop breathing! Just kidding. How about we all plant some trees? And stop breeding like rabbits!

The world would be a better place today if Al Gore had won instead of Bush. Even with Lieberman as VP. Lieberman was a very bad choice, however, in the big picture of Al Gore, he is the best hope for the planet.

One comment about why The Reich is so deranged about Al Gore's success and Nobel Peace Prize:
"Envy according to the aspect of its object is contrary to charity, whence the soul derives its spiritual life... Charity rejoices in our neighbor's good, while envy grieves over it." Thomas Acquinas.

Lobo Gris:
Nader did not carry his home state whatever that state may be. I know this because he didn't carry any state.
Why must Al Gore constantly be berated because he didn't win? That is the fault of the voting public, who looked at the alcoholic, C-student, anti-environment, anti-scientist George Junior and decided he was a good choice.
Al Gore didn't win (so he is berated)
George did win (so he is applauded?????)

The DLC lost the Dems in '00.

Given Liebermann's coming out as an unabashed neocon/warmonger who subsequently failed to keep his own party's nomination, why exactly were progressives compelled to vote for a Gore/Liebermann ticket again?

#
jstevens October 16th, 2007 10:56 am

"You have lost me, Lorax. Ralph Nader ruined the 2000 election because he split the liberal vote. If Al Gore won the Democratic nomination he would be in fine shape to defeat Giuliani."

Gore didn't lose because Nader split the vote. He lost because of shenanigans in Florida and an appointment of Bush to the presidency by the Supreme Court. It should also be remembered that he couldn't carry his home state. If he had he would have won despite the shenanigans in Florida.

Lobo Gris

Lobo Gris,

I agree. A vote for Hillary appears to be a nod of approval to neocon/zionist foreign policy which is sure only to lead to great troubles for ALL sides, a vote for a corporate rubber-stamped health care plan, the military industrial complex in general.

What's the point in voting if we're just wrapping a more soothing sugar-coating around the same bitter pill? If that's all we have to chose from -- if we don't really have a choice on policy -- then the best criteria for voting seems to be to vote for the most incompetent of the candidates. Why's that? Because if it's horse shit policy on both sides, you can reduce the damage by voting for the politician least able to deliver the goods to the Bilderbergs, Trilaterals or whoever is apparently calling the shots.

It sure isn't We The People. The people have spoken on this war, on health care, on many other things -- and the politicians aren't listening.

TheLorax October 16th, 2007 9:36 am

What is really telling is that you and others that post messages like yours have only fear to offer if we all don't fall into line and vote as you demand we do regardless of how much it may be against our own self interest to do so.

Lobo Gris

You have lost me, Lorax. Ralph Nader ruined the 2000 election because he split the liberal vote. If Al Gore won the Democratic nomination he would be in fine shape to defeat Giuliani.

Whenever an issue of science arises, it is always interesting to note that the people who still think the world is flat are ready and waiting to crawl out from under the baseboards... people like bones 592001 above.

In years gone by, people who were really ignorant usually chose to keep quiet rather than risk humiliation by expounding their views... unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and other advocates for idiocy have encouraged their followers to speak out.

At least we can see who they are more easily these days, and the sheer number of them amazes me. We should discourage them from breeding.

A vote for Al Gore is a vote for Rudy Giuliani. If he runs, he will draw the democratic vote down enough for Rudy to take the electorate.
(The same scenario as Ralph Nader)
Gore cannot and will not win because the Democratic vote will split between him and Hillary. Neither will have enough pull to draw in enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
I do not want Rudy Giuliani as my president so please, PLEASE do not encourage Al Gore to run.
Hillary is clearly unfit to lead the nation but is a better pick than Rudy any day of the week.

In times like these, they shouldn't award a Nobel peace prize at all. They could use the unawarded money to house war refugees or bury the dead.

Freequark:

I see it as a choice--rather a hope that like when Roosevelt instituted the "New Deal", there will be a return of relevance and meaning for the Democratic party. It strikes me that this is what underlies it all--hope. That certainly threatens the Right--and it is obvious that with Clinton they win in any event. They relish going after the Clintons as liberals while the Clintons will be compliant with the corporate elite. Kucinich is a total fantasy and you know it. Even if he had groundswells of support across the nation, they would crush him. Gore is probably a fantasy too, but he could've instituted a potential shift in the wind. Leftists who embrace the idea of the workers revolution view that as a threat as well because they see, as with Roosevelt, that it would be the preservation of capitalism as opposed to revolution based on mass suffering. The Nation views Hillary as "incremental" but more likely Gore represents actual progress. Hillary in terms of the Democratic party, is regressive and her approach preserves the status quo above all. That stalemate keeps everything in suspension.

and one is left to wonder if Arianna Huffington, for example, David Horowitz and Christopher Hichens as examples of people whose views have shifted should be judged in the present by their past perspectives?
People change. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes not. George Wallace, a politican whose racist views did a 180--another example. Paul Craig Roberts, who now writes for Counterpunch, was in the Reagan administration--are his present views on policy forever suspect due to his previous record?

Again, we the people are devided by the few that keep using lies to keep their power.
Instead of us going at each others throats how about coming together.
Whoever wrote that stuff about Al Gore just stop buying that paper and save trees.
Rush Limbaugh could be shut down tomorrow IF! we would just shut him off.

You know its stupid in the olden days pre conservative preachers use to stand on street corners and the people that passed bye either stop and listen or just kept on walking.
Why does anyone think mentioning thatWall Street Journal slap in the face of Al Gore will do anything . If you believe them .Then your will never be in our camp anyway because you are too easily lead by the few.
Giving that Wall Street Journal article any of our press at all is giving them a win.
Continuing their campaign to belittle Al Gore.
All you Al Gore Believers JUST STAND UP AND WALK BESIDE THAT MAN . Stop sitting in your chair and crying and cursing about his enemies.
And all of you get off this stop Hillary campaign. If she has supporters don't try to keep them home election day. If you like someone else well support them now with your time and money and challange the other Democrats just on issues .
You know damn well the Conservatives will use any devide among the Democrats with gusto in this upcoming election.
So just iignore them fight your good fight unite with whatever Democratic canidate and depeat those powerful few that have a death grip on this world.

ezeflyer - who do Gore's critics here suggest we progressives vote for that actually has a better chance of winning than he does?
 
Given the choice between a Republican and Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, or any other pseudo-liberal, progressives should vote for the Republican.
 
Remember that what started the rightward slide in this country was the rightward drift of Democratic voters. First Democrats abandoned their own party for Reagan, then Clinton came along, and wooed those voters back by bringing Republican ideology into the Democratic Party. Over the next 15 years, Democratic politicians expanded the Clinton programme so that what we have now is a Democratic Party that - in terms of fundamental policy - is nearly indistinguishable from the GOP. What this means of course is there is no longer any real reason for the Democratic Party to exist, and the fact that it lingers on is precisely what is preventing an alternative from arising.
 
As progressives, our primary objective should therefore be to hasten the demise of the Democratic Party, and the best and most efficient way to do that is to vote Republican.

Lets see you go for Ralph Nader:

"But the main problem with the Nader-Camejo campaign is that they do not oppose the capitalist system itself. And that leads them toward taking a false position on the war and many other important questions. While they campaign for important reforms such as a universal healthcare system, driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, reforms in the electoral system that deprive minorities access to the ballot, and more, they offer no real alternative for winning these reforms, because at heart they both support the continuation of the capitalist system while seeking to eliminate its worst excesses. But the existence of capitalism depends on the impoverishment of the working class. It depends on making war to secure resources and preparing for war by diverting huge proportions of societal wealth into armaments, bases, and standing armies. Working people have no interest in perpetuating this system.

When Nader announced that Peter Camejo would be his vice-presidential running mate, he assured the media that Camejo, as an experienced, knowledgeable stockbroker, would keep his campaign within the bounds of capitalism. Nader, who is openly pro-capitalist, had to assure the media that his and his running-mate's pro-capitalist position shouldn't be doubted even though Camejo had once been a Socialist Workers Party candidate for President in 1976. In 1968, Governor of California, Ronald Reagan had a special enmity for Camejo, which endeared him to the antiwar masses.

The vast majority of Americans, the people who work for a living by producing all the goods and providing all the services society needs, have no political representatives and no candidates in the running (with the exception of some small local protest campaigns). Until this situation changes and a working class political party gets organized, elections will not offer any alternative to the unbridled rule of capital over our lives.

The Nader-Camejo campaign doesn't offer a real alternative because it can't and won't break from the capitalist politics that rule. Nader and Camejo consciously seek to reform capitalism, not end it. While they oppose what they explain as the excesses of capitalism—its imperialist wars, its globalization policies, which are causing such poverty and oppression around the world—they propose reforms to ease the suffering, but no real solutions. At the Nader-Camejo meeting the day-to-day issues facing working people were not even addressed. The problem with the Nader-Camejo campaign is that its politics are capitalist-lite."

http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/july_04/july_04_20.html

The thing that always bothered me about those who embrace religious mythology is that they can never recognize the truth–their true believer insistance requires that they suspend reason otherwise a crisis of faith looms.

All the circumstances from a time past are dredged up and thrown at Gore in the context of a different time, reflecting the Right-wing smear fest-that Krugman attests too-- but they do not look, they do not see, they do not speak, they do not address, they ignore the past history of their own heroes. That I can not respect. They could say Kucinich evolved, grew as a human being, which gives us true hope as opposed to blind faith, but they know the same argument could then be applied to Gore and they don't want to acknowledge that. The Clintons represent what was–and they are mired in their egos in the past, Gore represents what could be–for the Democrats–for the Democrats, for the Democrats–not for the socialists. To anticipate a socialist revolution overnight is like expecting a cure for cancer tomorrow.
So again, I ask you, what are you going to do when Kucinich caves and throws his support behind Clinton, because you and your allies on the Right have made it clear that Clinton is the only option? You have to live with that.

Absolutely.
the spaceship is out of control and overheating and Captain Bush is shooting the passengers rather than trying to control the cooling system and get the passengers join together to solve the problem. The next thing for Gore to tackle is nuclear weapons- they must be destroyed before the destroy us. The current nuclear armed powers are a greater threat than Iran, they are in breach of the NPT should we invade them and destroy their nuclear facilities. They also supply a huge amount of conventional arms which maintain planetary conflicts. We are at an evolutionary crossroads we can choose to continue to use war as a means of solving conflict or choose diplomacy and peaceful means. The first choice leads to extinction. Nuclear threats and belligerence feeds on themselves in a never ending feedback.
peacesource.net

Let's not confuse the message with the messenger...

Gore might look like a jerk from various angles, but on global warming he's right.

I just want to remind folks, Al Gore is not goin to run.

This system has evolved and it won't be changed much by voting for anyone.
Bush couldn't change it and all his friends couldn't change it if they wanted to except make it worse.

Throwing your bodies on the gears or trying to shut the system down will only put you in the poker and the people who tell you to do that will not show up.

I think lots of us here want to be working class heros and try to talk each other into doin something that will improve the mess we got ourselves into... I am speakin just for myself here but maybe not.

With all of our dissagreements can you imagine us comming to an agreement on a new Constitution or even what a new system would be called? Who would enforce our new system?

Maybe a good thing for us to talk about would be what you would do if you were President... That puts you into a Realist mode of thinking.

If us progressives can't agree, how could the Right and the Left agree?

No Matter how short Gore has been in the past, He accepted the Peace prize on behalf of all Environmentalists, that is the victory.

I won't tell ya who to vote for... just Vote! ...even if you vote for somebody who is Dead, the undervote will count as a virtual "none of the above" and you will feel warm inside.

And now a message from my friend from Cleveland, Banjo Frank:
http://www.banjofrank.com/

It is in the nature of intelligence to critque, and nothing is above it -- there should be NO sacred cows. I do believe that it is in the nature of all social systems to compromise, and anything shy of the perfect anarchy (no representation, just self-representation), we must compromise at some point. The Green Ten Key Values emphasizes a concensus-style decision making system and much smaller units of government -- in some ways similar to the world's earliest democracy (Iceland). Groups of people getting together and hashing things out, without politicians to do so by proxy. And to misrepresent.

We have neither of these options yet, so we need to compromise onto a person, rather than on a decision.

But there are "make or break" factors in the great compromise. For many progressives, torture, one-sided and aggressive mideastern policy, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, School of the Americas, a candidate who won't support IRV or Range Vote, and single-payer health care are getting to be those make-or-break issues. If, in the end, all we have is the same ol' same ol' who admits there are problems, gives us soothing rhetoric, etc. -- but does nothing about it -- then they don't deserve the progressive vote.

The jury is still out on Gore, or someone like him (I've heard no indication that he's running). While he had many failings, he may at least be able to bring the focus of the debate to something other than the Iraq, Iran or Israel distractions on domestic and economic policy hier in her Heimat....er....here in the Homeland.

Paul Krugman is one of my favorite commentators. I voted for Al Gore in 2000.

It is a given that neoconservatives and Republicans are not interested in Gore, or for instance Jimmy Carter.

The truth though is that it is mainstream democrats who are totally disenchanted with the Clintons (who patronize Bush senior, neocon warmongering, and thereby Bush jr), and by extension with Al Gore, who has not distanced himself in any meaningful way from their politics.

It is not rightwing people who are turning against failed democratic political advocacy and leadership. It is mainstream democrats.

I imagine Paul Krugman's article is an attempt to help shore up that base.

He should come out and say it. That would be O.K.

But, it is offensive to try and label people who are not taken in by obvious marketing techniques - such as is the case with Gore and Hillary - ...to label such non believers in Gorism or Hillarism as "rightwing."

This is akin to the technique employed by the Republicans of labeling all dissent against their wars, frauds and killings as "unpatriotic."

If you want to support Gore than just come out and write an article giving your reasons. That would be more helpful.

Nader2000 -- You say that "the big problems are capitalism and militarism themselves. OK, great. We agree on something. Yet you are pushing "working within the Democratic Party."

Do you see the contradictions here? The Democratic Party is a capitalist party. All its important donors, lobbyists, strategists, elected officials, consultants & apparatchiks are staunch defenders of capitalism. These people are well-connected, enjoy the many perks that go with their positions, & will fight to the death before ceding control of their party to opponents of capitalism.

The 2nd contradiction is that the Democratic Party is in no way an opponent of militarism. On the contrary, it has always been the full partner of Republicans in expanding & utilizing the military industrial complex. It has supported all the 60 or so US interventions overseas since WWII (either direct war, or war by proxy, or CIA subversion, or economic pressure.) There is no country in the world that's been more aggressive than the US, & the Democrats and Republicans have always been full partners in this. Every crime we committed in Central America under Reagan, for example, was a bipartisan affair.

So how do you imagine people who view militarism & capitalism as "the big problems" are going to "work within the Democratic Party?" The party is structured to thwart such people, not to welcome them, much less to allow itself to be "taken over" by them.

You say progress can be made by "participating in choosing who wins the Democratic Party nominations and playing hardball in the nominating process, in the general election, and in applying pressure to politicians between elections." Unfortunately, however, the people who run the party have already thought of this. They have seen to it that the public is not in any position to choose who wins nominations, or to play hardball. // An obvious illustration of this process in action is the fact that Hillary is already guaranteed to be the next nominee. Who is voting for Hillary? I don't know a single person who really likes her. Yet, she will doubtless win the nomination, because the media has told the public this is how it's going to be -- and most of them will do as they're told. // Hillary herself is proof that when the party's corporate pooh-bahs get together & pick a candidate, they are capable of making the voters accept it. The voters aren't choosing; they are allowing it to be rammed down their throats.

I thought the two crucial posts here were the first post by comarc and later by gandhi.

Comark claimed that Gore had never breathed a word against corporate interests, including anything about the corporate role in global warming. My knowledge of Gore was somewhat limited, basically, (1) seems like an overly nice guy, somehow, and (2) ran the worst imaginable presidential campaign ever. Until Kerry in the very next cycle.

Anyway, I was surprised by Comarc's claim that Gore had never said boo about corporate culpability on global warming.

Well, did he or didn't he?

Everyone had lots of opinions about Gore but no one seemed inclined to support or rebut comarc's crucial claim. Gandhi provided support for comarc's claim, but not proof.

Anyone else recall if the corporate world got any scolding by Gore in An Inconvenint Truth? I simply assumed he must taken them to task, and am astonished that it did not occur to me that me might not have.

I know this much. The world will not be saved by any of the top tier democratic candidates. In particular if Hillary wins and the democrats take congress in a big way you will have a congress full of worthless, spineless nobodies and a president who is NOT going to give up the powers of the "unitary executive," and has said nothing whatever to suggest the US would begin to relinquish it continuing, disasterous imperial project.

I am tired of the nihilistic ultra-left position that we have to have perfect politicians and perfect politics.

Also the deeply personal way Gore is trashed, does indicate something else is amiss. In this case, Alexander Cockburn dangerously edges into Hitchens Territory.

Al Gore is perhaps the only single individual who can save the American Republic. That is if you think the political system as it is worth saving. I don't in its current form, but the alternative upheavals have an extremely slim possibility of resulting in anything positive. Fascism is a much more likely outcome at this point, before Imperial collapse.

Of course, I hated many of his policies while in government, and he seemed to be utterly invisible while the Clinton drama took centre stage, and god forbid may again, eclipsing any other political issue. But Gore has been prescient over the last few years on climate change, the erosion of civil liberties, and endless war.

Just on that note, and the fact that he was cheated in 2000, makes Gore's story ultimately moving.

Sure, he will defend American Capitalism but at least some democratic checks and balances might be restored.

That ultimately, at this point is perhaps the most we can expect.

Province: You've hit on a couple key points. Arguably, 1-2 centuries ago times were such that one needed to be reasonably social (an active community member), highly rugged/self-sufficient, or both. Life, by any stretch, was difficult on the frontier, in emerging (often now dying) small agricultural towns across the US, etc.

I worry that our society has, in some ways, become too rich. It's possible to be a sociopath, often self-destructive, deluded, walking around in a haze, etc. and to spread this insanity meme around with others by means of voting in insane ways. Perhaps it's my own optimism, but I like to think that if they were living on the prairie, in a mountain town, in the west, etc. they'd have received a kick in the pants at a young age and their mental haze would have lifted.

RichM-

I don't have a "Plan for Progressive Victory" because there isn't going to be any Victory. Sorry, but you know, that's reality for you. Sorry, no formula for Instant Revolution, just add voters.

I see nothing but continuing struggle. There will be many victories, and many setbacks, large and small. My plan is a plan for progress, for increasing the amount of influence and leverage that progressives have and for bringing about actual progressive change.

The good news is, we don't need to tear down and remake the system, we just need to get in and fight to win. The two-party system is not the problem; the big problems are capitalism and militarism themselves, and the immediate political problems are the media and the media-addled, disorganized and disspirited people.

The way forward is to win victories on election day. We can do that within the Democratic Party. We cannot do it any other way. The point is not supporting "The Democrats" but actively participating in choosing who wins the Democratic Party nominations and playing hardball in the nominating process, in the general election, and in applying pressure to politicians between elections.

You're right, there's nothing new here. It's what every player who has any influence in this system does. The more progressives learn to do it, the more influence we will have.

Dear Paul:

You are asking a classic "Chicken or Egg" question.

You are assuming that the utterance of certain names evokes deranged reaction from certain otherwise seemingly normal individuals.

The ACTUAL situation is that certain already deranged individuals seem to be triggered by the mere mention of "Gore", or perhaps "Hillary"... and they go absolutely bonkers when the phrase "vote fraud" is used.

There was a time in this country when the mentally ill were institutionalized in order to protect society from violent and irrational behavior, but since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these people are permitted to walk our streets, buy up our media outlets, and in fact become talk radio hosts and Fox News pundits.

Fifty yeaars ago, someone like Ann Coulter would no doubt be relegated to a padded room.

Maybe they think Monika gave Gore a blowjob too?

IMPEACH GORE!!!!

While I'm glad that someone as prominent as Gore has publicized climate change, Gore, for God's sake, is just a stinking politician. He isn't a scientist or researcher; not among those who have labored to assemble and analyze raw data and develop the hypothesis, and postulate the cause. He's just a PR front man using his personal fame to capitalize on the labor of others--a guy who is able to get the book deal and the movie deal because he's already famous.

It seems to me that the people writing the books and making the movies--and getting book deals and the movie deals--should be the people in the trenches doing the work, the scientists and activists. Not politicians, not the already "rich and famous."

Besides voting for a third party, for Kucinich, for Paul, for Hillary, for Edwards, Obama, Nader, even for Republicans, for not voting, for not paying taxes, for demonstrations, for a violent revolution, (sorry if I missed anybody) who do Gore's critics here suggest we progressives vote for that actually has a better chance of winning than he does?

Oh, here's a comic passage: The only way to move this country in a progressive direction is for progressives to figure out how to use the two-party system and make it work for us. How? Simple. Organize as progressives. Nominate and support progressive candidates ..."

Are you familiar with the word "tautology"? You basically just said that progressives can win if progressives figure out how to win. Not only that, you added that it's "simple." All you have to do is get progressive candidates, then organize so they win.

If it's so "simple" (at least to a deep thinker like yourself), why hasn't this ever been tried in the past? It's not as though progressives have never given the matter any thought. Do you think your "Plan for Progressive Victory" is so bold, original & innovative that no one ever thought of it before?

Give Gore his due. He at least has the guts to speak truths that many don't want to face.
We are all responsible for the environmental degradation that that has already gone beyond the tipping point. It matters little who is elected. In a few short years government at all levels except possibly local will cease to exist. The overarching concern will be finding/growing enough food and clean water to prevent starvation, avoiding hypothermia and fending off the human jackals. Those who survive will salvage what they can of knowledge, technology, medicine, material resources, etc. in far fewer numbers than currently inhabit the planet.

It will only be possible after a paradigm shift to cooperation rather than competition.

Find a place away from metropolitan areas, make friends with the locals, and get the skills, tools and materials to maximize your chances to get through the transition.

Might be wiser to quit bitching about the food on the Titanic and learn to swim.

Cheers!

Here's a challenge for you, Nader2000. Try to make the case -- a solid positive case -- for supporting Democrats, based on their own merits. Don't make the case by attacking me & other real leftists. Don't do it by arguing "At least the Democrats aren't Giuliani or Romney." Make a positive case for why anyone should believe the Democrats are capable of producing meaningful progressive change. Let's hear you try to justify the Democrats on their actual merits.

If you can't do that, you have essentially nothing to say.

You concede that leftists here "have a lot of valid complaints against 'the Democrats' and the 'two-party system'". You then claim "What you don't have is a viable alternative that leads anywhere." Show us your argument that the Democrats & the 2-party system are a "viable alternative that leads anywhere."

If you can't do that, then pipe down.

Concerning the HIDDEN AGENDA of

COMarc, RichM, and the whole slam-"the-Democrats" chorus:

The hidden agenda is simply NARROW SELF-INTEREST.

These people are SMALL BUSINESSMEN of PSEUDOPOLITICS.

What business are they in? CONSUMER FRAUD. Just like Mr. Nader.

It works like this: Tell frustrated leftists that the way forward is to condemn the (spineless, sold-out, or corporatist/ruling class) "the Democrats," meaning all politicians elected as "Democrats" rolled into one big conspiracy theory, and to join some little Green or Red "party".

Now, it just happens that you own (at least a piece of) that little Green or Red "party". It's what you do. Maybe you make a living off it, publishing books and broadsheets, or maybe you just use it to make your life interesting, keep busy, hang out with friends, get laid. And of course, the number one activity of your "party" is recruiting. It has to be, because just as fast as you recruit new people, old ones get disillusioned or just plain tired and used up, and they drift off.

You tell people that your "party" is going to change the world, that Nader is a serious candidate who can actually win and change the world, or that your party can organize the working class and overthrow capitalism. You have a whole carpetbag full of oily lies and rationalizations that you've told one fresh face after another. You have a lot of valid complaints against "the Democrats" and the "two-party system". What you don't have is a viable alternative that leads anywhere. But it usually takes people a few years to realize that.

RichM writes that

"The 2-party system is a device that enables the social hierarchy to maintain itself over time."

A device? Whose device? Yes, some people are more able than others to use the system to get what they want. But nobody designed or controls this system. It's bigger than anybody, because it is a creature of our Constitution. Not written in explicitly, but locked in by the iron grip of district-by-district, winner-take-all elections. We do not have proportional representation in this country, and short of rewriting the Constitution, which would mean renegotiating the balance of power between rural and urban, big states and small, as well as rich and poor, we are not going to have proportional representation. IRV and other clever voting schemes, while perhaps desirable in themsel