What a year Al Gore has had! And what an impact his work for the environment (or, as the far right would call it, the creation) has had.

Thanks to him and the UN group, more thought has been given and action taken since Earth Day was created in '69 or '70.

I haven't stopped smiling since I saw the headline this morning. And, boy, is that comedian Rush Limbaugh going to be entertaining today.

Predicting the obvious...

The vast majority of the U.S. media will make brief mention of why Gore won the Nobel then quickly shift gears to his weight, his "reinventing" himself, his presidential aspirations, maybe even his clothing...anything but Global Warming or climate change.

I'm anticipating a few very annoying and frustrating days ahead.

Mainstream Media Take on Al Gore

OMYGAWD!!!!

can u believe that Al Gore character??
like, he’s pretending he’s spent 30 years advocating environmental protection

HAW-HAW-HAW!!!!!

like, he’s pretending he spent his career trying to make government more accountable and mor efficient

HAW-HAW-HAW!!!!!

like, he’s pretending he actually won the popular vote for the presidency, and would have won the election if not for a sophisticated right wing vote-suppression vote-stealing operation ending with a decision by a right-wing Supreme Court that put ole drunk-driver in the oval ‘stead of him

HAW-HAW-HAW!!!!!

al gore - next thing u know, he’s gonna be predtending he won the Nobel Peace Prize or something

HAW-HAW-HAW!!!!!

what a faker…...

fat, too...not like Decider - now THERE's a real man...

I echo the comments of destor in MJ's "Draft Gore" thread -- I don't think Gore wants the presidency badly enough to draft him for it, and it would be a huge distraction and damage the campaigns of the other candidates who are already running. I am very pleased with what Gore's been doing instead of running for president, and am thrilled that he's been honored with the Peace Prize.

Ding, ding, ding, al75 and carsick...you HAVE the correct answer.

Al Gore drafted by Democrats? That just ensures twelve straight months of corporate media interviews about how he can possible run the war on terror after accepting a peace prize? That would be the number one topic, and Trudy Giuliani and Gropinator Schwarzenegger would laugh at him from the RNC podium...and Chris Matthews would lisp out that the Democrats managed to find the one gayer candidate in the world than Larry Craig.

Wish I had a dime for everytime all of the above will be said...just today. I'd be rich in 24 hours.

I hope that Gore will run for president, but even if he doesn't, perhaps this development will serve to focus more Americans (and non-Americans) on the need to take remedial steps to ameliorate climate change. It's at least as much of a threat to our security as terrorism.

As for the media reaction, I suppose that much of it will concentrate on how Hillary (and perhaps Bill) will react to it. For example, should Gore decide not to run, he may still have an impact on the nomination process with an endorsement, particularly if it's not of Hillary.

If Al Gore is not going to run for president then he should at the very least endorse the candidate who he thinks is best for the job.

A draft movement feels odd at this point in the process. Carter, I believe, gained much more stature as a former president than in office. Gore might just spend the next few years becoming more visible, such that either he becomes a key influencer, or does run for office in 2010 or 2012. His presence is also evolving; his appearance strikes me as that of a man at peace with himself yet focused externally. How often do you see that in politicians?

The broader concept of wait-a-little doesn't apply only to Gore. I like Obama, Richardson, and Edwards, roughly in that order, but I have a purely gut sense that Obama would do better if he first obtained some executive experience: governor, conceivably very strong Cabinet officer, special Ambassador, etc. He's young enough. Hilary worries me; my best advice to her is that she, like LBJ, really belongs in the Senate rather than the White House.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I don't expect him to endorse a candidate in the primary. His cause would have nothing to gain if he made the wrong pick.

Same comment as over on MJ's post:

Honestly, I am starting to find the "Draft Gore" movement a little unseemly. He's said over and again, he's not interested. But people are taking ads out, adding his name to ballots.

It all seems very intrusive.  

Further, getting in at this point, or 6 months from now, that might even do more harm than good. 

This has gone on long enough. Let's leave Al Gore alone, and let him do whatever he thinks he should do. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

But you know... it might be interesting, just for once, to try having a President whose #1 objective in life isn't being a President :-)

I'm not part of any Please-Run-Al-Gore! movement, plus, i'm Canadian, however, my biggest and not-so-secret hope is that Al Gore will throw his hat in the ring, and run for Prez.

And I still believe that he has room and time to wait and see about the Hillary factor -- particularly -- if Dems start getting buyers' remorse about Hillary, who i just don't trust, despite my being a woman -- and a feminist.

A source involved in Gore's past political runs told CNN that he definitely has the ambition to use the peace prize as a springboard to run for president.

But he will not run, because he won't take on the political machine assembled by Sen. Hillary Clinton, said the source. If the senator from New York had faltered at all, Gore would take a serious look at entering the race, the source said. But Gore has calculated that Clinton is unstoppable, according to the source.

Of course Hillary is NOT unstoppable -- Read Wolcott's Vanity Fair blog, 'Heiress Apparent Heading for a Fall?' for starters.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2007/10/just-as-the-met.html

In politics, anything can happen.

lomo

What a shame if he does not use this to run. He is clearly the most experienced and capable of the lot, who also can immediately restore America to greatness both domestically and abroad. He also deserves to be President. Hillary does not.

The time is right for you Al. The country and the world need you.

Agreed.

I know it's too much to hope for, but wouldn't it be nice if the MSM took this occasion to point out how many things Gore was actually RIGHT about in 2000 (and since then) ... even if he did roll his eyes or sigh during the debates. Wouldn't it be great if this became the spark for elevating the electoral process away from "gotcha" and misleading spins and half truths ... toward trying to really understand the issues and the candidates instead of effectively encouraging voters to make decisions based on haircuts, "presidentialness" and the other superficial nonsense that the MSM loves to emphasize?

Congratulations to Mr.Gore. While I applaud his recognition, to me the slap to Bushs' face this represents is more important. And I suspect to the selecting committee it did too.

I am a Democrat. I will vote Democrat. I wish I could vote for Gore for President but I don't think that will happen. Upstream on these comments, someone suggested the next President would be a 'one termer.' I agree. The doodoo this administration is leaving to the next one to straighten/clean/scrub will make it tough and unpopular for them to do it. I would like to ask, as some on the right are trying to diminish Gore's award, has there ever been a Republican Politician NOMINATED for a Nobel let alone won one? Democrats 2-Republicans 0. I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am.

Between this event and Evgenia Peretz' piece in last month's VF, maybe some of the MSM will take a moment and do some truth telling of their own.

Al Gore:"politician who has done the most to raise awareness about climate change"-Nobel Committee

Al Gore:"politician whose leadership was instrumental in the development of the Internet"-Vinton Cerf

Now, that's a troll! See the difference?

Kissinger.

Hmmmm. Didn't they once give the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger for secretly bombing and overthrowing Cambodia and Laos, prolonging the Vietnam war, selling out the Vietnamese, organizing the overthrow of the Chilean government and subsequent murder and torture of thousands, and his support of the Indonesian massacres?

Counterintuitive, that's what it is.

al75--It seems fitting that such small-minded comments are interspersed with the brayings of an ass.

Over the years, Al Gore has demonstrated judgmental shortcomings to a fare-the-well. His ill-fated decision in 2000 to eschew the support of the popular incumbent he was seemingly destined to succeed remains especially disappointing.

That said, the mind reels at the thought of what the world would be like had Gore prevailed in that corrupted election, instead of the war-mongering, double-dealing, oil addicted, climate-change-denying, megalomaniacal resource profligates that have since made such a hash out of global civilization.

The strict scientific basis for "An Inconvenient Truth" may be flawed by extraneous bits of apocrypha and hyperbole. Nevertheless, it has revealed to a world wide audience an issue that the Bush administration would have concealed.

It is easy to imagine that, had Gore won in 2000, your manly decider would still be sulking like the juvenile dullard he is, somewhere in the scrublands of Texas, instead of applying himself to a project that might make the best of a bad situation.

KUDOS AL!

Getting into the fray lessens his campaign if he states, as he does, that this is a moral issue and not a political one. Just as Bono with his AIDS in Africa cause works with the leadership before him and not the one he may wish he had, I believe Gore will stay out of the tit for tat of individual campaigns and focus on his cause.

Unconnected thoughts. (1) Draft movements refer to a political reality long past, before candidates were chosen through so many primaries, actual election contests each of which require active hand shaking, posturing, fund raising, and a publicity machine. The only question would be whether he should run.

(2) I'd love it, as I'm a huge admirer. He would still have an uphill contest at this point, given Clinton's effort to date and anointment by the press. His only hope would be that the press love narratives they can understand, and "prize winner, movie star, and presumptive heir to the presidency challenges presumptive heir to the presidency (and a woman)" or "Has Gore changed?" is something they can relish. But it's still unlikely, and he doesn't sound interested. 

(3) I'm thrilled for the prize and also for the to me unexpected inclusion of his co-winner, the panel I've looked to for measured answers now for a decade.

(4) I'm also saddened, to think that while he probably wouldn't have been able to win a Nobel Prize had he been elected, he would have done so much more for the planet. He's done a lot, but nothing compared to what Bush's inaction on climate and corporate handouts on other environmental issues have done. 

(5) If he got the peace prize, does that mean Bush gets the war prize?

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I'm pretty sure al75 was using humor and imitating what the MSM and others will say in light of Gore's win.

It strikes me as an honor richly deserved and I could not be happier for Al Gore. I heard some idiot on the tube today say he had been looking for something to do after the 2000 election. What a load of bull that is. Gore hasn't sat around feeling sorry for himself--he's kept on keeping on, on a range of issues. He's been the most prominent leader on this issue going back 30+ years, so he's not been looking for things to do, he's been doing them all along.

I'm delighted the Nobel committee didn't buy all the garbage out there about how giving it to Gore would politicize the issue. This only further helps raise visibility on the issue and gives Gore and the many, many others doing great work on this issue even greater standing and credibility. Maybe we will begin to see some real action, or even, dare I hope for it, leadership, from our next Adminstration. Now is a good time for the media to press the Republicans in the race on what they would commit to do doing should they be elected. Get them on record, just in case the worst happens.

So, if Draft Gore succeeds would this be the first time a Nobel Laureate has been elected to Chief Executive spot? I can't think of any one, but that's not saying much.

I agree with Josh that the Peace prize argument would have been enhanced by not stealing the presidency from him. OTOH, I was sometimes glad that at least it was a Republican making all the mistakes. That's really cowardly, I know, but the Pubs still use Viet Nam against antiwar Dems. Think of the hay they would have made if 9/11 had happened on his watch.

But Gore, being less work-averse than Bush, would have read the famous pre 9/11 PDB, and, not being such good buddies with the Saudis, might have had his Customs officers actually enforcing international entry rules, in which case, some of the killers wouldn't have gotten into the US so effortlessly.

I have been on the Draft Gore bandwagon for some time, but with mixed feelings. I think it would be a good thing for America, but not so good for Gore.

Then, look how influential he's been even w/o the presidency. and yet, media dogs and right wing wing nuts try to dismiss his message by putting it down to new Presidential aspirations, and MSM has gulped it down like true pub crawlers. As President, he would, I fear, face daily savaging from the RW "noise machine."

Given all that, I wonder if he could do more for the future by focusing on climate, and leaving politics to others. Would his environmentalism actually be undermined by holding the Presidency in such a dysfunctional nation?

"You're not beat if you get up one more time than they knock you down."

John Wayne in a movie whose name I can't recall 

How do you define a wrong pick? An endorsement is not suposed to be your best guess as to who is going to win. It is suposed to be your support for who you think should win. It is only the corupt and gutless who give their endorsement based on what they can gain by supporting a winner.

Most people are pretty sure he won't be running for President in 2008. That's too bad. Not only would he make a great President one, it would be exciting to see him take on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Talk shows and news commentators are looking at current polls that show him above Barack Obama, but a lot lower then Hillary Clinton, as a reason why Al Gore wouldn't have a chance if he tried to get in now. I disagree.

When voters are asked, who would you vote for as your Democratic nominee to run for Pres, they see Al Gore's name but they've also heard in the news that he's not running, so they end up picking someone else. This is only logical.

If voters heard news that he was actually running for President again – it’s almost assured that he'd be at least tied with Hillary, if not more popular. Sure would knock Hillary off that pedestal she’s got herself on huh?

Coonsey's View

HTTP://WWW.FREEWEBS.COM/COONSEY/

Republicans who won the Nobel Peace Prize:

Teddy Roosevelt, Elihu Root (Sec State, Senator), Charles Gates Dawes (Comproller, VP to Coolidge), Frank B. Kellogg (Sec State), but that was when Republicans were real Republicans.

I think the guys over at Powerline are so upset about this because they thought Pinochet had a lock on the prize this year.

I did a quick Blackle search and got a list of all the previous winners. What struck me in reading through them is that, by and large, I would call the winners, wait for it......... liberals.

My other impression, from el Baradei to Carter to the Quakers way back when, is that the current "conservative" party in America would view most of these people as "wrong-headed."

Peace.

I hope Gore runs for prez in 2008 and I hope he announces before it is too late. Why does everyone mention his weight? Personally I WANT the happier, more at-ease, "fat" Gore! He's become an even greater man since 2000 and if that includes greater in weight, so be it.

In current polls, the "generic" Dem beats the generic Repub by a large margin. If actual names are substituted, Hillary Clinton can only manage a very small margin of victory. So who is that "generic" Democrat that people are thinking of?

I don't want to see "W" replaced by "H." Nader's famous remark about not seeing a "dime's worth" of difference between Gore and Bush will actually be true about H and any of the Repub candidates. H is our best chance for LOSING in '08.

GORE MUST RUN.

I think you're reading more into my comment than was intended. Gore may well endorse a candidate. But, as someone who will strive to influence whomever wins the election, I doubt he will endorse until after the primary.

New York Times is sliming Gore this morning
where 500+ comments are predominantly positive and congratulatory but they post the most viciously negative.

They've started already, John. On CNN this morning, they were speculating that the prize wasn't really for Al Gore, it was really a rebuke to George Bush. That's how these people think.

MSNBC has two guests commenting on Gore;

1- Republican 'commentator' Joe Watkins

2- Journalist Chris Cilizza

Standard procedure for the MSM, guest mix = conservative columnists/commentators and journalists.

Fair and balanced. heh heh

By the way;

Anchor Monica Novotny posed a question; "Why doesn't Gore simply put it out there that he isn't going to run so we can stop all this speculation?" How many times must Gore say it before Novotny awakes from her stupor?

Gore remembers what the Main Stream Media did to him during his Presidential run, most of which is documented by Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler. I'm sure this is in Gore's mind when the question of him running again comes up.

Sorry, but I don’t see the list of former winners as mostly “liberal”. Theodore Roosevelt, George Marshall (I know these go back a ways), more recently Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, Begin, Sadat, Mother Teresa, de Klerk . . . It is interesting that the right wing tends to view technocrats such as ElBaridei or Borlaug as liberal, probably their anti-intellectualism showing. Then again, many conservatives tend to view the whole idea of “Peace” as a liberal plot. Maybe they should establish a “War” prize to make things more fair and balanced.

Congratulations President Gore!

It's a shame that the pretender remains in your office and is not behind bars where he belongs for the crimes he committed to steal the office and those he has committed since.

So much (positive) has been said above that I agree with, it's hard to know what else to post.

This is a happy, happy day for everyone, and especially for Al and Tipper.

Yes, congratulations, Al Gore! You absolutely rock!

Hmmm...I've also heard on the cable news shows the complaint that if Gore was to run he would "damage the campaign" of the other candidates. When you think about it, it's a peculiar claim, and really absurd. Think about it. Should Hillary, for instance, demand that all the other candidates withdraw, because they are "damaging" her campaign by running?

And "distraction" from what, exactly?

What is the MSM so afraid of in Gore? That he might offer a real challenge to their preferred and already MSM-crowned candidate?

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

Well, I'm not part of the MSM and I didn't hear this complaint from them. Who exactly is the candidate they have already crowned? Hillary?

Maybe you're right and no damage would be done. But I'm thinking that, much as I like Gore, I don't think he has even as much of a chance as Obama, who I like even more -- and the candidates whose campaigns might be damaged by Gore are not the candidacy of the current frontrunner; I think he would become the instant runner-up, and take money and attention away from everyone except Hillary.

I also feel that this is not Czechoslovakia or South Africa, and being a Nobel Laureate doesn't really help in presidential politics.

So what the heck are are you really trying to say? That nedbalzer is on the side of this evil plotting "MSM"? Or that he has just been brainwashed by them? If so, wow, that was fast brainwashing on the Gore Nobel issue.

C'mon, sheesh get real, the talking heads you heard on the tube are just people opining on breaking news, just like nedbalzer on this blog. You can agree with him, or not, with them or not. That's all there is, if you want to have public political commentary, that is. Everything is not a plot. Gore uses P.R., Gore uses Hollywood, Gore wins Nobel prize, people are going to speculate about him and his future and how he might affect politics. I am sure he knows all that. This does not make "them" "afraid of him." Rather, is not the speculation in all kinds of media, including blogs, of those who have gained some power above the ordinary joe in this world, just the opposite, not being afraid of them?

BTW, here's how I take it: if you don't think Gore running would damage the campaigns of the other candidates, you are basically saying that you don't think he would get a single supporter. To me, there doesn't seem to be any deep plotting against Gore in saying that he would hurt the chances of other candidates. Actually, it seems to be just the opposite, unless you're looking for conspiracies.

I saw that, Bev. There also was a Republican woman pundit who actually claimed that the Nobel Committee only awarded the prize to Gore in order to "get (media) attention for themselves."

Unbelievable.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

One of the nicest things that should be said about Vice President Gore is that he is not seeking the presidency. Do not get me wrong; he would make a great president. But it says something about his character that he does not NEED to be elected.
He now has a large stage and much well-deserved honor.
South by Southwest

ooops... My bad... and my apologies.

I just get so tired of the opponents of the reality-based community, it sometimes clouds my sense of humor.

And not to forget what this award is about even more than Gore. If half of what we think we know about global warming is true, people will look back fifty years from now on the claims that "War on Terror" was the defining challenge of this century and see it as a very sick, sad joke

It could be sicker and more ironic than even that, if the worst we believe about global warming is true. Consider the future school kid reading about the 2000 election and all the key locations in deciding the victor:

Palm Beach, Florida: Elevation 7 ft
Miami, Florida: Elevation 6 ft
Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Elevation 9 ft

Wordie, well said.

I was going to say that they attack him so fiercely when he is not President, think what they'd if they really had reason to fear him -- like if he could read their e-mail or detain them in a foreign country without benefit of attorney, charges, etc.

But I'm missing the point, in a way. He's just so fracking powerful right now, even without the presidency, he looks fair to make Big Oil and Auto's war on climate science very difficult to sustain.

Plus, This is excellent evidence that his argument in Assault on Reason, that it is not only desirable, but also possible to return to the rule of laws and reason,the meritocracy of ideas.

I think THAT'S what scares them.

yt

"You're not beat if you get up one more time than they knock you down."

John Wayne character  

I haven't been excited yet by any Democratic candidate. Hilary remind me of LBJ, someone that has a personality that works in the Senate, but would be disastrous in the White House. Biden's votes for the credit card industry disqualify him for me; I would find it extremely difficult to vote for him--I'd probably give up and go third party rather than vote for Biden. I'm not THAT far opposed to Hilary, but my mind is not made up.

Edwards? He's had some interesting things to say, but I haven't made an intellectual or emotional connection.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Hey, yt.

You said: "So, if Draft Gore succeeds would this be the first time a Nobel Laureate has been elected to Chief Executive spot? I can't think of any one, but that's not saying much."

Yes, I believe it would be the first time in real life. On TV, of course, Jed Bartlet (NBC's The West Wing) was portrayed as a winner of the Nobel prize for economics, prior to becoming president. When I watched that show, I always wished that a person that smart could be president in real life. I guess we came pretty close in 2000 (GD SCOTUS!).

Personally, I believe that the events of 9/11 would have been very different, if not averted entirely, had Al Gore been president. First, he would have continued the policies of the Clinton administration, and would have listened to people like anti-terror advisor Richard A. Clarke, instead of stiff-arming him for nine months until it was too late, then ordering him to find a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Second, as you mentioned, you can bet that Al Gore would have read his PDBs and asked intelligent questions about them, wouldn't have taken the entire month of August off (in 2001 or any other year), and would have never told a CIA briefer, "Okay, now you've covered your ass."

Yes, things would have been very different, and very much better, with a Gore presidency.

*heavy sigh*

-- ARG

Well, I'm not part of the MSM and I didn't hear this complaint from them. Who exactly is the candidate they have already crowned? Hillary?

I surely didn't say you heard it from the msm, ned; I'm sorry you misunderstood. I do think, having spent months listening to stories about the inevitability of Hillary, that all the press attention given to her, has created, at minimum, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Regarding the "damage the campaign" issue, it could easily be said that any candidate's campaign is damaged by the mere presence of the campaigns of all the other candidates - should Obama have decided not to run because it might damage Hillary's campaign, or Richardson not run because of the potential affect on Obama's? The potential "damage" to the others campaigns just isn't a reason for any potential candidate not to run. Any popular candidate will ultimately "damage the campaign" of the others; it's called winning the election.

I don't know if it's a good idea for Gore to run or not, but the effect of his competitiveness with the other candidates doesn't seem to me to be something that ought to dissuade him. This is the Democratic primary after all, not the general. No matter what the result, we will have a good candidate to run against any of the Republicans.

And I don't necessarily agree that Hilary would be unnaffected. I think Gore would appeal greatly to the idealism of younger voters, and the desire of older ones to restore our credibility and standing in the world, and his name recognition and now the Nobel would also help him, even against Hillary. How that would all ultimately shake out is something that's hard to predict, imo.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

You can change your '0' rating, unclesmedley. Just go back to the original comment and pick another number or 'not rated'.

On another note, I ran into a blog yesterday where conservatives are claiming (seriously) that Nobel winners are picked based on how much they hate Bush. An example of another leading cause for sense of humor loss.

What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins

This is the beginning of a blog I posted june 7, 2006.

“I have been in agreement with those impressed by Al Gore recently and think he would be a good choice to be President. Sunday, June 4, on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” I saw why he wouldn’t be a good candidate. He was there to talk about global warming and his movie on the subject but had to have known that he would be questioned about the current world [Iraq war] situation and about whether he would run for President. His response to the question of what he would do now about Iraq if he was in charge was so incredibly weak that it could probably be the only political ad against him during the campaign and be enough to defeat him. If his plan really was to set himself up for a run you would have to think he would have had a better answer ready, he should have had one ready anyway. His answer to the question about pursuing the presidency made me believe he would only do it if the right circumstances developed, and that he really did believe that he might have a better chance of having more positive effect working as he is doing now.”

I have since become more convinced that he would be a good president and remain as convinced that he would be a lousy candidate. Therefore I concluded that…Da Dum…..
AL GORE should continue with his current work.

"I'd say his carbon production is a good investment because the bulk of it comes while he is trying to educate us."

that's exactly why the problem of global warming is tough since everyone's an exception.

ghandi said: "be the change you want to see in the world" not "try to convince others to be the change you want to see in this world."

To boldly go...

The science is well established, not only for the existence and threat of global warming, but also for many of the remedies needed to address it.

There are many things we can do with present-day technology, but are not doing because of opposition by special interests. Al Gore has compared the disinformation surrounding global warming to that by the cigarette companies in the 1960's and 1970's regarding the hazards of smoking.

The problem is political, not technological.

I just feel very proud that Al Gore, whom I knew as vice president, won the Nobel Peace Prize. It was richly deserved. If he wants to be president I will vote for him. If he doesn't want to be president, I will continue to respect him.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Which is worse, a President who didn't particularly want to be one but who is passionately committed to addressing a globally important issue or a candidate passionately committed to becoming President with no commitment to addressing any issue of global importance?

We're going to get the latter but I won't be voting for it.

Rather than spending energy trying to get Al Gore to run, spend energy (time and money) working for one of these guys. Push the party to the left, and push for truly progressive positions like single-payer "Medicare for All" (which only Dennis Kucinch advocates) and getting out of Iraq, no ifs ands or buts (which DK and John Edwards clearly stand for).

How can you push the party to the left with Hillary?  She's going to march it lock step to the right? 

As to Nader, you have to remember Lieberman was on the ticket only a heart beat away.   If Gore had run as a true progressive in 2000, I'd concede your point, but he ran as a Clinton clone with DLC mush for an agenda. 

Get a life.

Considering the lovely, and "brilliant" quote from your father, who sounds like a really deep thinker...

To quote my father on hearing that Gore won the Prize "he is still a jerk."

...I guess the judgemental apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.

For your information (and your father's if either of you are at all interested in being informed, which is doubtful), Gore has informed a very important group: current high-schoolers, college students, (and this 59 year-old) about what they are inheriting from us.  Your argument is that the Biush (sic) administration hasn't listened? 

Gee.  I wonder why.  Let's see.   Bush was defeated in 2000 [OK, he probably doesn't even know it], and he was appointed by the Supreme Court and is in bed with every oil company -- and Israel to boot -- this doofus who owes everything to the Saudi's and the Cheneys. isn't listening to Al Gore?  He miraculously hasn't paid attention to scientific knowledge Gore has presented?

And your dear, sage father calls Al Gore a jerk?  I would say, "consider the source."

Jan

I am struck by the large number of candidates and others, including (obviously, Al Gore) who bring so much to the table in terms of thoughtful solutions to our many problems.  They debate over and over, there are primaries, and ultimately there is only one winner (or 2 if one is chosen for VEEP).  What a waste of good people and good intentions!  Why can't we use the good efforts and thoughts of many of these people?

Why shouldn't Gore be appointed to the cabinet of our next president?  Why not Kucinich?  Ron Paul?  Ralph Nader (don't hold a grudge - the guy has good ideas!)  Why not all the others who cannot get to be president, but have really thought our country's problems through and have good ideas, Democrat and Republican? 

It never happens!  Why not? Gore should not waste his time and his good name running for Prez, but whoever gets the nomination and wins should use him and all the other good people in his/her cabinet to get us through this mess we have inherited.

Jan

Ironically, Blimpo called for the ballots to be recounted.

Your hysteria only re-enforces how similar you are to the very people you whine about.

Gore ran a terrible campaign in 2000. He should have creamed Bush. It should never have come down to Flordia. Perhaps that is too hard for some to grasp.

Also prior to his becoming Vice-President the Gores were very active in trying to censor music lyrics. I recognize that far lefties like yourself are as opposed to free thought as the far right but some still oppose the use of government to limit speech and thought.

Jan you are a whiny moron who combines sanctimony, bigotry and stupidity. So consider the source. Will do you are sir are a disgrace and an embarassment.

So Gore and you are jerks.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Is this any way to make a point?

Jan you are a whiny moron who combines sanctimony, bigotry and stupidity. So consider the source. Will do you are sir are a disgrace and an embarassment.

So Gore and you are jerks.

Give me a "whiney" quote from my post.  Calling someone a "jerk" doesn't take any intelligence, and calling me a "lefty" makes you sound an awful lot like Tucker Carlson.  

As to your calling me a "moron," if that were the case I would not be able to construct a grammatically correct sentence.  Hmmmmm...I dare you to diagram this one of yours:

Will do you are sir are a disgrace and an embarassment.

I realize that you probably learned all about name-calling at home, but it is still a childish and silly way to argue. 

Jan

How many people do you know that wouldn't want a do-over on that 2000 election? My feeling is there would be overwhelming support, a landslide!

Unfortunately, if you count Sec'y of State, Henry Kissinger.

Al Gore deserves a peace prize for more than global warming. All you have to do is wiki Al Gore and you will see:

"...While Senator, Gore twice attempted to get the U.S. government to pull the plug on support to Saddam Hussein, citing Hussein's use of poison gas, support of terrorism, and his burgeoning nuclear program, but was opposed both times by the Reagan and Bush administrations. In the wake of the Al-Anfal Campaign, during which Hussein staged deadly mustard and nerve gas attacks on Kurdish Iraqis, Gore cosponsored the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988, which would have cut all assistance to Iraq. The bill was defeated in part due to intense lobbying of Congress by the Reagan-Bush White House and a veto threat from President Reagan."

This attempt at legislation is important, as you can see in clips from these two articles:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm 

Daniel?  Hello?  You have not debated the merits; you can leave my criticism of your "sentence" by the wayside.  Other than noting the fact that Tipper (not Albert) was at the forefront of a movement to stop nasty song lyrics, you have not given any reasons why Gore should not be honored for his work.

Calling me a whiny (sic), santimonious, stupid moron (redundant much?), and a lefty -- oh! and a bigot (almost forgot that one) has nothing to do with Gore.  Step up to the plate.  Tell us all why Gore is a "jerk."

Jan

Seems like everyone here sees Al Gore as pretty much Mother Theresa reincarnated. But not me.

I gave up on the Democrats after last November, and their failure to rein in the Bush war machine. My opinion of Clinton, Edwards, and the whole rotten lot of them fell through the floor. They may as well be neocons.

And Al Gore is just another one of them. He's just another politician. But now that he's out of office, and there isn't any blood on his hands (discounting all the blood on his hands from his Vice-presidency, that is) he can come on like a saint.

I don't know how anyone can watch An Inconvenient Truth and not bear, somewhere in the back of their minds, the thought that this is a *politician*, not a scientist, fronting this darn thing. As far as I'm concerned, these people are just liars, every last one of them.

I loathe George W Bush, and Dick Cheney, and every single one of their neocon pals. But now I loathe Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Al Gore pretty much (but not quite) just as much.

Ron Paul, anyone?

If he thinks that one of the candidates is better than the other he should endorse them in the primary. Should that candidate lose he could mend fences by working for the nominee. It is cowardly to with hold an endorsement because the candidate might lose.