I haven't seen the speech (we tend not to get that kind of thing on the opposite bank of the pond) but given the disaster that was Gore's last Presidential campaign, I have to say I'm surprised that this one speech has turned so many heads.  

Are people really excited about Gore the candidate?  Why?  Frankly I think he's SUCH a play-it-safe politician that he wouldn't have considered making this speech if he was running for the President of the PTA, let alone the USA.  As a candidate, he did exactly the same thing as Kerry -- tried to be all things to all people, and failed at everything.

Let him stay where he is now -- as a vocal standard bearer for our ideas, but not as an active politician.  He does us a lot more good right where he is.

I've only read the speech, not seen it, but my impression is that he delivered it before an audience of civil liberties groups who would, of course, applaud.  But has it been given a lot of play in MSM?  On TV?

The problem is that the American people are not likely to be moved by "limits on executive power."   Those who are not on our side on this will see it as liberals trying to limit Bush.  The rest of us are already well-informed and convinced.

However eloquent Gore was, isn't action what's needed?

El Campesino

 You are mistaken.  Clinton authorized warrantless searches OF FOREIGNERS.  NOT our own citizens.  You may think that is a bad idea but it is entirely within the law.  Indeed, the Clinton administration adhered to the FISA law every step of the way.  The problem with what Bush has done isnt so much that he has done warrantless searches (though that is bad enough all by itself)  No, it is that he has asserted that he is above the law, and can ignore it whenever he likes.  That is a threat to our democracy.  The President cant break the law whenever he feels like it.  Clinton didnt and Bush should be impeached for it.

Are people really excited about Gore the candidate?  Why?

Yes, they are. Why? Because for the past few years, he hasn't been speaking like a candidate. And so few other Democratic leaders have been speaking truth to the rotten heart of this Administration with the urgency felt in the hearts of so many of us.

The fact that Gore doesn't care about winning an election seems to have produced in him the very qualities it takes to win an election.

I just hope he doesn't start freestylin' next.

To be fair, back when he was still considering whether to run in 2004, Gore hinted that were he to run again he would indeed be talking like this:

Gore said that [2000] campaign had "too much strategy, too many consultants giving too much advice," said Chris Korge, a party fund-raiser from Miami.

"If he were to do this again ... he would not be so guarded. He would let it rip and let the chips fall where they may," Korge quoted Gore as saying.

Eloquence and honesty and complexity,  and with them democracy, are all boring to TV and MSM. Conveniently enough for them that also all but assures the outcome of elections: the glib and/or evil, those prepared to lie and slander in sound bites, are bound to win almost every time.

My earlier reply was deleted too, which was that the Clinton administration did not assert a power greater than Congressional law, just a power in absence of Congressional law. Bush's lawless disregard of FISA is quite different, which makes yours an apples-oranges comparison, the typical sort of empty hypocrisy argument that passes for right wing though and analysis of issues these days.

I guess when you don't have an argument just make an ad hominem from the omniscient third person perspective and call it a day.

This is the second time you've brought up Aldrich Ames.  Why?  

You still haven't given a direct answer to the relevance of Ames to the present situation. I will guess that you are referring to surveillance done on Ames, without knowing if there was a court order.

In the intelligence community, one's employment agreement, or, even more likely, the specific "indoctrinations" signed for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information programs, the individual may agree, in advance, to surveillance by the relevant intelligence agency's security personnel.

For years, there was a bold warning in the front of the Defense Department phone book that any call on an official phone could be monitored for possible security violations; this is the general rule for organizations working with classified material.

Such waivers are given with informed consent; it is abundantly clear before employment that there will be assorted security surveillance beyond that allowable for the average citizen.

Thank you, BrianOC for explaining that.  It was disconcerting as it had not happened before.

My points are substantive, you just don't like them. As for ad hominem attacks, what do you call what you just said? Why don't you try to prove me wrong instead?

I know.  Just answer the question